Replies

The Darwin Awards are a tongue-in-cheek honor, originating in Usenet newsgroup discussions around 1985. They recognize individuals who have supposedly contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool via death or sterilization by their own actions.

The project became more formalized with the creation of a website in 1993, and followed up by a series of books starting in 2000, authored by Wendy Northcutt. The criterion for the awards states, “In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species’ chances of long-term survival.”

Accidental self-sterilization also qualifies; however, the site notes: “Of necessity, the award is usually bestowed posthumously.” The candidate is disqualified, though, if “innocent bystanders”, who might have contributed positively to the gene pool, are killed in the process.

Rules
Northcutt has stated five requirements for a Darwin Award:

Inability to reproduce
Nominee must be dead or rendered sterile.
Sometimes this can be a matter of dispute. Potential awardees may be out of the gene pool because of age; others have already reproduced before their deaths. To avoid debates about the possibility of in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, or cloning, the original Darwin Awards book applied the following “deserted island” test to potential winners: If the person were unable to reproduce when stranded on a deserted island with a fertile member of the opposite sex, he or she would be considered sterile. Winners of the award, in general, either are dead or have become unable to use their sexual organs.

Excellence
Astoundingly stupid judgment
The candidate’s foolishness must be unique and sensational, likely because the award is intended to be funny. A number of foolish but common activities, such as smoking in bed, are excluded from consideration. In contrast, self-immolation caused by smoking after being administered a flammable ointment in a hospital and specifically told not to smoke is grounds for nomination. One ‘Honorable Mention’ (a man who attempted suicide by swallowing nitroglycerine pills, and then tried to detonate them by running into a wall) is noted to be in this category, despite being intentional and self-inflicted, which would normally disqualify the inductee.

Self-selection
Cause of one’s own demise
Killing a friend with a hand grenade would not be eligible, but killing oneself while manufacturing a homemade chimney-cleaning device from a grenade would be eligible. To earn a Darwin Award, one must have killed oneself, or rendered oneself sterile; merely causing death to a third party is insufficient.

Maturity
Capable of sound judgment
The nominee must be at least past the legal driving age and free of mental defect (Northcutt considers injury or death caused by mental defect to be tragic, rather than amusing, and routinely disqualifies such entries). After much discussion, a small category regarding deaths below this age limit also exists. Entry into this category requires that the peers of the candidate be of the opinion that the actions of the person in question were above and beyond the limits of reason.

However, in 2011, the awards targeted a 16-year-old boy in Leeds who died stealing copper wiring (the standard minimum driving age in Great Britain being 17). In 2012, Northcutt made similar light of a 14-year-old girl in Brazil who was killed while leaning out of a school bus window, however “disqualified” the award itself because the likely public objection due to her age, which she asserts is based on “magical thinking”.

Veracity
The event must be verified.
The story must be documented by reliable sources: e.g., reputable newspaper articles, confirmed television reports, or responsible eyewitnesses. If a story is found to be untrue, it is disqualified, but particularly amusing ones are placed in the urban legend section of the archives. Despite this requirement, many of the stories are fictional, often appearing as “original submissions” and presenting no further sources than unverified (and unreliable) “eyewitnesses”. Most such stories on Northcutt’s Darwin Awards site are filed in the Personal Accounts section.
In addition, later revisions to the qualification criteria add several requirements that have not been made into formalized ‘rules’: innocent bystanders cannot be in danger, and the qualifying event ‘must’ be caused without deliberate intent (to prevent glory-seekers from purposely injuring themselves solely to win a Darwin).