Altruism and evolution

Let me start by saying that this blog entry was inspired by the comments posted on my previous blog entry.
What exactly is altruism? It is an emotion, possibly unique to man (I use the term loosely throughout this essay to include both sexes), to protect others of his species, often at a disadvantage to himself. It is the feeling that inspires charity, social welfare, intervention in foreign genocide and even the bravery of a stranger who rushes into a burning building to rescue an unknown cripple.
While the well-informed reader will quickly point out that most herd or pack based animals display similar sentiments - for example elephant cows nurture motherless calves and penguins stand guard over each other's eggs - I believe there is one fact that makes human altruism truly unique.
We are the only species that goes out of its way to protect those who cannot contribute back to society. In the animal kingdom, the runt of the litter is often deliberately killed or starved at birth. Older, sicker and weaker animals meet a similar fate. Protection within the herd is granted mainly to younger members that will soon grow to be strong and will eventually contribute back to the herd. A slow gazelle slows down the group and is not protected when the lions attack.
In the case of man, altruism has blossomed into a more generous sentiment. Protection is not offered simply to those who can eventually repay the kindness, but even to those who will never be able to fend for themselves, and who will always be dependent on their benefactors. This is more clearly visible in the West. In some American cities generations of a family live off social welfare that provides them with adequate comfort to never feel motivated enough to work. In Germany a growing number of young people are choosing to move back to their parents' homes and live off state funding that often pays more than a start-up job.
While India has not reached the levels of state protection seen in the West, the Indian left wing has not been inactive. The progress of society has often taken a back seat to the protection of the downtrodden. This can be seen in initiatives to prevent global trade, forgive loans to poor farmers, impede the development of large dams and slow the privatization of the incompetent public sector. The fact that you may feel that some of these initiatives are worthy shows the degree to which altruism has become ingrained into our DNA.
This brings me to the second part of this post. What is evolution? It is the process of slow mutation of a species allowing it to better adapt its surroundings. This is accomplished by giving more access to resources to those who are better suited to survive, thereby allowing them to reproduce more.
For example, Darwin studied finches in the Galapagos islands. When a drought caused smaller seeds that the birds ate to disappear, only the finches with beaks large enough to eat nuts had access to food. The rest starved to death. The next generation of finches were the offspring of the survivors and they all had large beaks which now made the species more resistant to drought.
So what am I saying here? Am I saying that altruism is counter-productive to evolution? Yes, in a way that's true. Man's attempts to always provide for the weak ensures that the human species will not evolve any further. Those that are physically or intellectually ill-suited for survival will continue to be cared for and will continue to feed the gene pool. In my opinion this will lead to the creation of two permanent classes of society - those that constantly contribute and those that are constantly dependent.
Now is this a bad thing? I leave that to you to decide. In my view it's not as bad as it sounds. Man does not need to evolve any further. He has already established his dominion over most forms of nature and has no vital threats to the survival of his species. At this point altruism is a luxury that we can all afford. But a luxury is not a necessity.