Excerpt:

>> What's the big deal? The company's creative choices have prompted some to say the ad campaign promotes eugenics, a discredited scientific theory popular among white supremacists that the human race could be improved by breeding out less desirable traits. Others are saying the uproar is the culture's response from a society hellbent on sexualizing women. <<

One is an major ad campaign in 2025 for an international retailer boasting the good jeans/genes of someone based on their appearance.

One is a random thread on the internet.

And even selective breeding for dogs has ethical problems. The breathing and other health issues that have been bred into pugs, for example. 

Using your definition, all humans are a product of eugenics.

I am sure dog breeders were not selecting health issues to be inheritable, rather health issues are a non-selective product.

I see your point and agree that any species in a "fish out of water" scenario would struggle. But I don't even think it's a matter of "technological dominance" - it's our capacity for innovation. You're right, if we dropped a group of people in the middle of the jungle, it would be a struggle for survival - but survival isn't out of the question, particularly depending on the people.  

I've always been fascinated by this Steve Jobs quote on the topic:

"I think one of the things that really separates us from the high primates is that we're tool builders. I read a study that measured the efficiency of locomotion for various species on the planet. The condor used the least energy to move a kilometer. And, humans came in with a rather unimpressive showing, about a third of the way down the list. It was not too proud a showing for the crown of creation . . . But then somebody at Scientific American had the insight to test the efficiency of locomotion for a man on a bicycle. And . . . a human on a bicycle blew the condor away, completely off the top of the charts."