It's just that I know what cost that entails for the animal. I'm sure you've heard a pug who gets excited about something, and it sounds like it's breathing through a bowl full of pudding. The animals can't pull enough air through their sinuses. Which is bad enough on their own... but the dog realizes that it has trouble breathing, and will usually avoid physical activity just for its own comfort - which leads to weight and muscle problems (And then there's other problems in the breed - pugs are prone to heart disease, and spinal bifidas are common in some lineages)
I am not opposed to intentional breeding of dogs - they're a domesticated animal, after all, and they've been bred by humans for ten thousand years and been perfectly healthy for nine thousand and seven hundred of those years. It's just that I think health and genetic viability should be first priority rather than "designer" traits. There needs to be way less inbreeding and way more crossbreeding. The AKC and other such organizations need to reform its breed standards with animal health in mind over flawless conformity to some bizarre, unrealistic standard.
Treating living beings as designer products, to be mass-produced to a constrained "type" standard hurts the animals. And it hurts their long-term viability as a "type" as well! I mentioned dalmatians; well, the problem dalmatians had was that most of the population had descended from one particular stud animal... who had a genetic problem that led to kidney problems. The animals could not produce liquid urine without medical intervention. Dalmatians came very close to becoming, if not extinct, an extremely rare breed. The had to undergo an extensive crossbreeding program to correct the problem, and htne more inbreeding to reset the "type".
= new reply since forum marked as read