I do agree with you that Dawkins doesn't know much about population genetics. (Which I think is one thing you're saying, right?) At least, I've never seen much

I do agree with you that Dawkins doesn't know much about population genetics. (Which I think is one thing you're saying, right?) At least, I've never seen much evidence from him that his understanding of population genetics is at all deep, and I know how difficult and large that subject is. (And he often admits that he's not very mathematical). I don't know whether you're right that "it doesn't make sense". I think what he was saying is basically: - humans are sexual organisms. They're a bit slow to get to sexual maturity but otherwise they're like horses. - We can breed horses for traits. - There is nothing in our understanding of the mechanics or dynamics of horse breeding to say that it wouldn't work for humans, given sufficient time and disregard for ethics. Now, are you saying that "eugenics" isn't simply "horse breeding", but rather that "eugenics" is defined to mean a specific type of manipulation of reproduction within the population? I'm not going to argue about the definition of "eugenics" -- I expect neither of us are very invested in that. But maybe you could clarify again what it is you're saying wouldn't work or "doesn't make sense" for humans, and also clarify whether it would work for horses/cows etc? I.e. is there something about the human species which makes it not make sense, or does it not make sense due to general population genetic considerations that would apply to any mammal (or indeed sexual organism)?