No, the defining feature of the human is the brain. Not the physical characteristics. The cheetah is defined by speed, the human by the brain.

@ Mirgo: This isn't Fist of the North Star.

What does that have to do with anything?

I think you're in a losing argument. Survival of the fittest does not apply to the modern world. It stopped applying to the world a long time ago.

It stopped around a century or so ago. What we now have is stupid people reproducing faster and at a greater rate than the ones that are smarter. Under a survival of the fittest such would not be the case. I am not losing anything, you gave examples of short or fat people, none of which have anything to do with the defining human feature. If a midget is smart he would live if he was a human being as long as he was smart under natural law.

I don't think you understand that by removing survival of the fittest we are hurting the human race as a whole worse than anything else we can do short of destroying ourselves.

The problem is you are not born stupid or smart.  You environnement and your work on school makes you what you are.

My parents were farmworkers and only mom can read a little so they should not have me?

Being smart is mainly to do with nurture, any individual from a deprived background go out and become successful it's usually the drive they get from parent reinforcement, nothing to do with intelligence.

I think you are mistaking what smart is. Smart is a combination of intellect, which you are born with, and wisdom, which you accumulate throughout your life. Your Mother can be born with great intellect and not learn anything, but that doesn't mean she would die off under survival of the fittest.

Wait, it stopped a century ago? Survival of the fittest stopped at about the time of World War I? How does that make any sense? You're just spouting bullshit. And stupid people produce stupid children through a bad, "stupid" culture, not through stupid genetics. The capability of greater intelligence varies little between people, but physical capabilities too. You could have a perfectly fit man and a disabled man, and even if the disabled man is more intelligent, the fit man is far more likely to survive. This is, of course, all based on some kind of primitive world where survival of the fittest still applies. 

I get your points perfectly well, but I still can't fully wrap my head around them, since they're so immoral and stupid. Oh, and by the way. Do you think we should kill all of the retarded people in the world? Do tell.

See, in a world liek that then yes, only the smartest and the most fit would survive. However I am just talking about brian power, and I am sorry, but there are clear ways to see intellect from clear stupidity. As one said "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," same thing applies to the privilagaged stupid people when applies to knowledge.

I don't see how any of this is immoral considering the fact that we have become what we are solely because of survival of the fittest, not some dreamland utopia you seem to want. The immoral thing would be to stop human biological progress because of bullshit reasons like sympathy and empathy, which by the way is also an evolutionary trait we acquired back when they were required to progress human survival.

But let's take your nonexistant ideal utopia. How do you propose you stop the idiots from outnumbering the smart people? They breed faster and more numerously than the smarties. While Idiocracy is a funny and stupid movie, it still has a lot of merit to it in the first 10 minutes.

the first 40 seconds or so give a good idea of how to bring up children properly