Should we stop using war as population culling of our young people?

[Greatest I am]

True, from the viewer's perspective. My vision is fine, you're just not providing any light. Perhaps you can't, which is okay (and not unexpected).

Apologies.

Nothing personal was meant unless you admit to being dim are ready to shine, in the moral sense.

The mods watch me close and are quick to cut.

Many immoral thinkers are quite bright in other areas.

Regards
DL

[Good_Egg]

Not sure whether you're suggesting that anyone intends to use war as a means of reducing population ? Or whether it's just that the imprecision of everyday language allows an observation that this is an effect of war to be read as if it is an intended effect.

Claiming that all effects are intended by a mysterious They is the foundation of conspiracy theory.

I'd always thought that war was a society's way of directing the physical/sexual energy of young males outward onto neighbouring societies, where it would do least harm to their own society.

[Good_Egg]

PS: taking it as read that every war has an attacker and a defender, and the explanation of the war is necessarily found in the motives of the attacker.

[Greatest I am]

Not sure whether you're suggesting that anyone intends to use war as a means of reducing population ? Or whether it's just that the imprecision of everyday language allows an observation that this is an effect of war to be read as if it is an intended effect.

Claiming that all effects are intended by a mysterious They is the foundation of conspiracy theory.

I'd always thought that war was a society's way of directing the physical/sexual energy of young males outward onto neighbouring societies, where it would do least harm to their own society.

When you see something like war take out the young instead of the old, --- consistently ---, and you start a war, you know the death results age wise in advance.

Like Yahweh, who did not have the moral balls to step up to be his own sacrificial demands, and had his child murdered needlessly, we adults follow that immoral practice.

The moral bible says we are all to die for our own sins, and here we are sending our own children to pay for our adult debts.

Human as sure in that genocidal Yahweh prick's image.

Regards
DL

[LuckyR]

Not sure whether you're suggesting that anyone intends to use war as a means of reducing population ? Or whether it's just that the imprecision of everyday language allows an observation that this is an effect of war to be read as if it is an intended effect.

Claiming that all effects are intended by a mysterious They is the foundation of conspiracy theory.

I'd always thought that war was a society's way of directing the physical/sexual energy of young males outward onto neighbouring societies, where it would do least harm to their own society.

When you see something like war take out the young instead of the old, --- consistently ---, and you start a war, you know the death results age wise in advance.

Like Yahweh, who did not have the moral balls to step up to be his own sacrificial demands, and had his child murdered needlessly, we adults follow that immoral practice.

The moral bible says we are all to die for our own sins, and here we are sending our own children to pay for our adult debts.

Human as sure in that genocidal Yahweh prick's image.

Regards
DL

I have no problems with your (to me) obvious observations. I don't draw any conclusions about them though mainly because I can't come up with any viable alternatives for how wars might originate and be managed.

[Sy Borg]

♫ Send in the drones ♫

[Greatest I am]

Not sure whether you're suggesting that anyone intends to use war as a means of reducing population ? Or whether it's just that the imprecision of everyday language allows an observation that this is an effect of war to be read as if it is an intended effect.

Claiming that all effects are intended by a mysterious They is the foundation of conspiracy theory.

I'd always thought that war was a society's way of directing the physical/sexual energy of young males outward onto neighbouring societies, where it would do least harm to their own society.

When you see something like war take out the young instead of the old, --- consistently ---, and you start a war, you know the death results age wise in advance.

Like Yahweh, who did not have the moral balls to step up to be his own sacrificial demands, and had his child murdered needlessly, we adults follow that immoral practice.

The moral bible says we are all to die for our own sins, and here we are sending our own children to pay for our adult debts.

Human as sure in that genocidal Yahweh prick's image.

Regards
DL

I have no problems with your (to me) obvious observations. I don't draw any conclusions about them though mainly because I can't come up with any viable alternatives for how wars might originate and be managed.

Thanks.

If we managed war in a way that had the adults who cause them fight them, --- instead of our children, --- we would have a lot fewer wars.

Taking our adult responsibility for our actions seriously would change the world to the better.

Regards
DL

[LuckyR]

Not sure whether you're suggesting that anyone intends to use war as a means of reducing population ? Or whether it's just that the imprecision of everyday language allows an observation that this is an effect of war to be read as if it is an intended effect.

