2006-07-31 07:03:23 · 22 answers · asked by Giggly Giraffe 7 in Social Science ➔ Economics
I absolutely think NO. It's not terrifying only because you don't live in it, for those of you who said yes. Put yourself in those people's shoes, the ones that are suffering from the war. Would you want to be the one that dies tomorrow? If you don't, then don't expect others to believe this is a solution because we are all humans.
2006-07-31 08:01:21 · answer #1 · answered by Susieq1118 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, war is a method of population control, but is not very effective. Look at what happen after WWII, we had the "baby boom" from 1946 to 1964. Wars are only a temporary solution and it has not work because of supply and demand. As supply (humans) goes down because of wars, the demand for more babies goes up.
2006-08-01 06:38:20 · answer #2 · answered by sharpshooter 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A method? You make it sound like a deliberate act. The malicious form of population control is genocide, which as history has proven is often in the context of war, but not always. But war is generally a method to protect borders, acqure land or resources, or to protect soveriegnty.
2006-07-31 11:49:04 · answer #3 · answered by Bamos 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Historically, yes, this was true. As one group encroached on another's territory due to growing population, yes war was a method of controlling that population.
Today, war is more of a political and economic statement.
2006-07-31 14:24:46 · answer #4 · answered by Gigi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. War does have something to do with population (in the traditional society, anyway), but links are numerous and complex.
You should read "Historical Dynamics" by Peter Turchin; it attempts to explain some of those links using approaches that are derived from both economics and evolutionary ecology.
2006-07-31 07:30:56 · answer #5 · answered by NC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly think so. I believe in evolution and that it has it's own set of checks and balances. Just as humans have been able to live longer, healthier lives, nature has created it's own methods of controlling the population. It's not only limited to war, but diseases, viruses, bacteria, starvation, etc...
2006-07-31 07:22:32 · answer #6 · answered by Pumpkin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm an avid on and stale pupil of historic past and that i have many times wondered what our modern inhabitants ought to be IF people had had a non violent existence and there hadn't been plagues and "presents" from nature like floods, drought and so on. i think even if people had managed a non violent existence for a pair thousand years the ensuing over inhabitants ought to have delivered about wars besides.
2016-11-27 01:27:08 · answer #7 · answered by eisenhauer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It could be. It makes more sense if you send the poor, the sick, the undesirable to war in a foreign nation who you don't like. That way, your capital, residences, and the population who are well-off, healthy and popular remain intact.
2006-08-01 04:16:47 · answer #8 · answered by Veritatum17 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes It's a good culling method due to the fact that once it starts the only way it stops is when theres no one else on the other side
2006-07-31 07:13:11 · answer #9 · answered by olampyone 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
could be there has to be a way for man to control the population.
2006-07-31 07:10:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