I admire tolwyn greatly just not after FC.
Also Raptor, you are essentially wrong and correct. Your number 2 statement is right on. your number 1 statment is flawed because evolution is towards traits that are benificial so to remove the generally negative traits like genes for cancer, stupidity (ie low iq), and other generaly "bad" characteristics would have no negative effect on evolution. Everybody would not be the same, would you say decker and blair are the same? no yet they both survived the bugs (not nephilim, the disease). Also another "good" thing about removing a large portion of the population is the fact that while close inbreeding does create large ammounts of defectives or culls it also leads to more rapid aquision of traits and faster evolution. So to remove a large portion of the population would generally allow this to take place more so than with a larger population. This is why I hold that human evolution has been effectivly stopped, we all outbreed so much that characteristics do not have the chance to be aquired. Finally, tolwyn was just doing what nature would have done if not for human interferance. We through technology, (killing snakes and other deadly animals, creating shelter, not having to hunt, medicine, ect ad nauseum) have stopped the survival of the fittest struggle to reproduce. Any human without a serious defect can reproduce and often. I am nearsighted, and while I don't see this as a cardinal trait I know that if I didn't have modern inovations I would have died when I was 12 from not being able to see any potentiall threats. So if you look at it that way tolwyn was just doing what MUST be done for human evolution as well as what WOULD have been done already. Though i must admit it would have been much more acceptable and moral to render those inferior people infertile to provent them from breeding rather than kill em