Is war population control?

[Bluemofia]

Oh, well then reffering to "now", well, there hasn't been any industrialized and modernized nations fighting recently, now has there?

 

[Narz]

Oh, well then reffering to "now", well, there hasn't been any industrialized and modernized nations fighting recently, now has there?

Not against each other. Which follows from my thesis (since most moderized countries have stable populations).

 

[Atropos]

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.

I've spent quite a few years studying the origins of WWI, and it would be quite difficult to imagine a worse case study for your thesis.

If WWI was about population, then why did France, with a relatively stable population over the previous century, join?

Why were German nationalists so worried about emigration (except to German colonies)?

Why had there been no major war in Europe since 1871, in spite of explosive population growth?

 

[Atropos]

The Serbs were mad because the Austrians were occupying their land

Serbia's claim to Bosnia, where the killing took place, was highly disputable; interestingly, they did not claim Voivodina, which had a higher percentage Serb population. Also "the Serbs" is an incredible oversimplification - the premier was a bitter opponent of the Black Hand for which the assassin, Princip, worked (and was on holiday at the time).

so they killed a symbol of Austrian oppression.

1. Franz Ferdinand was well-known as an advocate of devolution (to counterbalance the influence of Hungary, which he hated).
2. What was he doing in Sarajevo on 28 June, the Serba national holiday?

The Austrians were pissed because the heir to their throne was killed,

Who had many bitter enemies at home. And why was the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia delayed for nearly a month after the shooting?

and any moves against a Slavic nation of Orthodox Christians was bound to anger the Russians.

The Russians had de facto put Serbia in the Austrian zone of influence in an agreement from the 1880s. Moreover, the Serbian government had been pro-Austrian until the 1903 coup.

The French were mad at the Germans for the Franco-Prussian war and were also allies of the Russians.

"La revanche" had been a dead letter for forty years: why did it suddenly revive around 1910? And what caused the alliance with Russia in the first place? Why didn't prominent French opponents of war intervene? (One reason, by the way, is that the most prominent of them, Josephe Caillaux, had been politically disqualified by a scandal involving his wife).

The Germans were allies of Austria and saw that the French needed to be put back in their place.

Again, why the alliance with Austria (whom the Germans had defeated only four years before the French)? And why would they have been worried about France, half their size in terms of population and shrinking in relative terms?

The Schleifen plan called for an invasion of Belgium, which naturally angered the British who were the allies of Belgium.

They weren't, actually. The Belgians were neutral and had earlier refused military talks with the British. You're thinking of the 1837 agreement guaranteeing the integrity of Belgium (the famous "scrap of paper" as the Daily Mail called it), to which six other powers were signatories.

The US was pretty mad at being torpedoed even though they were traveling on ships with British flags through a war-zone.

The US was irrelevant for the first three years.

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.

Ah, the "entangling alliances" argument? None of the relevant agreements holding together the Entente (1904, 1907) specified a casus belli.

 

[Narz]

I've spent quite a few years studying the origins of WWI, and it would be quite difficult to imagine a worse case study for your thesis.

If WWI was about population, then why did France, with a relatively stable population over the previous century, join?

I dunno, peer pressure?

Why were German nationalists so worried about emigration (except to German colonies)?

They would miss their friends, especially since there was no e-mail back then.

Why had there been no major war in Europe since 1871, in spite of explosive population growth?

I assume you mean 1971. And hasn't Europe's population risen pretty slowly since then. Except Eastern Europe and Eastern Europe has had it's share of wars since then.

 

[Narz]

remember, I said it's just a theory, not an end all be all explaination for war

 

[Bluemofia]

Not against each other. Which follows from my thesis (since most moderized countries have stable populations).

Well, stable populations aren't a factor for avoiding war really. During WWI and WWII, the industrialized nations have stable populations. But they declared war anyways.

And war with the Soviets and the Capitalists seemed imminent in the cold war, just that the MAD principal kept each other in line.

 

[blackheart]

Not against each other. Which follows from my thesis (since most moderized countries have stable populations).

Actually the better reason is that such war between modern powers would be equally devestating for both sides.

Why pick on someone who can defend themselves when you can go after the small-fries?

