If man is evolving, why is there still war?

[Radagast]

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.

There are no advocates of evolution I'm aware of that claim that species get better in a moral sense. So the prevalence of war is completely irrelevant, actually.

 

[Kylie]

Maybe show us the part where thermonuclear war is beneficial for the survival of the species?!

There seems to be more at work here than survival of the...well anything!

You really don't know what evolution is.

 

[dad]

There are no advocates of evolution I'm aware of that claim that species get better in a moral sense. So the prevalence of war is completely irrelevant, actually.

It is a trait of mankind actually and anything but irrelevant. If it wasn't inherited, where did it come from?

Let's face it thermonuclear war is not survival of the fittest.

 

[dad]

You really don't know what evolution is.

If it claims we descended from apes and worms, one would think they would have some war going on too? Sin fits far better. God's explanation is far greater.

 

[dad]

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.

Hiroshima and WW2 and the pagan crusades of Bush warring on civilian populations and etc seem to fly in the face of your vague claim.


The bible says more than half the population will die in the end. When was the last time that happened?

You guys can't even tell us when Christ was born, or when Noah lived. How would you think yourself qualified to give numbers of people dead long before history started?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It is a trait of mankind actually and anything but irrelevant. If it wasn't inherited, where did it come from?

We're a species that lives in complex social groups, it's not too hard to work out.

 

[dad]

Youre wrong about that.

You know this...how?

 

[dad]

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

So ant colonies wage war? If we came from the same parent, why is man so war like? Not because he inherited from animals.

 

[Radagast]

So ant colonies wage war?

Yes, they do, actually.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Hiroshima and WW2 and the pagan crusades of Bush warring on civilian populations and etc seem to fly in the face of your vague claim.

Not really, we are talking about the percentage of population that dies in wars through history, not the absolute number. An example that is quite interesting is English/British casualties in the English Civil War versus the First World War. Guess which conflict was responsible for three times as large a proportion of deaths in the population?

The bible says more than half the population will die in the end.

Yawn.

When was the last time that happened?

No idea.

You guys can't even tell us when Christ was born, or when Noah lived.

I thought that was your job. It's hardly our fault if the historical records of your favourite characters are vague or non-existent.

How would you think yourself qualified to give numbers of people dead long before history started?

Clearly we are not talking about before recorded history, but if you want half the male population dying in conflicts you are better off looking at tribal warfare than western 20th century conflicts:
War Before Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[stevevw]

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.

No the chart actually accounted for percentage of population. So the 20th century was the bloodiest per percentage of population. Not that that should matter to much. If 100,000 died out of a million 300 years ago and then a 900,000 die out of 10 million today the 900,000 deaths is still a hell of a lot of deaths compared to the 100,000. Even if though it is less in percentage of population. Having nearly a million people or in the case of the 20th century millions and millions die compared to 10s of thousands in past centuries doesn't matter when it comes to percentages of population. Having millions die in war is bad no matter how you look at it. It seems people are always trying to minimize things so that it makes it look like we dont have a problem. Believe me we have some problems.

 

[stevevw]

So ant colonies wage war? If we came from the same parent, why is man so war like? Not because he inherited from animals.

Its a war gene.

 

[quatona]

If there´s gravity, why do the stars still fly in the sky?

 

[Mediate]

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.

There are a massive number of reasons for that. War is essentially, when all is said and done, a fight over resources or control.

Bush waged war to ''liberate'' and that war led to the deaths of more people than Saddam Hussein killed, and who came out with power and resources? The USA did.

War has always been about power and resources or the lack of them both.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bush waged war to ''liberate'' and that war led to the deaths of more people than Saddam Hussein killed,

Should he have placed a quota on how many people to kill?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Bush waged war to ''liberate'' and that war led to the deaths of more people than Saddam Hussein killed, and who came out with power and resources? The USA did.

I thought the USA lost out in the bidding after the war for the oil fields.

 

[Golden Yak]

If it claims we descended from apes and worms, one would think they would have some war going on too? Sin fits far better. God's explanation is far greater.

Gombe Chimpanzee War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe show us the part where thermonuclear war is beneficial for the survival of the species?!

There seems to be more at work here than survival of the...well anything!

Evolution is just a scientific explanation of our ancestry.
Psychologically, humans today are almost the exact same as 3000 years ago.
The only difference is that 3000 years ago, the "war technology" was sticks and stones. Today, it's guns, F16's, bombs and nuclear technology.

At the same time, human society has become a lot more moral and humane. Today, there's a lot more compassion, solidarity and respect for humanity.

Back in the days that you idolize, people were stoned to death in public for rather trivial things.

Today, we even protect the human rights of serial killers in the civilized world. We don't kill them in the streets. We lock them up and try to treat them as a human (providing shelter, food, medical treatment etc).

It's a myth that there is more hatred and war today then 1000s of years ago.

The opposite is true.
Yes, even considering the 2 world wars from last century.

 

[AV1611VET]

Today, we even protect the human rights of serial killers in the civilized world.

Assuming they're allowed to be born first.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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/

Considering the fact that in the 20th century there were more humans alive then in the 5000 years preceeding it in total, wouldn't you expect that?

I don't think it says much.

Like said by someone in the thread, war is in a way no more or less then "organized killing". That's the point of going to war: to kill / get rid of the enemy.

For the vast majority of human history, this happened with sticks and stones.

Imagine what some of the ancient wars and battles might have looked like if they had access to nuclear technology, cluster bombs, f16's, ak47's, P90's, tanks, etc...

Imagine the crusades. Imagine the Persians. Imagine Roman conquests. Etc.

Here's a thought:
I say that if those ancients people had this technology - then none of us would be here. Because these people were a lot more barbaric then us.
Despite the world wars etc, we seem to have enough a sense of responsability to not destroy ourselves with these WMD's. I'm not so sure that I could say the same if the ancients had WMD's.