War; a form of population reduction- a necessary evil.

In hunting, you reduce the population. By doing this, you give more food to the other animals, so they can survive. Thus, making the rest of the population more healthy, stronger, and the etc.

I find wars, as the same.
I see the only difference is, war directly impacts us, while hunting doesn't.


What do you think about this?

 

Except with humans having more of them equals more trade which equals more prosperity.

 

I hunt.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hunt

I go out and seek an animal with which to kill. I bring it home to my family to consume.

Not all humans hunt, but then we can say not all humans fight in wars.

There is more men in the world that eat, than those who trade.

 

War makes people stronger because it provides them with more food? What?

 

wars, or "anti-natalism" would only become a necessary evil if humanity reaches a situation where people have to compete for resources and there ismply isnt enough for everyone

thanks to technology, it probably wont happen, ever

 

There's a reason why we experience golden ages after times of intense war/destruction.

That isn't the only reason for war of course, the roots go much deeper than anyone could imagine...

 

I wouldn't call it a coincidence for economic growth.
As most of our technologies, such as computers, and vehicles, and telephones, are derived from war.

 

During war allot of technologies are created or advance at a faster rate.
But most of these technologies are used for war. Overall there really isn't any "non-war" technology improvement after the war.

 

good old population control, has be slowly reduced by modern medicine and a cleaner lifestyle. over population is the biggest problem mankind has bigger then global warming and 700 BILLLLIIIIOOOOONNN DOLLLARRRRSS bailout for AIG what ever they do, the world isn't made for 6.2 billion people and 300 million mother nature rapping Americans.

 

Yes, the 700Billion bailout was bullshit.

But yes, our people are growing older because of modern medicines, and the etc.

 

Even with the mis-read.. I agree with what you said there.

It isn't my duty to help sustain a life that I won't know, will never know, and thusly never care about.

 

We're not animals you know, we're not living in a jungle where laws don't exist and immoral acts are considered fine.

For someone to think that the act of war, which costs trillions of dollars, countless casualties and damage to land, property and life is actually beneficial for society in the long run is truly, an ignorant, stupid, immoral and inhumane man.

You know nothing about war, just because you've watched war movies and your father happens to own some arms doesn't mean you actually have any high knowledge about war and it's effects.

Something funny here too, you call yourself a Christian. Stop before you really humiliate yourself David.

So the abundance of food makes humans stronger and healthier or lesser humans buying products and using facilities help the economy?

 

I thought Christians were deathbringers?

And yes, I know about war.

Scorched-earth policy, government collapses, fucked up social classes, and the etc.

Yes, and no.

We would still be buying food, if not food, then more utensils, technology and the etc,

 

Christians are hypocrites. They can do whatever they want just say that God is backing them up, Crusades for example. But when you go to a church they preach about love, forgiveness and loving your enemy.

If you actually did, you would know that the act of war doesn't really help the society in anyway except if the enemies were already attacking you in which case it would be better if you would kill them off.

Do you know, every person on the planet can live in Australia alone and have 1/4 acre of land and still have some room left over?
Do you know what progress mankind has made in technology?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics

The world isn't over populated, it's just poorly managed. The act of war or mass murder isn't going to benefit anyone.

So, by your logic if the population reduced you would buy more laptops, TVs etc? Is the reduction of the population really change the amount of products you buy or use?

 

Everybody is a hypocrite.

Yes, let's use the Crusades for example.

What did that bring Europe?
Cultural blending and trade; thus helping push Europe into the Renaissance.

No, but with less popluation- I'm sure more people would be able to buy such products, and live a healthier and more productive lifestyle.

 

Yeah and the gulf war brought oil into the US, so we should disregard all the causalities so long as we got some benefits.

What? Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Oh wait, as long as you're sure you don't have to give a reason.

 

war isn't necessary as it creates more problems even if it may reduce the population, it will destroy economies, shift populations and limit resources.