We are too humane.

I think you must be misconceiving the structure of natural selection theory.Consider 2 scenario's:
1:
- the good-eyed organism type A is struck by lightning and fails to reproduce
- the halfblind organism type B reproduces2:
- the good-eyed organism type A reproduces
- the halfblind organism type B fails to reproduceThese 2 scenario's are, of course, one and the same principle operating in nature, natural selection.The goodeyed organism had a higher chance to reproduce, at the start of life. But chance is not certainty, and so it is well expected that many times the fitter (the one with the higher chance to reproduce at the start of life) doesn't actually reproduce. In fact when there are just a few fitter organisms in the population, and the rest are less fit, it should be expected that the fittest become extinct, by natural selection. You can see the math of this easily:type B chance of reproduction 10 percent
type A chance of reproduction 11 percentSo you can see that an organism of type A has a 10 percent more chance to reproduce as organism type B (1.1*10=11). But since the chance is still very little, and since there are so few organisms of type A, in this scenario it is more likely that A becomes extinct.I think the direction that man is evolving is very likely to be according to direct gene-manipulation, gene-therapy. This would be manipulation to get rid of diseases in the first place, but maybe later also some designs according taste, like better eyesight, or hearing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you are just missing that it's a chance. An 11 percent chance of reproducing, still leaves an 89 percent chance of not reproducing.I am just saying that nature stops the fittest from reproducing all the time, and is predicted to do so. So it is not correct to contrast human society with nature, and say that in nature the fittest survive, the unfit go extinct. In nature the fittest also don't survive and go extinct, many times.As far as I can tell people generally don't want to evolve to anything much different. They just want to get rid of some genetic diseases. I don't see any significant opposition to gene-therapy for diseases.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu