Is war population control?

[Narz]

I know the reasons people think they go to war but I question them. For example, was it really logical that people would care so much about the death or Archduke Ferdinand as to expend howevermanymillion lives fighting over it?

I also theorize that perhaps "1st-world" wars today are much less bloody (along with the obvious reason of technology) largely because the populations of 1st world countries are realitively stable.

Note : I'm not claiming this theory as true necessarily, I have yet to even undertstand one man (let alone woman) let alone the movements of masses of men. Just seemed an interesting theory to discuss.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, the genocide in Rwanda was motivated in large part by unsustainable population density. However, I don't think that a war has ever been entirely sustained by a desire for population control. In the case of World War I, it was not Franz Ferdinand but the whole struggle for power in Europe that caused things to get out of hand.

 

[Dreadnought]

they used Ferninand's death as an excuse really...

 

[blackheart]

I also theorize that perhaps "1st-world" wars today are much less bloody (along with the obvious reason of technology) largely because the populations of 1st world countries are realitively stable.

The last major war fought between modernized powers was WW2, and that sure wasn't less bloody than third world countries fighting each other.

 

[Rossiya]

they used Ferninand's death as an excuse really...

you could relate the "excuse" bit to other modern wars too...

cough splutter- oil in iraq - splutter cough

 

[Evil Tyrant]

The Serbs were mad because the Austrians were occupying their land, so they killed a symbol of Austrian oppression. The Austrians were pissed because the heir to their throne was killed, and any moves against a Slavic nation of Orthodox Christians was bound to anger the Russians. The French were mad at the Germans for the Franco-Prussian war and were also allies of the Russians. The Germans were allies of Austria and saw that the French needed to be put back in their place. The Schleifen plan called for an invasion of Belgium, which naturally angered the British who were the allies of Belgium. The US was pretty mad at being torpedoed even though they were traveling on ships with British flags through a war-zone. It was only the Austrians and Serbs who really cared about the death of Franz Ferdinand, but the other countries were brought in by the actions of Austria and Serbia in response to the death. The actions of their allies brought in other nations.

 

[Bluemofia]

Ah... Gotta love MPPs.

And general rivalries.

But, war serves 2 purposes:

Keep the population down, so there won't be mass poverty.
Stimulate the economy to make things, usually things that kill the enemy.

 

[.Shane.]

I know the reasons people think they go to war but I question them. For example, was it really logical that people would care so much about the death or Archduke Ferdinand as to expend howevermanymillion lives fighting over it?

I also theorize that perhaps "1st-world" wars today are much less bloody (along with the obvious reason of technology) largely because the populations of 1st world countries are realitively stable.

Note : I'm not claiming this theory as true necessarily, I have yet to even undertstand one man (let alone woman) let alone the movements of masses of men. Just seemed an interesting theory to discuss.

This is one of the most ridiculous (and I'm picking a nicer word that what I'm really thinking) theses I've ever read. "1st-world" wars have been incredibly bloody. See WWI, WWII, the American Civil War, etc....

 

[Hakim]

Keeping population down? Hasn't a large population always been desired?

I have another theory about what makes people go to war: more power.

 

[Xanikk999]

I doubt it has ever been the cause of a war.

But it certainly is a result of many wars throughout history.

 

[eyrei]

I think it is more an excess of testosterone, which is a good sign that there are too many people.

 

[Warman17]

Disease is a far more able population control than war wil lever be (except perhaps nuclear war)

 

[Xanikk999]

Disease is a far more able population control than war wil lever be (except perhaps nuclear war)

What about biological warfare?

That can be very very devistating. And its the perfect human killer!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But if it kills everyone is it really "control"? Control means that you do not have more or less of what you want. If everyone dies there is no real control.

(Just splitting hairs here, don't mind me . . .)

 

[Narz]

The last major war fought between modernized powers was WW2, and that sure wasn't less bloody than third world countries fighting each other.

This is one of the most ridiculous (and I'm picking a nicer word that what I'm really thinking) theses I've ever read. "1st-world" wars have been incredibly bloody. See WWI, WWII, the American Civil War, etc....

You'd better re-read it then. I said MODERN wars (since the 90's). WW II was over 60 years old.

 

[Narz]

double post

 

[Bluemofia]

Technically, modern means 1900s onwards.

And there hasn't been a war between industrialized nations only for quite a while. (Iraq wasn't industrialized at all)

 

[Neomega]

I truly believe it is. Strane I was thinkign about this very subject last night for a while.

It's not intended population control, it is an innate instinct to fight eachother.

 

[Narz]

I truly believe it is. Strane I was thinkign about this very subject last night for a while.

It's not intended population control, it is an innate instinct to fight eachother.

Honestly (and I'm going off track a bit) I think humans were meant to live in groups of about 100-300 individuals. Beyond these numbers conflict and eventual war seems inevitable.

However, with the current population on this planet living that way seems unrealistic for the majority.

 

[Narz]

Technically, modern means 1900s onwards.

I used the word "now" in the OP not modern.