tl;dr- We were trying to breed humans like we breed show dogs. Focusing on meaningless, racist cosmetic features. That's why eugenics has the horrible reputation it has. As a species, we need to breed smarter, happier, healthier people.

Eugenics itself isn't inherently racist, it's just been misused by racists. What we need is to select for stuff like reduced chance at heart disease, congenital illnesses like sickle cell anemia, various forms of specific cancer that are deeply tied to genetics, etc.

Whatever the skin color/eye color/hair type would ultimately optimally be is irrelevant. (Though I will say this, I doubt the typical white person's skin is optimal. Given modern agriculture, and that vitamin D deficiency isn't a constant issue anymore, even to most people in poorly developed nations, I suspect dark skinned people's resistance to UV induced skin cancer would be the natural, intelligent choice to make someone's skin color. But then again, maybe not, because it is very easy to identify medical problems on white people compared to black people because the melanin literally gets in the way of seeing the flesh underneath. There's SO much to consider in picking the best shade of skin. I'm almost certain it's not pale white though.)

Now, how do we enforce or even decide on the eugenics? Ummmmm that's a really hard question that would require an answer way longer than this, and would boil down to, "I don't know but I think someone might". Eugenics inherently has a lot of... possibility of going wrong (hence it has, like every time). But I think it's possible to live in a society where people are more encouraged to use healthier genetic combos for their kids than just using whatever genes that happen to naturally be in themselves.

People don't seem to understand that eugenics can be used without being forced onto anybody. I don't see anything wrong with it, up until it puts the human species's survival in jeopardy due to the lack of genetic variation.

What distinguishes eugenics and natural selection?

• The definition of Eugenics ‘is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” disease, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population.’
  Whereas Natural selection ‘is a mechanism of evolution. Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time.’
• Initially, it appears that the only thing that distinguishes the two is human intervention. We intentionally select desirable traits whilst breeding out apparent undesirable ones. Can we say that this alone is enough to give eugenics a bad name?
• That being said, with human intervention comes with it our value judgements and perceptions. What we deem to be desirable, and undesirable is subject to a human understanding. It differs because ‘natural selection in is an automatic process that is wholly indifferent to concepts such as good and bad, beautiful and ugly, strong and weak, noble or loathsome.’
• It is because of such value judgements that eugenics has been used immorally in the past. For example, Hitler used it in the second world war to keep the gene pool pure. He believed the Aryan race to be superior and ‘declared non-Aryan races such as Jews and gypsies as inferior.’
  It is without a doubt that Eugenics is seen as negative because of how it has been used in the past. However, can we really say this is unfair when it is human conceptions of what is desirable that is key to its practice?

I agree, but only because the phrase doesn’t give specific example. Whether or not you agree with it, eugenics are present in any procreative relationship. Biologically, we seek out partners who will further our bloodline, indicate a high chance of survival, and strengthen our genetics. That’s breeding the human species for traits.