Heartlessness, and Why I Don't See it as Bad

Heartless is something I'm sometimes called by insensitive fools with closed minds. This is because (surprise!) the world is full of insensitive fools with closed minds. Radical views are often simply dismissed as crazy or terrible, simply because people like their own views and don't like to venture out of their comfort zones.
   Allow me to explain.

It has long been an obsession of mine to find a definitive solution to the growing global crisis of overpopulation. With seven billion people already occupying the planet, it is only logical to assume that in the near future, the population figures will cross a line and resources will be limited. The trick with overpopulation is to keep the numbers below that line. But I digress.
   Running at a parallel to my overpopulation obsessions is my 'Why do we care so much?' string, which basically stands for itself - Why is it that we care so much about singular human lives, and why is it that we proceed to attempt to save people all the time?
   This has always been a controversial topic for conversation, especially with certain people who like a conflict or are simply grumpy. I find that people dislike leaving their comfort zones - it is akin to stepping from a warm house out into a cold, winter's night in many ways - and this causes problems. But I digress.
   The day was a Thursday (an unfailingly mundane day, in my humble opinion), and it was but a young day at the time, too - the hour hand had not yet passed nine in the morning - when I brought up the subject of how I hate speed bumps. I decided to step out there and say what I was thinking, which was, at the time, that slowing down cars aids no benefit to the human race.
   Slowing down cars is, if you believe the council, a good use for our money. People get knocked down by speeding cars all the time, and it's supposedly our proper place to make sure it doesn't continue to happen. The truth is that it is a burden to the human race. Keeping more people alive a) decreases the likelihood of survival for certain others b) puts a further drain on already limited resources and c) if they aren't going to look before they leap, who are we to save them? It's natural selection, I tell you. If they aren't nimble enough, fast enough, or aren't intelligent enough to look out for traffic and avoid it, they needn't contribute to future generation's gene pools. Simple.
   Of course, when I argue I argue hard and well, and expect a good show, but this was Evil who I was arguing with, so she simply turned on her heel and said: "You heartless soul."

I appear to be disinclined to agree with my friend and co-worker in this particular area. As people who know me know quite well, I am not heartless, simply forwards and uncompromising in my views. As Sun Tzu once said in his famous work 'The Art of War':

"There are... dangerous faults which may affect a general: ...over-solicitude... which exposes him to worry and trouble."

(Over-solicitude, of course, means to be overly concerned about something or other. Just saying.)
   Of course I am not a general, but this quote, as any seasoned person should well know, is quite true. If we were all to worry about the state of the world as it is, then none of us would get any sleep at night. Therefore it is necessary for humans to have a certain 'heartlessness' to them.
   Maybe I'm just a cold human being, but I believe otherwise. A lack of care for certain issues does not betray a soulless human, rather it defines one who is but a normal person. Just because I disagree over the relative benefits of speed bumps doesn't make me a harsh or horrible person; quite the opposite: Being able to look at both sides of the argument and then actually pipe up for the lesser is in many ways a challenge to be relished.
   As it is, I am not heartless and cold. I simply keep a broad and open mind. Can you say the same?