Does the graph show it is natures way of compensating for medical advances allowing men with defective genes to survive. Instead they don't reproduce?

Fewer men are reproducing.
Fewer men are reproducing.

In ancient times, up until the 1400s or even later, 50% of children died in childbirth, during the first year, or before puberty. That was the reason the average life span was 40 years. Those who lived past puberty lived to old age and had far longer life spans even matching life spans of modern times. The men with the best genes survived and reproduced. Most males with defective genes didn’t survive long enough to reproduce.

Now, in the U. S., the infant mortality rate is around 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births (about 0.56%), meaning roughly 99.44% of babies survive their first year. Therefore, men with defective genes are surviving but nature is preventing or limiting them from reproducing.

Does the graph show it is natures way of compensating for medical advances allowing men with defective genes to survive. Instead they don't reproduce?
Post Opinion