Do we need war?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see in what that a war is fought for laic and political motivations had to do being caused by atheist. And for most of the history we can"t know what part played the atheits as for revealing himself as atheist would have been crazy.


He could also been a way to kill political opponent. But then again Mary was quite pious, and definetely religious.



I don't think war can that much "controlling" population. Even WWII kill "only" about one or two person for one hundred. (still a lot of people ) The epidemics kill a lot more peoples. (In the 20th century much more people die from infectious sickness that from wars.) I will say that for population control contraceptions are much more efficients. But then again there is still religion....

oddly enough, i've thought about this--at length. i won't go into the details about my theories. no surprise: they're obsessive (and really, really detailed.

i think at one time, it may have been the case--or at least, it may have seemed true to the agrarian people whose populations were now able to expand; brought them into conflict with other clans, family systems, etc. i think it's what first sparked "war culture," and thus rigid hierarchies as well. (i think this is when the arbitrary notion of rigid gender roles really came into play. also--militaries are notoriously rigid in terms of hierarchy as a matter of necessity. no command; no order. no order; a lot of people die.)

there seems to be no such thing as a "little hierarchy" or a "small lust for power." those things seem to take on lives of their own.

ironically, in a quest for military might, technology exploded. (he who has the biggest "go-boom" has the largest chance of winning.) since the expansion of technology, however---we can really feed everyone. war isn't essential anymore, IMO.

thus, the thing that helped empire grow to out-of-control proportions (military might and conquest simply for the sake of it) may be the thing that ends it too.

i hope. i hope. i hope. i hope.

my (dearest) wish: it was a part of the evolution of human societies which we'll soon outgrow.

i hope. i hope. i hope. i hope!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

I'd have to debate that its usually geopolitics, resources, trade routes, etc. that causes war. The rest, particularly when something is waved as a banner like religion, or abolitionism, or anything like that - those things are just the motivators given to the public.

The trouble with whether war is in general necessary or not, on the microlevel its like do you sometimes need to have a few hard words with someone who's on the take from you or at worst case need to sort someone out in your life who will take any kindness from you as a sign of weakness? These things happen between nations and yes, aggressive war and being the aggressor is bad, defensive I think everyone can understand, assertive war where going concerned and world opinion will be destroyed causing far more future peril if a country swallows a major slight from another - you hope that there are enough options on the table not to have to go to war and that posturing with other countries will get it done but, sometimes push really does come to shove and there's nothing you can really do about it.

No. You either would need "Mother Nature" to be conscious or you would need evolution to have a goal of keeping populations in check. Neither is consistent with present scientific knowledge.

Humans have a tendency to see purpose in all sorts of things (link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16687-humans-may-be-primed-to-believe-in-creation.html. I think that contributes not only to the popularity of creationism, but also conspiracy theories.

I also read (but can't find the reference now) that the human birth rate usually goes up so much (conditions permitting) after any kind of disaster that a generation later the population is larger than you would expect if you extrapolate from trends before the disaster. That would be consistent with a tendency to breed more when conditions are uncertain. It may be an evolved insurance mechanism against all your kids dying if you have only a few.

I agree with you on that the world population must not grow too big, but I disagree on that war is the way.

A good pandemy will be much better. Even though that is traumatizing, war is, I think, even worse. War doesn't kill enough to make a significant cut in the world population, but traumatizes millions of people in an extremely gruesome way. Generations have been mentally ill due to war. You mentioned food, well, war isn't good for the food supplies. It's a common war strategy to burn the fields of the enemy or yourself to create hunger and weaken the enemy. So I think the food supply will be endangered more with war than without.

As mentioned above, generations will be unable to work and function properly as a consecuense of war. I also said war doesn't kill anough to make a noticeable difference in the world population, at most only in the population of a nation. However, I have to say war kills more than it did two hundred years ago. Man has created the atomic bomb for example, but also many types of guns and other weapons that kill much more people at once, with a great efficiency. Still the weapons apart from the atomic bomb don't kill enough for people out of the war zone actually to notice. In case the atomic bomb is used, the placed where it has been thrown on will be a no-go area for many years to come. That land is ruined.

You also mentioned famine, which could rule humankind out. Again I disagree. Famine will create war, and many dead du to hunger. The hunger however won't be enough to kill all humans- just a part of humankind. Then we will have a distorted and sick form of evolution. So if you want to keep the human population in control, famine could be of use.

The extinction of the human race. Hm. Perhaps that's even better. We have done enough harm to our fellow beings, we have been the cause of the extinction of millions of species and we aren't that unmisseable.

Indeed, the WWI was tarumatized more that the spanich flu, even thoug that the spanish flu kill TEN times more peoples. It could be that, contrary to epidemics, war depend in entirety of humans choices and SHOULD BE AVOIDABLE. Its something that peoples caught in it must deal as a horror comming not from nature, but from fellow human beings.

That's what happenned with the baby boom right after WWII.



Who's gonna admire the cathedrales then

By the way Cocodile, congratulation for your grades.


It should be noted that developed country don't have neither war or famine, but still got a weak birthrate. So much, that for some country it's bellow what is needed for the renew of population.

U don't have to be a hippie
All u need is a bit of logic and common sense to see that the if the unbelievable amount of resources and human talents dedicated to killing one another where instead invested in science,technology,education,medicine, etc... we wouldn't need wars to control the population
most of the earth is inhabited
with the money invested in weaponry we could build cities on seas,the deserets,the moon, u name it/
there is no boundary to human resourcefulness
birth control alone could solve the problem of over populations
the earth can sustain much greater number then expected if we invent and learn to use the space around us more wisley
myself
i believe in immortality
that is to says that I'm sure that some day in the future people will live foreever
then we might have some problems but all of them are solvable
especially when u have eternity to sort them out

Maybe, but it's not necessarily true. We could balance out our own population and NOT overcome the planet by merely being conscientious about our population growth and our impact on the environment. But that requires having a brain AND a heart (figuratively speaking, of course). I think we are finally getting to the point of understanding that we cannot simply keep on keeping on as we have throughout our history. Our way of life on this planet (especially recently) is not sustainable and therefore not realistic. China already has laws to try to reduce the population, but in the best interest of ALL nations to try to find a better population-to-resources "balance". But the first step is for people to actually CARE about what will become of the planet and future generations just as much or more than they care about immediate gratification. Most people today just live for the moment - think ONLY about their own success and happiness - with little regard to the repercussions of their actions.



I think I remember reading in high school, some really famous historian isolated the three reasons why we fight: 1.)self-defense 2.)acquisition of resources, and 3.)for glory

And I think I remember him saying that most wars fall into category #3. I wish I could remember the guys name, but I hope that helps!

In those days, politics and religion were not separated.

It is only in the last 200 (or so) years or so that there has been a separation of Church and State in advanced industrial countries.

Those who are ignorant of the lessons of history or doomed to relive them.

ruveyn

The funny part of history is that ignorance or knowledge of past folly has no effect on the inherent brutality and stupidity of human action. Vietnam and its consequences are well known and they have had no effect whatsoever on current policy.