Artificial selection creates organisms that must be protected from the environment, not ones that are fit to survive in it.

the environment we create is the environment we have to live in. whether we select for it or not, evolution will go that way. Nature will not select for best hunters anymore, we'll lose these traits wheter we select for other traits or let nature do the selecting.

Furthermore, our crops, be they bread or spliced, would not survive without our constant attention. We have selected traits that please us, yet we create organisms that are unfit, that require massive infrastructures to hold back the tide of natural selection.

is true, but like I said this will happen anyway; natural selection does not select what is best in nature, it selects what is best in its environment; our current environment is heavily artificial, whether we do eugenics or not, we can expect evolution to go this way.

In fact eugenics is the only way to stop us from adapting to much to our artificial environment; there will always be some people that will want to prepare for the worst, these people can go back to the old genes and keep selection for these old genes.

Can you not imagine a world where everyone is brilliant, athletic, and sexy, but require constant tending

with the exception here and there, sure I can, but this in fact is also our future without eugenics, let give the medical example;

Genes break, it might go at a low frequency but they do break steadily. Broken genes that fix themselves are neglectable. So without natural selection more and more genetic diseases will become part of the genepool. Medicine has removed selection on a lot of diseases, and will remove more in the future. This will mean that if we don't do eugenics, everybody becomes a slave to medicine; exactly the thing you fear. Eugenics will give people the choice of not becoming a slave to the then current sociotal environment, while not doing eugenics will mean they will become one, whether they want it or not.

Where do you get the faith to believe that we are capable of conceiving wise choices about selection, much less implementing those choices?

ofcourse not all will, but not doing eugenics will end up at the same problem anyway.

You have yet to answer the question btw about DS; how do you prevent the DS population from growing without some form of eugenics?

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

I've yet to you quote anything I said that said i was "anti-choice". In fact, I'm not sure how you intend to prevent people from using eugenics, but if you want to ban it then you are the one that is anti-choice. Banning something is anti choice.

Parents will make short-sighted, frivolous, and foolish decisions about what traits to select for, society as a whole be dammed. The sum of foolishness is not wisdom.

so you are saying choice is bad?

I will not deny there will be those that make bad decisions, there might be need for regulation on certain types of gene-selection. but eugenics is necessary to prevent our gene-pool degradation due to modern medicine.

The only way eugenics can work is to make it compulsory.

no it is not; i think you think way to black and white. say for example the government will only allow eugenics on broken genes that cause disease....people can't chose those "short-sighted, frivolous, and foolish decisions", people can chose not to do it at all, but there will always be people that would chose healthy children; that will be enough selection to combat those diseases

Furthermore, it's vanity and delusion to think that we could conceive, much less implement a perfected human.

I never said that, all i'm saying betters humans then our current form are out there.