[extropy-chat] 'History' and the fulcrum of 1945

[Steve Davies]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson at rogers.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] 'History' and the fulcrum of 1945


> I think people miss the ecological point of war established when the 
> fighting units were tribes.  It is to reduce a population seen as too 
> large.
>
> So the unstated, even *denied* object in a war is to kill as many as 
> possible.
>
> *Something* has to keep population in balance with the productivity of the 
> ecosystem.  Since human have no predators, when the future looks bleak we 
> have to be our own predators.
>
> Grim.
>
> Keith Henson

If we allow that the role of warfare in the past was to reduce the size of 
populations that were too large, then you'd have to add that it no longer 
performs that function and has become progressively less effective at 
performing it since the advent of agriculture. In modern times there are 
very few cases where a population has been significantly reduced even by 
massive technological warfare (one possible case was the nineteenth century 
war between Paraguay and its neighbours) and no case where even the most 
devastating warfare (or for that matter massive loss of life to totalitarian 
governments - in total a larger cause of death in the twentieth century than 
warfare) has appreciably slowed down the long term population trend or had 
anything other than a very short term and minor effect. The effects of 
modern sanitation and productivity increases would seem to outweigh even the 
worst efforts of warriors. SD