Claiming that all effects are intended by a mysterious They is the foundation of conspiracy theory.

I'd always thought that war was a society's way of directing the physical/sexual energy of young males outward onto neighbouring societies, where it would do least harm to their own society.

When you see something like war take out the young instead of the old, --- consistently ---, and you start a war, you know the death results age wise in advance.

Like Yahweh, who did not have the moral balls to step up to be his own sacrificial demands, and had his child murdered needlessly, we adults follow that immoral practice.

The moral bible says we are all to die for our own sins, and here we are sending our own children to pay for our adult debts.

Human as sure in that genocidal Yahweh prick's image.

Regards
DL

I have no problems with your (to me) obvious observations. I don't draw any conclusions about them though mainly because I can't come up with any viable alternatives for how wars might originate and be managed.

Thanks.

If we managed war in a way that had the adults who cause them fight them, --- instead of our children, --- we would have a lot fewer wars.

Taking our adult responsibility for our actions seriously would change the world to the better.

Regards
DL

There would be even fewer wars if the grandmothers of the leadership fought. But I stipulated VIABLE alternatives.

[Pattern-chaser]

If we managed war in a way that had the adults who cause them fight them, --- instead of our children, --- we would have a lot fewer wars.

There would be even fewer wars if the grandmothers of the leadership fought.

...echoing the old saying that if the generals had to fight, instead of giving the orders from a remote place of protection, there would be no war.

But having said that, there will be a few generals whose extreme and fundamental beliefs would drive them to fight, and maybe die, for the glory of ... something or other.

War is a failure of diplomacy, a failure to reach some accommodation with other humans. War is what happens when all else has failed; it is a last resort.

How do we avoid such last resorts? I haven't a clue. We are humans; we make war.

[Greatest I am]

If we managed war in a way that had the adults who cause them fight them, --- instead of our children, --- we would have a lot fewer wars.

There would be even fewer wars if the grandmothers of the leadership fought.

...echoing the old saying that if the generals had to fight, instead of giving the orders from a remote place of protection, there would be no war.

But having said that, there will be a few generals whose extreme and fundamental beliefs would drive them to fight, and maybe die, for the glory of ... something or other.

War is a failure of diplomacy, a failure to reach some accommodation with other humans. War is what happens when all else has failed; it is a last resort.

How do we avoid such last resorts? I haven't a clue. We are humans; we make war.

Yes, because we love war as the epitome of drama.

We should be teaching our children to recognize and mitigate that love.

We are educating our children better, but have a long way to go.

Regards
DL

[heracleitos]

Getting rid of war?

Very, very difficult. Probably impossible.

I suspect that war is an integral part of our biological preprogramming. War is actually the human mating season, which is the default method of mate selection in sexual reproduction throughout nature.

Which male will get to reproduce? Well, it often requires viciously beating up other males. In the mating season, it is the victor in violent combat who will be worthy to transmit his genes to the next generation.

Male reproduction requires "Proof of Work" (same as in the context of cryptocurrencies), i.e. proof of effort. It is simply bad business for the herd if unworthy males would also manage to reproduce. Therefore, sexual access must never be "for free".

We have civilized alternatives, but in fact, they don't work as well:

With friendly tribes, we offer monetary compensation for the bride as proof of work, in lieu of beating up the male relatives who protect her. In that case, money is used as a civilized proxy for blood and tears. Still, the bride may actually find the procedure a bit too easy to her taste. It does not always have the required credibility.

In modern degenerate western civilization, the male may try to "date" the female and inundate her mind with attractive lies. So, he pays with lots of saliva, wasted time, and unverifiable promises instead of money. That practice obviously does not work. In terms of biology, it is clearly nonsensical. Seriously, where is the "hard" proof of work? It is the biggest manipulator who wins. That is absolutely not in the interest of the herd.

So, can we get rid of war?

If we have a functioning solution for civilized mate selection, the problem can somehow be kept under control, but with lots of lapses. Otherwise, we simply revert to the default, which is violent mate selection, aka "war".

Hence, it is absolutely no surprise that this degenerate western civilization is gradually but unstoppable sliding into civil and international war. This is the result of biological imperatives related to sexual reproduction and mate selection. Lots of murderous and otherwise violent combat has become inevitable now.

