The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool.
The prime tenet of the Darwin Awards is that we are celebrating the self-removal of incompetent genetic material from the human race. Therefore, the potential winner must be deceased, or at least be incapable of reproducing. If someone does manage to survive an incredibly stupid feat, then his genes de facto must have something to offer in the way of luck, agility, or stamina. He is therefore not eligible for a Darwin Award (but sometimes the story is too entertaining to pass up, and he earns an Honorable Mention.)
Heated philosophical discussions have sprung up around the reproduction rule. If a person or group gives up sex, are they eligible for a nomination? They're no longer willing to breed. Must the candidate be entirely incapable of reproduction? Frozen but viable sperm and ova are viable decades after the donor's demise, and sheep can be cloned from a single cell. Should the elderly be ruled out because they are too old to breed? Their misadventure has no impact on the gene pool. Should those who already have children be banned from winning?
These are complicated questions, andin many cases, it would take a team of researchers to ferret out the truth, a luxury the Darwin Awards lacks. Therefore, no attempt is made to determine the actual reproductive status or potential of the nominee. If he no longer has the physical wherewithal to breed with a mate on a deserted island, then he is eligible for a Darwin Award.
