Are you advocating that a good economic system is one that kills people who aren’t working? I just don’t clearly understand what you mean by “survive.”

For those who believe that a good economic system is one that kills the "least fit"...I wonder what their idea of an optimal ratio of fit-to-killed is. Should the policy levers be set so that each year 0.1% of the population starves/freezes/overheats to death, or 1%?

For a system which targets killing off "unfit" people, what would be signs of killing off too many people? Killing off too few?

Instead of a stack-ranking system, is there some minimum bar that they imagine people should have to exceed? I wonder how many people would have exceeded that bar 500 years ago, or 500 years from now.