is war just a way to thin out the herd?

Answer 1

We;re human beings. We're supposed to be better than that.

Answer 2

Believe it or not, some so-called "social evolutionists" had that exact same theory early in the 1900s, and applied it to WWI. One of the nutcases supporting later became a Nazi and used that same stolen line from biological evolution, "survival of the fittest" to justify killing Jews in concentration camps. Disgusting.

One of the big problems with that idea is that wars most often take the lives of strong young men -- those that would be most fit to continue "the herd." So even if you agree with the idiot social evolutionists, you're wiping out the "most fit" and it's a dumb thing to do.

Answer 3

No, I think nature is best at thinning out the herd with disease, war is about making money and gaining power.

Answer 4

Most definitely in most cases. But most wars( these days any way) are to provide protection to the majority, even if it means killing the minority. Its like the old military saying

"the mouths of the few, will never out way the needs of the many"

Lets just hope one day the needs of every one can be met.

Answer 5

WARS are needed as a natural part of human evolution. When you look at war from a long-range perspective, it becomes clear that, as destructive as wars are, their very destructiveness has served as the primary force for the evolution of the human race. By mercilessly eliminating those who were unable to survive in the theater of war, wars resulted in a constant upgrading of both the physiological and intellectual acuity of man.

Although many bright people perish in wars, including the strong as mentioned above, the preponderance of the casualties occur among people with the limited intellectual capacity to understand the mechanics of wars and who are thus unable to avoid becoming casualties.

Who would seriosly dispute the fact that smart people have higher living standards than intellectually less endowed persons do? War eliminates the intellectually less fit and thus, in the end, raises the average intelligence and the living standards of society as a whole.

Throughout the ages, evolution took advantage of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, war, natural disasters, disease and famine.

If we succeed in eliminating armies and war, we are also eliminating war in its capacity as a powerful contributor to evolution by keeping the world population in check. We are now at 6 billion humans, scientific projections of growth predict 10 billion within 50 years...mostly in under developed countries. Humanity will reach the limits of available resources at 9-12 billion..this is not sustainable.

We can only speculate as to which path evolution will take in reducing the world from 10 to 3 billion. A battle for resources will favor those with higher levels of intelligence and rationality. Evolution never recedes to irrationality, superstition and stupidity.

Answer 6

Absolutley. Always has been. Now medical science has kept more people alive for longer there will no doubt be more wars.

Thats the natural way. People are killers by design and will continue to kill until its game over for the species.

I accept this as the way and I f have to die as a result of natural selection then so be it. At least I have had a wee taste of life.

Answer 7

Absolutely. And nuclear war is the best way of all. Unfortunately we'll likely be finding that out first hand in the near future.

Answer 8

Yes i definitely agree. At least the foreign herds. The US dominates its enemies!

Answer 9

Humans are horney. We f---, and f---, and f---, and the government calls war, population control ! I'm serious.

Answer 10

no war is too protect ourselves from people goverment who want to hurt us.