I for one support this trend, and I know for a fact that Charles Darwin would approve.
I, on the other hand, don’t support poisoning babies.
Support or not, those babies have the same genes that lead to baby kiling as their parents; if it’s not this generation, then it will be the next one. Stuff like this, proves those whole lineages are not the fittest to survive.Edit: hopefully clarifying.
Support or not, from a Darwinian point of view, those babies are likely to inherit the same cultural biases and genes conductive to acquiring the same cultural biases as their parents; if left to their own resources, then it likely won’t take many more generations until they fail to guarantee the survival of their descendants’ descendants, which the whole “survival of the fittest” is really about.
Stuff like this, proves those whole lineages might require external intervention to make them viable… which leads to a whole other can of worms about cultural interventionism.
This is not a terribly nice thing to say. So much of raising children is cultural or environmental, and many people go on to be great parents after having bad parents themselves. Also, this comment gives some eugenics promoting vibes. Please try to communicate more clearly in the future to avoid giving that impression. Thanks!
I hear you. Edited the comment to hopefully address these issues and make it clearer what I meant (might have used a few shortcuts in the initial version). If not, let me know and I’ll remove it.
