Adam Jensen said:
This is how we weed out the undesirables from collective gene pool. It's as harsh as it sounds, but doesn't make it any less true.
You're right that being harsh doesn't make it any less true, but since it's not true to begin with that doesn't mean a whole lot.
The first guy is just going on a holiday, so he hasn't exactly removed himself from the gene pool yet.
Of the two guys who fell off the cliff, one of them had apparently been drinking, and neither of them died.
And the girl who got hit by a car did so in a way that had nothing to do with Pokemon Go. She had crossed the highway during the game, and got hit
after she stopped playing the game and was returning home, and that was because she looked before crossing the road but couldn't see down the road properly because of a hill, so she took a stupid gamble that didn't pay off. She also didn't die.
Just saying, while I can laugh at these types of "Darwin Award" jokes, the whole "harsh but true" part of your post makes it seem like you're serious. If you are serious, I'd be interesting in hearing why you hold so strongly to the idea that "bad decision = bad genetics".
While I don't doubt that genetics does play some role in cognitive abilities, and perhaps risky behavior also has some correlation to genetics, I think the idea that this is cleansing out gene pool is kind of over selling that link, especially when many of such incidents often involve drugs, peer pressure, or ignorance of the risks (and ignorance isn't the same as a lack of intelligence).
