jim_stl saidOh, boy, eugenics!
Isn't the introduction of new traits into the gene pool and the lack of necessary sterilization/genocide rather quite the opposite of eugenics?
Not necessarily. The term "eugenics" applies to any large-scale efforts to improve humanity through genetic control, and there are two basic approaches to that end:
1) positive eugenics, where "good" qualities are emphasized, and
2) negative eugenics, where "bad" qualities are eliminated.
Eugenicists of the past initially preferred the former approach, since it was most like the animal husbandry and plant breeding that they were used to, but it presented them with logistical problems (few humans consider genetics when they fall in love). Negative eugenics proved far easier for them, and it kind of spiralled out of control from there.
Positive eugenics is much more feasible now than it was even twenty years ago. However, we'd need to do a TON of work to determine each gene's full ramifications, both individually and in concert with other genes and epigenomic factors, before we can start deciding what to keep and what to excise.
And there's still the nagging ethical question: who decides which qualities are good and which are bad? Remember, there are many who'd consider homosexuality a trait to be eliminated from the human race.