are things like wars and famine necessary to prevent the extinction of human beings?

Answer 1

I would leave war out of this question as war its self is not a natural act - I know we could argue the toss all day on that one, but for brevity, lets just look at famine.

In the global biological system or organisation, there is evidence that over population in a group of species causes problems especially with regard to resources, food, water etc...

Indeed, Lemmings regulate their huge social colonies by, what appears to be, suicide - but this rather unique observation has never been fully explained but study does show a strong link between lemming population and lemming 'suicides'.

In humans, disease could be argued as a mode of self regulation of population - indeed, deaths due to heart related conditions are higher in cities where there are greater, more dence populations compaired with the the country for example.

Famine is difficult to justify from the concept of natural population control. People die from famine as they inhabit arrid areas so they have limited supply to food and water as well as medicine. Contrary to the beleif that War is the fundamental struggle to gain power = land = food and water, civil war amoungst, say, etheopians is not observed.

The argument could be posed, all beit highly controversial, that the act of a populus occupying an area which is, or is reasonably anticipated to become arrid, is an act indicative of poor intelligence and lower evolutionary order, therefore the ultimate death of that population would, in evolutionary terms, be justified. The same argument could be applied to the proliferation of HIV/AIDS in lower social groups in comparison to higher social groups.

I think you will find that natural evolution has been taken over by human intelligence and the ability of man to alter his surroundings, so the evolution debate with regards to man - and the consequences of their actions on other species - throws conventional evolutionary principles to the wall.

Answer 2

Extinction no [not directly], but massive overpopulation most definitely!

With the worlds population set to double in 50 years much strain will be put on the earths capacity to maintain us. Richard Dawkins claimed in the 70s that if Brazil's population kept growing at its current rate for 500 years, unhindered by war and famine, the population would reach many trillions. Brazil could not physically accommodate such a number. Overpopulation naturally causes turf wars and famine when land/resources are limited. Women's fertility decreases during famine as having more kids at this time is less productive for the family unit. What makes famine and war different now is the many who are not involved and watch from a distance with moral sentiment and sometimes guilt.

With echoes of Oscar Wilde just maybe the 'war' is not meant to end but continues to be defined by the struggle between rich and poor, a sometimes necessary byproduct of healthy human diversity.

Answer 3

i don't know about preventing the extinction of humans but the cause for human extinction is more like it. All through out history famine alone brought down civilizations. The Dust Bowl happened right here in the U.S farmers in the mid section of the U.S were not able to grow crops or live stock for months. and war Take a look at WWII it was Adolf Hitlers plan to wipe out Jews from this earth and then the rest of us.

Answer 4

Of course not.

If you study history, you will learn that wars are usually being started for either financial greed, lust for political power or religious zeal. The people who die in them could, on average, have lived rather happy and productive lives if they had been left alone.

As for famines... they very often result from poor planning and social/political circumstances rather than from a real shortage of food. The world right now could be completely free of hunger if we all agreed on proper food distribution and fair international trade.

The famous famine in Ireland which drove many thousands of Irish to leave their country was completely artificial. There was plenty of food to go around in the British Empire, the people who starved to death simply did not have the means to pay for it and the Government failed to support its own people. They motivated their behavior with "conservatism" and "free markets", even back then. The dead, of course, couldn't care less.

Answer 5

No. We could manage things more sensibly, I think, in other ways.

Answer 6

UMMM...I THINK DRUGS AND AIDS IS DOING FINE ON ITS OWN.

Answer 7

Yes-- it thins the herd....

Answer 8

I really dont think so.