Wars actually serve a purpose. Since ppl are killed, the overpopulation will decrease and animal and plants and all taht stuff will be saved.ON the other hand, family lose loved ones.Wars are bitter sweet.
Printable View
Wars actually serve a purpose. Since ppl are killed, the overpopulation will decrease and animal and plants and all taht stuff will be saved.ON the other hand, family lose loved ones.Wars are bitter sweet.
Well.....wars often kill lots of animals and plant life too. In times of war nature is exploited for resources.
Wars can serve a greater purpose though. When crimes against humanity is commited by tyrants, you sometimes can't avoid war.
So, are we arguing that wars are part of human nature and is good for nature?
Take care all.
Overpopulation problem? :lol:
yea, overpopulation.SOme parts of the wrld are overpopulated and destroying rainforests.CUrse them
Killing soldiers in war won't stop people from destroying rainforests o_0 If anything, they need to destroy more nature to make war machines, and the effects of a battle itself on nature is devastating, I'm sure.
that use to be a factor of population control but 30 million die each and everyday even without war.War now isn't really a good population control factor.But ever since the first man knew he could throw a rock dead int eh middle of a person's skull right between the eyes and kill them.Well it gave people something to do.A purpose.To fight for osmething bigger than themselves.Humans on earth.Well we have and will always have a history of war.Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodHunter11
Wars shouldn't be a thing that people throw themselves into for population control or to give their own lives more meaning. Sometimes war is unavoidable in order to attain the lesser of two evils, but it should be avoided whenever possible.
People say "War is human nature" But I have to disagree. War is, at it's roots, fighting, and killing, and dying. No human truly wants to experiance that. This is why people protest wars when the truth about said war is made apparent. (In other words, said war wasn't for a moral cause, but it was instead waged for power, money, etc.) Nobody wants to die, and it is natural to feel guilt when you kill. This is what war is, and it is wholly, one hundred percent unnatural.
However, war IS the nature of politics, and politics controls a society. It is not possible for war to be the nature of a human because we can feel, and sympathize. However, it is possible for war to be political nature because politics is a type of pseudo-existance. It exists, but yet it doesn't. It exists in the same way that numbers exist. (Have you ever seen the number two walking around before? No, you haven't, because it doesn't physically exist) Politics cannot feel, think, or sympathize. It can only analyze. Pain and suffering, love and hate, none of it matter to politics because it is lacking in them. When something lacks the ability to feel, killing is no longer a problem. If something can only analyze, killing sometimes seems like a great idea.
In the end, civilization is dominated by a pseudo existance of sorts, and that is why there is war. At least, that's how I see it. Someone please tell me I am making sense.
I believe you are.
Take care all.
War is the ultimate expression of violence. Violence is the ultimate expression of force. Force is the ultimate expression of power. And power, people, is the ultimate key to survival.
So, in creatures complex enough to do it, war is a natural instinct. Well, it's a natural instinct to those who benefit, yet are not risked. Politicians, leaders, the assholes that are getting fat off it, yet not going to potentially die during it. War is a bastardized hybrid of natural instincts and the complexity of human logic.
Also, to hell with your "conservation" theory. If people really wanted to, really tried, we could support the entire human population in within the borders of Texas. Feed, clothe, and house, all 6-billion plus, without ever having a human body leave that state.
Indeed. Many people think that supporting the world population is such an immense task. Untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
War drains immense amounts of resources and is most of the time undertaken due to long term goals amounting to increased power/money. I thus disagree that it's beneficial in any way to any side involved, unless it's absolutely necessary.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read the population bit in the first post. Is this thread sarcasm? If it isn't all I can say is I disagree. There is nothing good about war.
There is never anything solely good, just as there never is anything solely bad.
Everything has pros and cons.
Tell that to the survivors of the Holocaust or the children of freed slaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
War is merely the continuation of foreign policy by other means - Karl von Clausewitz
oooooh time for a 1984 reference.
wars keep the working class in line. it works like this. if wars didn't exist all those people builind nice big aircraft-carriers, abrhams tanks and b-2 bombers might be building nice stuff like cargo ships, making food and general useful stuff (also all the taxes could go into education too).
then people would become richer (things would be more plentiful and cheaper). thus they could afford more of what they couldn't before. allowing them to concentrate more on education and thus become literate. literate people then tend to think more about stuff including the situation they are in. they would then see they are quite a crap state of affirs and start to change things. that would not be good for the ruling elite who create the wars. so creating wars keeps power.
it was true when the machine was invented. the proles all of a sudden had lots of free time to learn because machines did all the hard work. and so we had all those lovely revolutions.
not my theory, goldstein's in 1984. it is of course a lot more detailed than i said but it will do.
That is a nice connection there. Though I don't think it is any where the only reason. And if it is even a reason it is likely subconcious.. I don't know if some rulers would be smart enough to obtain such a connection(course I may be off base thier).
I still like the connection though. Very good read, and very deep.
What is the POINT in war? And who ever said people had to get killed during war? Why can't we use paintguns or somehing? :)
Or maybe if countries have a disagreement they could flip a coin to see who wins!
