This is a patently false understanding of Darwinism as the "survival of the strongest". It has always been survival of the fittest in the sense of the one who is best adapted to the environment.

In our time, people with a tendency towards drug abuse, psychopathy and unchecked aggression, may well have a lesser likelyhood to reproduce. The same obviously is even more true for people with chromosomal aberrations.

This is wrong. In a civilization Darwinian evolution has different selection pressure, but selection pressure still exists. For example, instead of the weak, the unattractive drops from the gene pool. (As far as I know, no civilzation guarantees reproduction for all members yet.)

Thanks for the criticism.

I wanted to mean evolution will improve us eventually, only if those people with aggressive impulses have severe disadvantage going forward in the society. But that premise is debatable, I agree.