[ahmedfromtunis]

This reminded of a CK Lewis bit about how modern humans deploy a lot of resources trying to save "weak" babies, and thus undoing evolution's natural selection process.

[OneDeuxTriSeiGo]

That perspective is always such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. (Yes I know It's for a comedy bit but I see this way too often).

Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection were never really about directly competing against other members of their species. There was certainly a component of that but natural selection is predominantly about competing against nature itself.

It's all about developing traits that help a given individual or community/ecosystem survive and thrive. And unsurprisingly in most ecosystems it's not competition from peers but rather competing against weather, environmental conditions, and the food chain/predators. So what you see is that at basically every single level (from plants and microbes, up through insects, birds, mammals, and at all stages of human history) you have a constant push for mutualistic behaviors.

It's why birds warn their entire ecosystem (including other bird species and non-bird species) about predators and danger. Or as another bird example, migratory birds will cooperate and share food even when migrating with birds of different species. Anything that can bolster the ability to survive and thrive for the community as a whole (and often entire ecosystem) ends up driving evolution far more than advantages for a single individual. Doubly so with punishing adversarial advantages for individual that end up disproportionately harming the community/whole.

[like_any_other]

That's only part of the truth. Animals do cooperate within and even across species, but they also compete, even within a species - wolves, ants, and chimpanzees are all territorial (as are many others), and the latter two are known to engage in war within their own species: https://www.livescience.com/animals/land-mammals/a-decade-lo...

And the competing against nature itself you mention, is often determined by the territory a group is able to claim. Some places get drought, others freeze, and in others food is plentiful. Nature may not be a free-for-all deathmatch, but it's not a pacifist coop either. At least, most species don't behave that way.

[imtringued]

If natural selection is about avoiding death, then nature must be doing a poor job since everything is dying in the end.

If killing the unfit is the way to go, you should kill your babies until they become immortal.

Natural selection has always been about reproduction.

[AdmiralAsshat]

So...Eugenics, then?

[jacobr1]

Already happening at the in vitro level, might be possible in vivo as well. Neither require the more abusive approaches from the first eugenics era.

[calmbonsai]

Yep. It's inevitable and societies will have to grapple with it far sooner than most thing.

[cryptonector]

Eugenics is also "undoing evolution's natural selection process".

[FrustratedMonky]

In todays world, yes, that is back on the table.

[like_any_other]

As long as some people and societies have more children than others, evolution continues.

[nephihaha]

You're talking about physical weakness which can be caused by non-genetic factors. Such a person may turn out to have a great intellect or other personal quality.

However, the big story in the west is that most sexual congress does not produce babies anymore.