Simple -- resources that could be better used are used instead on supporting those that only weaken the gene pool. In the state of nature, those predisposed to sickness, slowness, stupidity and weakness would be weeded out over time, and the species would be stronger for it.You make it seem like that if someone doesn't work then they have no value. They are human, I don't understand the whole "weakening humanity" in that context.
On the contrary -- it has its greatest value in the survival of the species.Getting a "stronger humanity" compared with a weaker one only has value in how it helps people.
No... by allowing those predisposed to sickness, slowness, stupidity and weakness to continue to contribute to the gene pool, the species as a whole is weaker, and therefore less likely to survive.You can say that wealth distribution reduces the standard of living of people in the future, but thats really it.