um, you can't pass on genes when you're dead. Sorry i didnt immediatly state that. Someone who couldnt survive to sexual maturity through things i've mentioned would indeed not pass on those genes because they'd die.

And you are quite right, there are some devastating genetic disorders that don't hit until later in life, after that person has had kids, who are going to have this thing too. But that's not really what's being discussed, well i dont find that relevant because of the previous paragraph

Are you trying to say that it doesnt matter what the changes we can make to an environment, just that whatever it is those people through mechanical, intellectual, and cultural means, or those who take that environment, and through those same means manipulate it to better suit themselves, are going to be the victors and those who are less adept (which is shown only by them dying out and succumbing to the other group) die off?

Makes sense, but it just gets really messy when you start talking about people deserving to die because they are inferior. There is the part where it is more than just an equation, its talking about the value of one human, thinking, loving life over another. This idea gets abused and used as a validation of why some social classes deserve to be slaves or treated terribly. It ignores things that apply to people as opposed to animals. Animals dont enlsave other animals. they may kill, observe or destroy another species but they cannot emotionally torment them because they dont have that ability or level of consciousness. Again, though for different reasonings, i'm just saying that natural selection does not perfectly translate into social darwinism.