Nevertheless, my point still stands.... applying Natural Selection theory to social/national affairs is an extremely suspect line of reasoning.

For instance, if a group of angry men, all larger than you, were to gather around your house intent on killing you, would you call the police? If so, aren't you interfering with Natural Selection? I certainly would say so.

Now, if you happen to be weak or weak-willed or short or overweight or handicapped, you may indeed be willing to sacrifice your life for the good of the species (assuming, for a moment, that the good of the species is defined by physical strength and prowess). However, even in this case, the ultimate result of this approach will be one or two generations of stronger humans, followed by a weakening of the species due to genetic reproductive difficulties inherent in a shrinking population.

In fact, among many species of animals, different types and sizes of animals, within the group, work together to complement each other's strengths, and thereby make the entire species stronger. It certainly is true that one part of natural selection is that members of the population without certain survival traits do not live long enough to reproduce as frequently as those with certain survival traits. However, another important part of natural selection is the fact that differences lead to a wider range of abilities and survival traits. In that respect, a species/tribe/nation that protects difference might in fact have the upper hand in terms of natural selection -- to the degree to which it can be applied on this level (and again, ultimately, I don't think it can be).