You may choose to read my posts in the worst possible light. I am, after all, not a professional writer. The sickle cell gene that causes some individuals to suffer is beneficial to other individuals in some environments. The question I was addressing was whether a "bad" gene could be beneficial to a population.
It is possible for individuals to benefit a population without reproducing. Agressive individuals can make good soldiers and benefit their community, even if they die before reproducing.
But the trait dies with the individuals and is not passed on. Therefore, you will not have aggressive individuals except by accident.
The sickle cell is a bad gene in a non-malarial climate, but in a malaria area it is a good gene. This is why Andrew and the other science terrorists should really study up on biology. They are full of noninformed opinions.
Good and bad are relative to the environment of the population in question.