Is War a means for humans to stabilize the increase in population?

Question

Humans are the only beings that do not have a limit on increasing their population. the example of the fox and the hare is a good example of how nature regulates itself. Population of Fox increases ... Hare's decrease. Because Hare's population decreases it means less food for foxes means more die of starvation and population of hare's increase. There is balance.
Is war and you can add disease a way Mankind regulates itself???

Answer 1

I don't think it is a conscience effort to regulate population, I think that would go to the Chinese for their one child policy. War is about many other things, power, greed . . . it's not about population stabilization.

Answer 2

Mankind is the only being that can grow its own food and share it across oceans. That is like watering weeds and hoping they die off. YA!!! we are going to grow out of control. If you ask me, war is not enough to regulate population. We are still growing and we still have war. By the way this American war has had fewer casualties and we are getting better at letting the robots do the fighting, so scratch war off the list.
We try to understand what kills us because we do not want to die. As long as there is that drive, we will extend our life times, our population, and our ability to have children. We tend not to stop doing something unless we have to. Perhaps the earth will be our limiting factor in the future. The climate changes going on now could be a sign of a population reduction process starting. If you can't stand the heat, get off the planet or DIE!!!( or you could find a way to live under the ocean sea surface. (see Dean White's Life Pod Housing.... Get yours today email [e-mail] SUBJECT: BANANA)
We only live 90-120 years at most, but our children have to make something happen for their children and their children. I just hope we wake up before our children can not do anything about it. On the other hand Darwin told us all about it before we even got started!!!

Answer 3

carlos, buddy, u can't be more right in making ur comments. war is definitely a mean for humans to stabilize the population hike. but unknowingly. it is by all means a natural process to curve the number of any species that are increased in a mass of fixed land all of a sudden. be it a human or a dog. whenever there will be a sudden upsurge of population of a single species, disturbing the delicate balance of nature, there will be war, feminine, or natural disaster, ect. caused by the activity of that group of particular species. either they kill each other on territorial dispute (war) for the domination of a source of energy or natural lethal disasters are caused due to their intense activity for survival on a piece of fixed mass of land, as the balance of nature is disturbed. just think of two cities like New York and say Winnipeg. and just compare their crime rates. the more population u have in a small area the more we fight for our share and the more we wipe each other off from earth. carlos, u r wrong in saying that mankind is regulating itself. its not mankind, its the law of the nature. just consider ur fox and hare example. u should understand. diseases also works in the same way, a war does. the more population from a single species the more lethal superbugs are automatically evolved. in the end its their survival game. and whoever is the fittest survives. Darwin rules dude. anyway, it was a great question though. thanx for it.
But, are we the only species who can defy the nature? if u agree, than please come forward to anihilate those warmongers. its either humanity and humane wisdom or nature. which one will u pick.????

Answer 4

We cannot deny that there is such a control on the world population. It is very well needed too. All living things have known or unknown roles in maintaining the balance. But the whole system must be functioning for the maintenance of the top most (known yet) being i.e., the humans. The reason for cultivating such a great being (humans) is the mystery yet. There it becomes difficult to deny a talent behind it.

Let us wait and see.....

Answer 5

Your premise is mistaken. There *are* natural factors that place limits on the human population. The most obvious one is the limited amount of food on the planet.

But yes, war can be another means of population control (though I don't think anyone goes to war with that in mind). Is it a particularly effective means? Not really. Spreading birth-control methods to third-world nations would be a better approach.

Answer 6

Yes during war men die and this cannot be construed that this is the way to minimise population when there are other means. So many natural calamities take place and wipe out a section of the population. When various developments have taken place it has given room to increased life span. Perhaps we can say, we counter that with our wonderful wars.
VR

Answer 7

I think war is not the stabilizer but is an effect of the stabilization that comes with lack of resources. Anytime a population lacks the resources necessary to survive, they must either kill and take resources from others or die themselves.

Not all wars are fought because of resources, but the control of resources is a major factor behind them.

Some would argue that disease is the main form of human population control. European diseases killed more Native Americans than the Europeans themselves did.

Answer 8

War is a natural part of life, it's been around for ages and has been a means of settling disputes. It's bad, but you can't go all hippie and say War should be eliminated all together because it's not possible and soon you'd see the government enforcing things like forced abortions and whatnot in order to keep the population in control.

Answer 9

War is not a means to decrease the ever growing world population. In war, civilians are protected by evacuating them to neutral zones.
War is about business and commerce. It spells money at the expense of other people's lives. Without war, how would arms manufacturers carry on with their lives? Bomb makers might as well stay home, sleep and watch their products go rusty and worthless. Gun makers may just rest (i hope, in peace) and be contented with target shooting. See?

Answer 10

I disagree with your premise - that we don't have the same limiting factors as the hare/fox scenario. We just haven't hit the point there yet where our recourses are too low - we will, mayhap.