Murdering Babies

Well well.

This article triggers a couple of bullshit alerts (specifically, it hypes its jaw-dropping conspiracy then waits a bit before mentioning it, and mentions numerous "facts" without sources), but then, on the other hand, it seems at least internally consistent, and it's very interesting to think about in a "what if" context even if it IS completely fake.

The basic premise of the article is that mothers routinely murder babies, and that in evolutionary terms, this is a good thing. Furthermore, several researchers allegedly discovered this independently, and covered it up for fear of society's reactions. Even if this is all total crap, it raises some interesting questions in the "what if it were true" sense. In no particular order:

1. Can knowing the truth be an evolutionary disadvantage?
2. Should scientists try to protect us from the truth?
3. Can science ever really suppress the truth?
4. Could the brutal murders of babies be justified by an increased likelihood of survival, on both an individual's family line level and a species level?
5. Could this cast eugenics in a different light?

My answers:
1. Depends on what the truth is. Probably generally no, but yes under some circumstances.
2. No.
3. Depends on the numbers of people repeating experiments, and their willingness to state their findings.
4. Depends on what you consider moral. For me, yes.
5. Maybe. The fact that Hitler implemented an idea doesn't necessarily make it bad. According to my history class, the Nazis were nearly powerful enough to take over the entire world. I'd imagine that eugenics would at the very least give some efficiency gains.

There, I've Godwinned myself. Beat you to it!