How large would the human population be if war never existed?

Question

This question is just to make you think. War controls the population, without war, this world would be chaos.

Answer 1

To large we should get rid of some of you people.

Answer 2

The population maybe less if there weren't wars

- Centuries ago, they raped and pillaged. Now they pay very low prices to desparate women - still gives lots of unwanted kids in the invaded nation

- We had Baby Boomers once servicemen returned from being away from family

- In some countries, normal to have 10 kids hoping 4 make it to adulthood to take care of parents ... that is the only aged care there is ... without worries of war, would that family size drop?

- National emnity creates resentment internationally. the population that would have been here without wars could have better intercultural understandings and eased family sizes with better education.

Culling humans is a poor way to keep the population in check

Answer 3

A fascinating question!

If human beings were incapable of killing each other, then:-
1. Population would be controlled by other factors like disease, drought and famine. I guess our numbers would be quite similar, all other factors being the same.
2. We would be forced to use other means to settle disputes, which means probably by negotiation.

If the human race were better at negotiation, then the chances are we would be well on the way to a sustainable way of life, and the question then becomes 'what population can nature support without being steadily degraded?'.
I just wonder how we would go about limiting the population without causing unhappiness.

Thanks for the question!

Answer 4

that is amazingly a warped view - in case you detect out about V2 rockets or those who were killed through them, you would possibly want to understand that the area race technologies got here at an unnacceptably intense fee for most. inhabitants is managed through relations making plans no longer genocide and the quantity of fabrics and elements that stay wasted on armaments might want to bigger than pay for feeding the international. Congress don't have poured $billions into the recent york challenge if there had no longer been conflict - yet then we would not stay with the opportunity of at the same time certain destruction. no matter if you imagine the technological dividends were worth it, fairly relies upon no matter if you imagine microwaves and quickly nutrition are a good challenge.

Answer 5

Hmmmm, so abortion, murders of children, and starvation all control the population too?

It's true, they do, but it doesn't seem to make it any less heinous.

Given Hitler and Stalin alone killed between 20-40 million people, I'd say it's made a big difference.

However, the entire world population could fit in Connecticut (National Geographic - standing, covering the entire state).

Answer 6

Ditto HB, so true. Sad, isn´t it.
Ponder this: more people die in traffic accidents daily than in all wars at present. More people have died of skin cance since 2001 than 9/11, it goes on and on. Simple Dysentery has claimed 100+ times the number killed outright in wars. So......

Answer 7

Pretty much exactly the same -- while very significant in real terms, statistically speaking the number of people killed in war is not significant enough to affect overall population numbers.

Answer 8

We would be living shoulder to shoulder. and the world would have ran out of resources eons ago...

So if anything the libs should be happy for wars.

It cuts down the surplus population

Answer 9

Pretty large.

Then again, think of all the people who died in war which could have invented better birth control methods, and spaceships to reach other planets to colonize.

Answer 10

probably a lot smaller than it is now! No war=no baby boomers