reply to post by Diablos
Do you know who Hobbes is, Diablos? I feel like you would really enjoy his work. Although, with the way you ramble on like a little prat, asserting
your opinions as if they were the divined great truths of god, I would assume you've never picked up a philosophy book in your entire life. War is
ingrained in man's blood? Tell that to the painters, the authors, the musicians, the actors, the clergymen; hell, tell it to the landscapers. There
are literally hundreds, if not thousands of professions and vocations a man can have, and for a species that "has been and always will be violent",
very few of them actually seem to involve violence. For a species that has war, if not violence, "ingrained" in it, it would appear that our
mannerisms are quite peaceful. There are a total of 2,937,899 United States troops. As of July, 2009 the population of the United States was
307,006,550. That would appear to be a lot of people denying their "human nature".
As to your "benefits" of war, I think you have made the absolute logical failure of applying Darwinism to warfare. Allow me to educate you, since
you've CLEARLY never taken a biology class. Darwanism speaks of traits that allow for survival of the fittest in a natural environment. Such as the
evolution of drought tolerant plants in the desert. As for social evolution, we might draw the parallel of the evolution of a stronger skull base in
rams to allow them to compete for a female's attention through their headbutting competitions. War, contrary to your narrow-minded, uneducated view
point DOES NOT ENFORCE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL SELECTION. Anyone in war can die, regardless of their intellect, physical characteristics, or
"fitness" as a mate. If a grenade explodes in your face, or you take a mortar round to the chest, you could have the best genes in the world, you
still happen to be dead. This is what we call RANDOM selection. Which, because of the LOSS OF GENETIC DIVERSITY WHICH IS THE WHOLE ENTIRE POINT OF
HUMAN EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO HUMAN EXISTENCE.
To debate another point, population reduction, from a Darwinian standpoint, as that seems to be where you would like my rebuttal to come from...
Population reduction. Population reduction is ONLY beneficial to a species when it has either A.) Exceeded it's natural carrying capacity, or B.) The
genes lost are in fact detrimental to the survival of the species. All other losses, once again this time so maybe you'll hear me, constitute a LOSS
OF GENETIC DIVERSITY WHICH IS THE WHOLE ENTIRE POINT OF HUMAN EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO HUMAN EXISTENCE.
Next point, "it ensures the victors the chance to reproduce". What in god's name does that even mean? Let me fill you in on something you might not
have been aware of.... wait for it... here it comes.... sit tight.... THEY ALWAYS HAD THE CHANCE TO REPRODUCE. Contrary to your beliefs, war REDUCES
population, making it LESS LIKELY, that reproduction will occur to its fullest potential. There is no pre-war restriction on reproduction that is
suddenly alleviated after a good fight.
Finally, "vast material and resource gains". This may actually be your strongest argument. However, I think you forget one of your lessons from
preschool, SHARING. As I believe I've well proven to anyone with two functioning hemispheres, war is counter-productive to the survival and
perfection of the human genome. So, if we decided to form a world government and distribute resources as needed, we wouldn't need to WASTE resources
on the perfection and manufacturing of your beloved war devices.
I would actually LOVE to take the bet that thousands of years from now there will still be wars. Because you don't seem to understand that the social
evolution of man actually leans towards the development of altruism rather than war. It is the major failures of those in political leader positions
that leads to war, not a natural state of man.
Next time, display some intelligence or, at the least, rational thought behind ANYTHING you say, or I will be forced to assume you are capable of
If you are going to attempt to debate me, feel free, but after reading the entire thread and finding the sum of your "arguments" to be ad hominem,
or complete fanciful opinion, I can assure you, you are outclassed.
And with that, I bid you,GOOD DAY, SIR!