Nature or nurture? Evolution of human aggression toward species proliferation, or self-destruction?

A lesson for today's conflicts as Earth's human population exponentially approaches ten billion?



Given dominantly violent/aggressive animal behavior in Earth's most sentient & manipulative species, up to how many humans can Earth house peacefully? Obviously human population has and continues to surpass whatever that ideal figure may be. And sustenance is vastly artificial, synthetic; dependent on multiple antibiotics, vaccines, surgeries, policing, incarcerations, eugenics, vices & antipsychotics.

At what point does competitive aggression reach the boiling point where whole regions, continents (of human & environment) are exterminated to make way for a new, more dominant population of humans to move in?

And if the above has happened already, then what is the next level of human domination & aggression? And thus is there any hope in evading self-destruction of the species??

The earth can only sustain 500,000 humans before they start using up the natural resources faster than they replenish. If we don't want the earth to be destroyed we w should keep population below that.

^ But Earth is already 6,999,500,000 human lives OVER that 500k illuminati figure

No wonder the Obama administration has really stepped up genocides over the past 4 years; they're not only mass assassinating up to hundreds of thousands of civilians per country but making sure to disperse uranium dust far and wide as well as continue readying the Denver bunkers for retreat of those few isra-elite who get a ticket to ride the America's world holocaust out in hollowed-out earth!

Originally posted by WP4YT
The earth can only sustain 500,000 humans before they start using up the natural resources faster than they replenish. If we don't want the earth to be destroyed we w should keep population below that.

Please tell me, I've always wondered... what's it like working for them? Do you get good benefits? Full medical and dental? Long vacations? How many paid sick days a year?

One would think the hundred+ million slaughtered in the last century alone would constitute some evolutionary pressure.

Doesn't seem like many learned from that, though.

I personally believe that we've simply replaced normal biological evolution with technological evolution. The advances in technology that we now take for granted could only be explained to someone unfamiliar with them in widescale terms of species effect.

Is the difference between a furry chicken and a feathered chicken really as significant as the difference between a socially networked internet-capable human society and a human society which doesn't even have spoken language?

To think that biological species development is the only kind seems... extremely simplistic.

Originally posted by WP4YT
The earth can only sustain 500,000 humans before they start using up the natural resources faster than they replenish. If we don't want the earth to be destroyed we w should keep population below that.

beware all these round numbers, i have a hunch, that the more 'progressive' people consider themselves, the lower their 'estimate' for an ideal world population will be.

ie: mainstream PR: 3 billion

'intellectuals': 1 billion

'elites': 500 million

keepers of the inner circle (or whatever): 50 million

high priests: 666k or 144k (somewhere in that ballpark)

The 'all seeing eye': Zero



PS: it's been a little more than 21 years the Soviet Union collapsed and we're now officially back at square one, barbarism, some people must be really proud. Needless to say, the civilized veneer is very thin, but what lies underneath? hate doesn't make one strong, but it makes one predictable...



=============================================================================

Originally posted by JBlitzen
...
To think that biological species development is the only kind seems... extremely simplistic.

Q: what happens with the strongest 'specimen' in wartime?
A: they get drafted, specially capable ones will then be sent into hot zones (think of Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima and such)
Q: where's the 'evolutionary benefit' in that?

A:..

let me advance a slightly different concept: societies that treat themselves with care have a chance to live, the rest will exhaust themselves in ever increasing levels of distrust and violence, until then, the almighty social selection (

To fathom the least, I'm sure banksters would argue with the old adage, that one doesn't have to work a day when you do what u... love?

Originally posted by JBlitzen

I personally believe that we've simply replaced normal biological evolution with technological evolution. The advances in technology that we now take for granted could only be explained to someone unfamiliar with them in widescale terms of species effect.

Is the difference between a furry chicken and a feathered chicken really as significant as the difference between a socially networked internet-capable human society and a human society which doesn't even have spoken language?

To think that biological species development is the only kind seems... extremely simplistic.

Awesome point! I didnt think of it that way, in the furry/feather chicken vs caveman/networks

Earth apparently evolved a highly sentient, highly, *increasingly* manipulative species to what end?

I'd agree/argue that we could have gone in the spiritual/middle path direction, but instead, went with an atheistic/religious extremist dichotomy esp in Western schooling its taught from a young age good bad, gay straight, rich poor, dem rep, black white, xtian muslim, fighter weakling, beau ugly, skinny fat, sinner holy, slave leader, prolific childless .. all these random superficial/arrogant dichotomous labels segment, inequalize & antagonize human society into group-think hate & aggression that's eating away at the oneness as a species, and to top it off the hoarders of wealth (elite, banksters, tptb) invest all their efforts into WMDs & diabolical agendas like... transhumanism which may likely be our undoing but in their eyes, will perfect & kull the human race eventually into superhumans & reverted cavemen who do all the dirty work incapable of conceiving intuition/rebellion in their minds

Originally posted by WP4YT
The earth can only sustain 500,000 humans before they start using up the natural resources faster than they replenish. If we don't want the earth to be destroyed we w should keep population below that.

Im sorry i meant to write 500,000,000

Originally posted by Long Lance

beware all these round numbers, i have a hunch, that the more 'progressive' people consider themselves, the lower their 'estimate' for an ideal world population will be.

ie: mainstream PR: 3 billion

'intellectuals': 1 billion

'elites': 500 million

keepers of the inner circle (or whatever): 50 million

high priests: 666k or 144k (somewhere in that ballpark)

The 'all seeing eye': Zero

Fathomable numbers! As elite as they are, how can they be so blindsided by the inevitability of ultimately wiping themselves out thru idealistic culling till the very end.. arrogance?

I wonder how their plan will work as it seems though US has managed to kill miliions during the vietnam war alone, and possibly underreported millions more in the past dozen years... How many million lives will we see US/Windsor London temple elite & their banksters in the next 50 -100 years or so?

I vaguely recall reading an old CIA document (before I knew about ATS) and it stated Afghanistan was the the #1 Non-African country with the HIGHEST BIRTH RATE.. could that be a reason US rushed into Afghanistan after 9/11?

www.nationmaster.com...