Here's The Thing...

We probably have different levels in our world today, but at the bottom, without any doubt are the workers.

The thing with workers is that they tend to be strong or brainy, depending on their field.

Over the last century or so, we have had state education, and for quite a few decades we have had state medical care.

So, in the old sense of serfs and "lords" you might think that they had shot themselves in the foot.

Not so.

They keep us weak by sending our strongest off to war - the point of war isn't JUST resources, it's also to bind the "strongest" to a particular banner.

And then there's the gene pool - if you keep taking the strongest members out, you are left with less.

My hypothesis is that war is not only an earner for some, but is also a way of taking strength away from the community and the people.

If your toughest and wisest are getting killed in another mans war, how do you hope to advance?

I think your vision of being strong is oriented very physically.

Besides most people who enter the military only get strong after their training so it's not a pre-selected group that gets sent to war.

Strength of mind and willpower are not taken into account in your hypothesis. The military is keen to have people relying on the strengt of mind and willpower of their supperiors.

So, i dont really agree.

And I think war is fairly pointless anyway...


Peace

Interesting concept but I have to disagree. Stress makes the cream come to the surface. It makes good people better. WWII is a good example. From that terrible time we got antibiotics. Nuclear power. Jet propulsion. Etc. The same can be said for our human resources. Yes, some pass away. Some become MORE. You can't keep the proletariat down. The Soviets found that out the hard way.

Fairly interesting is right, bur stress will having you tearing your hair out by the tufts!
In the gene pool, if you're not elite you are scum. So, we're riding in the same boat. I'm a black female, I won't produce any children in my future and if I don't nobody will notice. If you're white, they'll take notice. See what I'm saying here ? I might sound cryptic or on a "run" but I'm not.

Besides, war is pointless you can find other ways of making decisions.

reply to post by budski


What about the spreading of the gene pool from overseas postings?

Workers cannot be the lowest level, what about the homeless, the hungry, the sick, the insane, the haters, the hated, the traffic wardens etc?

I think the things you talk about are more of a side effect rather than a deliberate action and your classification of "workers" leaves a lot to be desired.

Sure you thought about this enough before posting, you usually make more sense. I mean that with respect, but budski....is that really you?

If half of the American population is male, that would be 150 million men in the general population. Take into account the ~3 million soldiers, which is 86% male, and that's only ~2.5 million men.

That means almost 148 million men of all different education, strengths and profession levels are part of the active population at any given time. Not to mention that the vast majority of the Army is active at home working and advancing technology.

I disagree with your hypothesis, just based off the numbers. I believe if anything, war is effectively sapping the economic and natural resources of our nation. Or any nation involved in a sustained, total campaign.

Originally posted by intrepid
Interesting concept but I have to disagree. Stress makes the cream come to the surface. It makes good people better. WWII is a good example. From that terrible time we got antibiotics. Nuclear power. Jet propulsion. Etc. The same can be said for our human resources. Yes, some pass away. Some become MORE. You can't keep the proletariat down. The Soviets found that out the hard way.

Surely the cream comes to the top anyway mate.

We send our most capable warriors (the ones who wanted it, and a lot who didn't) to do what the government wants them to.

It weakens the gene pool.

Unless of course you keep a gene pool within certain parameters...

reply to post by budski


If I were one of the "lords" in your scenario I would find it more useful that I am rallying those individuals who have a sense of duty to MY banner. You catch them and convince them that they are doing that duty by supporting you no matter what. Then the society at large is left with less idealists and doers to rally to any other banner.

I wouldn't take specific physical attributes into account.

Originally posted by isthisreallife
I believe if anything, war is effectively sapping the economic and natural resources of our nation. Or any nation involved in a sustained, total campaign.

Yes, WAR is a business funded by the public to further research and technology to profit privately from those who fund it all in the first place.

Easy money.

See, you are looking at this from the wrong angle.

Look at it from the angle of an "overlord" whether that be political, or whatever.#

The "prols" can't be kept down by info any longer, so what better way to undermine their strength, than by making the best and strongest go to war, which means some will get killed which means that the community is weaker.

You might get the odd throwback, but in general, if you send the best to war, you will be left with weaker people.

Originally posted by budski
You might get the odd throwback, but in general, if you send the best to war, you will be left with weaker people.

Again I disagree. WWII again. Did Mother Britain go tails up during the battle of Britain? No, it got stronger. Did she limp when the V1 and V2 rockets fell? No, she got stronger. There's no substitute for the will of a people.

reply to post by intrepid


Completely agree, in times of war people band together and those with family members don't just alienate themselves they become closer and strengthen their community.

I can't help feeling this theory (budski) needs a lot more thought and at the end of the day you might see things from a different angle.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by budski
You might get the odd throwback, but in general, if you send the best to war, you will be left with weaker people.

Again I disagree. WWII again. Did Mother Britain go tails up during the battle of Britain? No, it got stronger. Did she limp when the V1 and V2 rockets fell? No, she got stronger. There's no substitute for the will of a people.

I have no argument about the will of the people.

What I'm saying is that the ruling classes use the strongest of the prols in order to weaken them.

I agree with you 100%

reply to post by budski


Not logic. White men are the most bloody race. We had countless wars in our history since ancient time to modern days. We can't stand even one year without war. We are sanding best men for wars for the last three thousand years. We should be so week now that we should not exist in your theory. But Darwin is saying something different. The strongest and best would survive. The war is the best example of this theory in practice. Weak people have less chance to return from war alive and share their DNA. This is brutal truth.

reply to post by odyseusz


Absolute hogwash - no single "race" is more warlike than any other.

Leaders are the problem, not the people.

You have also completely misinterpreted Darwin - survival of the fittest has nothing to do with who is bigger, faster or stronger, and is everything to do with how well a species adapts and takes advantage of their environment over millions of years.