For me, this article poses a number of questions.
Firstly, do we want selective breeding and who decides which traits are "positive" and which ones negative? And, if we agree (in a community) yes, we want to try it, and agree on certain positive traits, will it actually work? What about random mutations and unforeseen results in other characteristics?
It seems clear to me that a large gene pool is better than a narrower one. In this I agree with the author. The attempts to keep a "bloodline" clean and pure led to major health problems in many european royal families. However, the selective breeding of domestic animals for certain "positive" traits has led to animals with certain typical health problems (E.g. breathing problems in British short hair cats due to "attractive" flat noses) or to super productive farm animals that can only be super productive when they get masses of high protein fodder.
Secondly, can we really accuse certain cultures and religions of negative selective breeding practices? I would like to have more evidence and clear citations. (And less libel against certain religious groups).
Thirdly, it would be interesting to have more detail in the article about the results of selective breeding in intentional communities. The complex marriage propagated by Noyes, the selection of "brides" by the leaders of communities such as "The children of God" or the AAO - what were the children like, were they happy about how they had been conceived, what psychological problems (if any) did they have to live with.
Having lived for many years in Germany, I am cautious about this theme - it has too many negative connotations. In addition, there is already a good article in the Wikipedia. I would welcome an article that was more clearly linked to intentional community here.
ausmisterfrank, Vienna, Austria. 06.03.2012.