Only 37 dogs of each breed can have the same name

There isn't one; they're named in parallel.

1) Less healthy dogs on average

Zero selection against genetical disorders. Zero surgical procedures by a licensed vet to fix bone problems at birth, why to care if "any dog is beatiful as is"?

Is a myth that mixed-breeds are free from diseases. Any health problem suffered by a pure breed, can appear in a mutt. Dogs are wolves (with a hint of other canines from all around the world, but bassically the same species as gray wolf) and anything that deviates sensibly from a wild gray wolf will have huge health problems by comparison.

2) Randomization of behavioural problems

Owners would just play lottery with this trait. A recipe for disaster when your dog must be trustable in society, specially when children or smaller pets are around. I know at least two cases of very good dogs, equilibrated, well feeded and with loving owners that suddenly go berserker and killed other pets at sight, in front of the owners of both pets. I know also a case of dogs escaping, attacking and tearing-off both arms from a old man

The solution of "just adopt because any dog can be a good dog with love" is delusional because not any dog owner is a good owner, a wrong idea of love will spoil your dog, and many breeds are notoriously difficult to manage.

Would be a big mistake to think that pure breeds "are evil by default", therefore mixed breeds "are good by default". They can combine the best of its parents, but also the worst of both. A mixed breed is unpredictable in many senses. For example, if your mutton has blood of akita inu hidden under a furry poddle facade you must be aware of this. Akita are solitary and monogamous, whereas gray wolves are more tolerant to the idea of a group.

So in the end is clearly a lose-lose situation. Bad for dogs and bad for humans. Maybe we would alleviate a little the situation of irresponsible shelters taking more animals that they can manage, but we would create several bigger and potentially serious problems in the process.

I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds and aggressive and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed. There is plenty to suggest this.

> No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will.

These subsets are not equal. I'll clarify in a bit.

> Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed.

That's not how genetics work. Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers.

Say, for simplicity's sake, hip dysplasia is bound to a single recessive gene. If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia, and it will halve the number of carriers of the recessive gene in the genetic lineup.

Do that a couple of generations with different breeds, and it starts becoming very unlikely that two recessive genes for dysplasia will match up.

Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring.

For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy, which is very much the opposite of breeding for conformity.