Is not Hitchens an ardent supporter of the tenets of Neo-Darwinism that necessitates the perpetual death struggle within all species at all times? Shouldn't he in fact believe the precise opposite of what he claims? Survival of the fittest does not suggest social harmony.
Just because the 'weak' do, in fact, die preferentially does not mean we ought to kill them. Is this so hard to understand?
The rest of the article is just as bad, if not worse.