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.
WARS!?!?!?!?!
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.
It looks like the ground had a sex change.
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.
Thanks for the sig Blitz Ace!
Someone wanta challenge me to chess?
So, are we arguing that wars are part of human nature and is good for nature?
Take care all.
Overpopulation problem?
yea, overpopulation.SOme parts of the wrld are overpopulated and destroying rainforests.CUrse them
It looks like the ground had a sex change.
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.
Wat
is
going
on
wtf
rawr
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.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.
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.
[center] I Painted My Own Mona Lisa
She's Fixed Everything
Now I'm Spoilt Beyond My Wildest Dreams [center]
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.
I like Kung-Fu.
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.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Posting Permissions
