If man is evolving, why is there still war?

[Mystman]

Actually the 20th century was the bloodiest century of all time. The 21st century isn't starting off much better and we are only 15 years into it.
https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/why-the-20th-century-was-the-bloodiest-of-all/

While it wouldn't surprise me if the 20th century was the deadliest due to the nature of its warfare, we do have to keep in mind that record keeping has also been dramatically improved in recent history.

For example, that list claims that in the 17th century, there were 6.1 million conflict related deaths. Yet some sources claim that in the Thirty Years' War, which took place in the 17th century, 8 million deaths occurred. That was just 1 war in 1 part of the world.

The site claims that in the 10th century, there were only 3000 war related casualties... if you then look at wikipedia to see what kind of events happened in that time (viking invasions, empires rising and falling, the first gunpowder use in battle, etc etc, and that's only the stuff that we can now find evidence for), the idea of only 3000 war related casualties in 100 years is laughable.

(edit: like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Acheloos . That's a single battle, that (by some estimations) already has a body count at least 20x higher than that of the entire century it took place in... I take most historical estimates with a few kilograms of salt )

 

[Mystman]

War would be a disadvantage to survival.

No it's not. All out war might have become disadvantageous with the invention of nuclear weapons and the accompanying concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, but in the millennia before that, being good at warfare was very much an advantage. There's a reason why most of the world speaks english/french/spanish/chinese.

 

[Golden Yak]

Evolution doesn't guarantee survival, folks. Something like 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

Evolution causes change - natural selection determines whether the change is beneficial, neutral, or negative. Evolution could change a species to the point where it destroys itself - evolutionary change isn't always good.

 

[quatona]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no?

Beneficial to what or to whom?

They do claim species evolve and get better..no?

"Get better" in which way?

There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

Well, the human species appears to be remarkably successful in terms of survival of the species.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have a further beef with science. I mean if the earth is round, why is there so much racism? What's up with that scientists?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PsychoSarah]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no? There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

-_- war is social, not biological. There isn't some "killing" gene, most people are capable of either being peaceful or murderers, it just depends on the context in which we are raised. Evolution only acts on traits which are genetically inherited, it doesn't impact learned behaviors.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no? There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

Actually there was more war in Adam's day.

Cain killed Abel, that's like 25% of the entire population of the world being killed in one war.

 

[dad]

Tell that to Cain and Able

We could tell it to some inner city mugger or killer too. However, the wars on planet earth seem to have increased. The cause is the same. Sin.

 

[dad]

War is beneficial to the winners.

Not really. In the future the bible tells us that a third of the waters will be poisoned, and over half of men will die, and there will be famines after war...and etc etc. The so called winners will be the biggest losers of all time. Then they will all die. Then they will face hell.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We could tell it to some inner city mugger or killer too. However, the wars on planet earth seem to have increased. The cause is the same. Sin.

Actually, we live in one of the most if not the most peaceful time in human history. We just flip out over conflict and are informed about it more, so it seems like a lot. Plus, we have more destructive weapons.

 

[Booko]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no?

Who is "they"

No, many mutations are just neutral. Some are can be less than beneficial.

There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

And there is more powerful technology, greater literacy, better medicine.

What's your point?

 

[Viren]

There is more art today than in days of yore, but neither fact is likely due to any biological/genetic differences between the people of today and the people of yore.

Yeah, I think war is more a product of civilization than evolution.

 

[durangodawood]

.... the wars on planet earth seem to have increased....

Youre wrong about that.

 

[TorturedSoul]

From what I understand in the Bible the ruler of this world is the devil, so any advances man makes will be exploited by evil.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution doesn't guarantee survival, folks. Something like 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

Evolution causes change - natural selection determines whether the change is beneficial, neutral, or negative. Evolution could change a species to the point where it destroys itself - evolutionary change isn't always good.

That's why I like creation, it's more dependable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, I think war is more a product of civilization than evolution.

But civilization is also a product of evolution, we're told.

 

[MerlinJ]

But civilization is also a product of evolution, we're told.

The capacity for having it is, but civilization itself isn't something that's passed on genetically.

 

[stevevw]

While it wouldn't surprise me if the 20th century was the deadliest due to the nature of its warfare, we do have to keep in mind that record keeping has also been dramatically improved in recent history.

For example, that list claims that in the 17th century, there were 6.1 million conflict related deaths. Yet some sources claim that in the Thirty Years' War, which took place in the 17th century, 8 million deaths occurred. That was just 1 war in 1 part of the world.

The site claims that in the 10th century, there were only 3000 war related casualties... if you then look at wikipedia to see what kind of events happened in that time (viking invasions, empires rising and falling, the first gunpowder use in battle, etc etc, and that's only the stuff that we can now find evidence for), the idea of only 3000 war related casualties in 100 years is laughable.

(edit: like: Battle of Achelous (917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . That's a single battle, that (by some estimations) already has a body count at least 20x higher than that of the entire century it took place in... I take most historical estimates with a few kilograms of salt )

Perhaps there maybe some extra deaths that can be added in from those centuries. But then like the articles said the chart didn't even count the massive death toll from all the democides accounting for about 170 million deaths. People likeMao Zedongwho was responsible for49-78 million deaths.Jozef Stalin 23 million deaths, Leopold II of Belgium 2-15 million deaths andHideki Tojo 5 million deaths are just a few.

Add two major world wars and many other conflicts I think there is no comparison. So either way the 20th century is the bloodiest century in history. We are continuing the same so far in the 21st century. We may break those records as well. The problem is now we have horrific weapons which could beat those numbers with one war by wiping out a couple of billion people in one go.

 

[stevevw]

No it's not. All out war might have become disadvantageous with the invention of nuclear weapons and the accompanying concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, but in the millennia before that, being good at warfare was very much an advantage. There's a reason why most of the world speaks english/french/spanish/chinese.

Thats what I'm talking about. Its not what happened 1000 years ago. Its what is happening as the result of years of wars. The mentality of warfare to sort out differences or to take something by force is not the best way to do things. It maybe perceived that being able to fight an enemy to stop their advances is good. But the fact that some people had decided to claim something they had no right to or to do it by force in the first place is barbaric and only leads to more conflict in the end. Live by the sword or gun and you will die by the sword or gun.

The end result is the weapons get bigger and better and the stakes become higher and higher. One side pushes and the other pushes back. Except now its massive bombs. The idea that everyone has nuclear weapons pointed at each other to maintain some sort of false peace is crazy. Its not peace its a hostage situation that people are forever worried about. No wonder many people live with anxiety and depression in a world that offers not much hope.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Perhaps there maybe some extra deaths that can be added in from those centuries. But then like the articles said the chart didn't even count the massive death toll from all the democides accounting for about 170 million deaths. People likeMao Zedongwho was responsible for49-78 million deaths.Jozef Stalin 23 million deaths, Leopold II of Belgium 2-15 million deaths andHideki Tojo 5 million deaths are just a few.

Add two major world wars and many other conflicts I think there is no comparison. So either way the 20th century is the bloodiest century in history. We are continuing the same so far in the 21st century. We may break those records as well. The problem is now we have horrific weapons which could beat those numbers with one war by wiping out a couple of billion people in one go.

In order to determine whether war has an increasing or decreasing impact in terms of loss of life, or whether it is about the same, it may be better to look at the percentage of the population that loses its life due to war rather than absolute numbers. And by that category there are very convincing cases made that war is responsible for a decreasing percentage of human deaths as we approach the present day.