[Sy Borg]

At least based on raw numbers, the reproduction project has gone splendidly. In the last half century the world's population has more than doubled, from 3.8 billion to 7.9 billion.

Humans like to believe that they have transcended the ape within. I am yet to see evidence that we are anything but apes with technology and a thin veneer of civilisation.

For example, chimp tribes tend to number up to about one hundred. When the group exceeds that number, increasingly certain members refuse to recognise the membership of others. Conflict ensues, inevitably resulting in deaths and a splitting of the group. This has been the case for humans throughout history.

Only known chimp war reveals how societies splinter
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -splinter/

The results suggest that the Gombe (chimpanzee) community was united until 1971. Then the chimps suddenly split into two groups – one based in the north, one in the south – that spent less time socialising with each other. Feldblum presented the work at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting in Calgary, Canada, last month.

It’s hard to say what caused the split, but a senior male called Leakey died at the end of 1970. “As soon as Leakey died they started splitting,” says Feldblum. “He seems to have been a bridge between the northern and southern chimps.”

After Leakey’s death a chimp called Humphrey became alpha male, but he was weak and faced pressure from two brothers from the south, Hugh and Charlie. The other chimps began to follow either Humphrey or the brothers. The battle began.

Over four years Humphrey’s group destroyed the brothers’ group, and the seven rebel males died or vanished. Groups of males would slip into rebel territory and savagely beat a single chimp.

It was possible to predict which group a chimp joined by looking at their preferred social contacts before the split, says Feldblum. This social fragmentation resembles human societies, he says, pointing to “an iconic study in sociology”, Zachary’s karate club, which showed how tensions among members of the club led it to split into two. Here, too, it was easy to predict how the group split.

[Pattern-chaser]

Which male will get to reproduce? Well, it often requires viciously beating up other males.

I'm thinking that things have moved on from here. I know quite a few people who have found and bonded with a mate for the purpose of breeding, and none of them found it necessary to "viciously beat up" their rivals. Honest. Maybe you're describing how it is in your own country? What country is that?

[heracleitos]

Which male will get to reproduce? Well, it often requires viciously beating up other males.

I'm thinking that things have moved on from here. I know quite a few people who have found and bonded with a mate for the purpose of breeding, and none of them found it necessary to "viciously beat up" their rivals. Honest. Maybe you're describing how it is in your own country? What country is that?

I was talking about the animal kingdom. Humanity attempts to civilize that the mating season but that attempt may fail. Furthermore, the basic principle of the mating seasons remains built in deep inside our biological preprogramming. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental explanation for "war".

[Greatest I am]

Getting rid of war?

Very, very difficult. Probably impossible.

I suspect that war is an integral part of our biological preprogramming. War is actually the human mating season, which is the default method of mate selection in sexual reproduction throughout nature.

Which male will get to reproduce? Well, it often requires viciously beating up other males. In the mating season, it is the victor in violent combat who will be worthy to transmit his genes to the next generation.

Male reproduction requires "Proof of Work" (same as in the context of cryptocurrencies), i.e. proof of effort. It is simply bad business for the herd if unworthy males would also manage to reproduce. Therefore, sexual access must never be "for free".

We have civilized alternatives, but in fact, they don't work as well:

With friendly tribes, we offer monetary compensation for the bride as proof of work, in lieu of beating up the male relatives who protect her. In that case, money is used as a civilized proxy for blood and tears. Still, the bride may actually find the procedure a bit too easy to her taste. It does not always have the required credibility.

In modern degenerate western civilization, the male may try to "date" the female and inundate her mind with attractive lies. So, he pays with lots of saliva, wasted time, and unverifiable promises instead of money. That practice obviously does not work. In terms of biology, it is clearly nonsensical. Seriously, where is the "hard" proof of work? It is the biggest manipulator who wins. That is absolutely not in the interest of the herd.

So, can we get rid of war?

If we have a functioning solution for civilized mate selection, the problem can somehow be kept under control, but with lots of lapses. Otherwise, we simply revert to the default, which is violent mate selection, aka "war".

Hence, it is absolutely no surprise that this degenerate western civilization is gradually but unstoppable sliding into civil and international war. This is the result of biological imperatives related to sexual reproduction and mate selection. Lots of murderous and otherwise violent combat has become inevitable now.

Did you fight for a mate?

I did not have to.

Regards
DL