2007-12-04 17:51:05 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
A possible interpretation might be that from a global standpoint war kills people thereby reducing the size of an existing population. See, we have somewhat circumvented natural selection via new medicines, technology, less global aggression on massive scales so that our population has not been culled, so to speak, as say a deer herd or such. With animals such as a deer population.....if you save them from their natural predators, prevent naturally occurring diseases, supplement their natural diet....you are left with too many starving deer wrecking havoc with their place on the food chain and by the weak surviving they will breed inferior offspring incapable of surviving.
So in that context, I would say that although ironic, an adjustment to population size would be considered an environmental benefit. Sounds immoral and heartless but has some truth.
2007-12-04 19:09:49 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
and it can be said it served an evolutionary purpose. Those that survived had the intelligence to get out of dying. For example, people like Einstein and other inteligenstia (sp) escaped the holocaust of WW2, while the less capable were led off to the death camps. While this may be true, putting the term 'good' is a little much, it's more like cold objective reality...
2007-12-05 09:59:35 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing is good about wars.. Natural Disasters, Disease also reduce population.. and They aren't the good thing..
2007-12-05 02:23:06 · answer #3 · answered by atmadick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF, to reduce the population is a desired goal? Of course.
Wotan
2007-12-05 01:56:28 · answer #4 · answered by Alberich 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wars send all the young men away leaving the young women for the old guys. And you thought war was about land, religion and money, didn't you?
2007-12-05 03:42:28 · answer #5 · answered by Heart of man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that's true, but limited. There's lots of good things about war; for instance, most wars are good for the economy, which is what proves our current invasion is not a war because the economy is crappy.
2007-12-05 03:36:00 · answer #6 · answered by LodiTX 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont know that we should cause massive human life loss a good thing. Throughout history it has acted a major force in stabilizing population growth.
2007-12-05 06:56:49 · answer #7 · answered by speechy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any 'natural' method of population control involves people dying.
2007-12-05 07:25:03 · answer #8 · answered by gravybaby 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I bet he never saw any fighting.
2007-12-05 14:54:41 · answer #9 · answered by hehakasapa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