Is war the best answer to reducing poverty?

Question

According to Malthus theory of population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus) war is an method to reduce population which in turn reduces poverty. Do you think this holds true in the current era? Put it another way "Does the world need more wars ( no nuclear) to reduce the population from 6 billion to 4 billion over the next 10 years, so that earth can be a viable place to live in?

Answer 1

moron

Answer 2

In modern war, there's not enough to die to make it work. About the only thing that would be successful is a plague or about 5 missiles hitting the largest cities in the world, totally decimating the population of those cities. The birth rate has been overriding the death rate for decades, and will also over ride it over the next ten years with 'controlled' population thinning. No, only mass death would cure over population...which seems to me has already been prophesied in the Bible.

Answer 3

Actually, pops is from the Depression Era and he said war is imminent to reduce the population. When you think about, it does makes sense. Look at all the ignorant people willing to die for a country that doesn't respect them.
While corporate america is becoming financially wealthy. How many years has corporate america, knowingly endangered peoples lives and several years later, they have cancer.
Notice, when people in the U.S. become elderly and no longer able to care for themselves, they are thrown in an unknown negligent environment (nursing homes).
Also, after all these years, no cure for tuberculosis, cancer, etc...
Let us not forget the Tuskegee experiment and the Aids virus, which to my understanding, is a chemical warfare to decrease the population.

Answer 4

While I think that Malthus has some relevance to the contemporary world, it would be a mistake to apply his theories to the current situation - particularly as global inequalities and relations between variously-privileged nations weren't part of his considerations. So on that basis (aside from all of the other, more practical, objections) - no, war is not the answer.

Answer 5

you know what, i think people who declare war to make the world become a better place to live in is just plain dumb. i mena, what's with war anyway? a lot of inncocent people die and millions and millions of money from the government are juts being wasted. why don't they just use it for good purposes rather than using it for killing and destroying people's lives?

anyways, back to the topic... no. war isn't the best answer to reduce poverty. in fact, it isn't the best answer to anything at all. it would just ruin life... in wars, a lot of land areas (which can be used for planting crops and stuffs, and be a source of food supply) are being damaged... and reducing the poplutation is not going to be an answer either. sure we have to have control on our population growth but massive decrease of population due to wars could also affect the growth curve in the upcoming years. there would be an imbalance to the old persons to the young persons... i really don't know how to say this but it isn't just relevant to just go shooting your fires...

Answer 6

kind of like thinning the heard. we don't fight wars like we used to so it would not be a viable solution to poverty. but dictators and death squads are doing a pretty good job at it

Answer 7

well, the current war has definitely reduced poverty-for haliburton shareholders

Answer 8

Mother Nature can take care of herself better than any human.

Answer 9

That makes no sense...EVERYBODY was poor (by modern standards) when there was only 50,000 cavemen on Earth.