OR! *Shock* They could actually try to communicate with each other and ACTUALLY solve the problem through ACTUAL diplomacy! Although that's impossible for countries nowadays. They always have to kill each other *Sighs*
This is actually a very old concept. Robert Malthus, an English economist, first proposed the idea in 1798. He believed that the population of the world was growing too fast and that there were not enough resources to support this growing population. He claimed that there were various solutions to this problem, one of these being war. War would see people die and in turn we would see a decrease in the population. However, almost a century later we see Karl Marx propose his idea of communism where he states that it is not a lack of resources which puts a strain on the population of the world, but rather mismanagement of resources. According to Marx there is no such thing as a trickle-down theory, and thus it is the job of the working class to distribute resources among the growing population.
In the decades following the works of these two men we've seen that Malthus' theory that war is a check on overpopulation doesn't hold true. The bigger the population the more people you put into primary and secondary jobs. With the help of technological innovations, we've actually seen a decrease in primary jobs and movement into urban areas. The problem, indeed, does look to be mismanagement. As the nations of the first world become wealthier, the larger the gap becomes between the first and third world nations. And there lies the problem of resource mismanagement.
And as for the statement about the good uses of war, I believe that there is no good in war. War is a part of our reality, and something we must undertake during certain times to accomplish something else. War might lead to something good, but in itself war is not "good".
Very well said Yams. I couldn't agree with you more.
Without suffering, nobody would be willing to give up.Quote:
What is the POINT in war? And who ever said people had to get killed during war? Why can't we use paintguns or somehing?
Ah, but you see suffering doesn't.....er.....SHOULDN'T be a part of governmental affairs.
So when the people are starving, thier suffering shouldn't be taken into consideration?Quote:
Ah, but you see suffering doesn't.....er.....SHOULDN'T be a part of governmental affairs.
Now you're just twisting it.
One of the best posts I've ever seen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
chaos: Overpopulation?
Rubedo: There is enough space in the world for everyone on Earth to stand side by side on the island of Jamaica. :)
I would like to point out that only 1 time in known history has there been a backwards trend in population growth and that was the black plauge. Everything else has only slowed it down but never sent it backwards.
Well... pretty all that needs to be said have already been said by nik0tine and Yams... and I agree. :greenie:
However... as for good things about war... well... even though most people probably don't notice it, there's a lot of entertainment that's based on war. Touching war-based movies, war-based video games, books, a lot of good stories, war toys and martial art etc. Nothing of these would ever have existed if war never had existed. It's actually pretty weird... that such a horrible thing as war have resulted in many ways to enjoy yourself. However... the sacrifices made far outweight all these kinds of entertainments. Still... the fact that people enjoy to reading about, watching and playing war remains. There's more that's orginally based on war than you think.
Overrall, war sux big time, though. War creates far too much hate, suffering and sorrow to ever be considered something good by me. And the reason war occurs is ALMOST always because of stupid, greedy and powerhungry idiots and their politic obsession. :greenie:
Another problem, of course, is that there's people who makes a whole lot of money on making weapons. I'm sure they never even think about that they actually are creating things with only 1 purpose: "killing other humans". The weapon industry is 1 of the biggest industries in the world. If I recall correctly, it's the weapon and porn industry that's the 2 biggest in the world. With other words: sex and violence. That's actually pretty crazy... http://img238.echo.cx/img238/9206/twitch6om.gif
Gah... I hope something of what I said actually made sense. :p
:| There was also that guy who said War was good for the economy, which isn't entirely false.
and that really was jsut in Europe and I'm not of european descent.There have been other cases of population going backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
In Europe the black plague was one of them.The thing is European women hips weren't large enough to safely give birth.In England back then women would jsut die during birth and most times ther ekids with there.THey were literally splitting during child birth.What helped eased the population decline in europe was the new concept of having sex with someone without having to be married.That was one hting htat actually helped slow down the decline in population.But those who survived the black plague in europe tehre descents have also been shown to have an immunity towards aids.Its a weird bloodline some people have yet genectics is too weird anyway.
back to war...............
If you're going to make that argument, I have a much better solution for you. Cannibalism would kill two birds with one stone!Quote:
Originally Posted by link31793
a l0ot of cultures do canibalism but i think a person eating human flesh literally goes freaking crazy in my opinion.Or maybe in our society crimes related to cannibalism.The person usually commit htis crime is basicly crazy.Plus the only time we accept cannibalism in our society is when a plane crashes in the middle of the mountains with no way to contact a persona nd food is next to nothing and the only way to survive is to eat the dead passengers then yeahh you pretty much aren't a picky person you probaly won't throw up while oyu do it....lol....
but yeah war is really well its about power its about capturing markets in other countries.War scusk if your into the stock market like myself and you invested in a company that does business in a perticular country which so happens to jsut goto war outta no where and you lose 10,000 dollars.But enough of my problems :)
Not just war, but medicine. Way back in the day, we'd have an epidemic of some sort to thin us all out. Now, there are really no highly dangerous non-preventable diseases out there, save cancer, and it's extremely unlikely that anything'll come by and take three billion people off this earth.