 

[Atropos]

I dunno, peer pressure?

No one knows, but it certainly wasn't population pressure.

They would miss their friends, especially since there was no e-mail back then.

Why was Britain so much more encouraging of emigration?

I assume you mean 1971. And hasn't Europe's population risen pretty slowly since then. Except Eastern Europe and Eastern Europe has had it's share of wars since then.

Huh? We're talking WWI here. It broke out in 1914. To reiterate my point: If population pressure leads to wars, why was 1871-1914 one of the most peaceful periods in Europe's history?

 

[Sidhe]

Well of course but it's not particularaly controled and post war baby booms tend to make populations recover fairly quickly so it isn't very effective either, large numbers of deaths in populations makes us reproductively productive it seems, why is the subject of much debate, but it makes sense evolutionary wise.

Anyway we don't need negative population control yet especially in Europe, so war is still pretty invalid whichever way you look at it? China's farmland on it's own could with the right technology feed the world three times over? So why do we need to reduce population? In Europe our populations are fairly stable with or without war.

As for a theory of war it sucks, and is probably not instrumental in deciding foreign policy, that'd be diplomatic incompetence or just greed and fear, its psychological mostly, but of course if you have tiny populations who rarely come into contact then theres's less war, but an incredibly minor influence I'd imagine.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And why was the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia delayed for nearly a month after the shooting?

According to Barbara Tuchman at least, because the Austrian soldiers had to help with the harvest until then and obviously they didn't want to deliver the ultimatum before the army was ready.

 

[Narz]

Why was Britain so much more encouraging of emigration?

Brits are more stoic?

Huh? We're talking WWI here. It broke out in 1914. To reiterate my point: If population pressure leads to wars, why was 1871-1914 one of the most peaceful periods in Europe's history?

I don't know.

 

[Neomega]

Huh? We're talking WWI here. It broke out in 1914. To reiterate my point: If population pressure leads to wars, why was 1871-1914 one of the most peaceful periods in Europe's history?

A more sophisticated system of diplomacy and alliances.

Hiwever, it was just holding the lid on the pressure cooker. WWI was a major event in world history, by far, the most destructive war ever, up to that point.

 

[Sidhe]

Atropos: we fought a few wars with Africa during that period and so did a few other countries, it's not a very good example but I still agree with your points.

I'd be hard pressed to point out a time period when Europe wasn't deeply divided by war. at least post 200 BC. It does point out that humanities propensity to declare war was not effected by population, because there has been no significant increse in war which correlates with population growth.

 

[Neomega]

Atropos: we fought a few wars with Africa during that period and so did a few other countries, it's not a very good example but I still agree with your points.

I'd be hard pressed to point out a time period when Europe wasn't deeply divided by war. at least post 200 BC. It does point out that humanities propensity to declare war was not effected by population, because there has been no significant increse in war which correlates with population growth.

But imagine th eworld's population today without war. War slows the growth curve.

 

[CaptainF]

War is giving up and giving in.

 

[taper]

I read something once about how wars don't really decrease population growth, because growth is mostly determined by the women. Even with all the men in the field, only one night of leave a year is needed to "plant the seed." And while some women are killed in wars, historically men have taken far heavier losses.

I also don't think wars are started because of population control, although a country with a lot of people might think they're able to win a war because of the number of people it has. Virtually every war has economics as one of the core reasons.

 

[Spartan117]

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

I read something once about how wars don't really decrease population growth, because growth is mostly determined by the women. Even with all the men in the field, only one night of leave a year is needed to "plant the seed." And while some women are killed in wars, historically men have taken far heavier losses.

I also don't think wars are started because of population control, although a country with a lot of people might think they're able to win a war because of the number of people it has. Virtually every war has economics as one of the core reasons.

agreed to above

majority of wars are not started for the desire of population control...

 

[Neomega]

war is never started as population control, but it does slow population growth.

Women are not the carriers of life. Without men, there is no reproduction. Alot of it depends on social norms, but mostly, there can only be one father and one mother for a child, so even if men "sire" children amongst many women, the child being raised with both parents is the one most likely to succeed, and carry on reproducing.

It is a very complex soiciological issue, but at it's core, war can greatly reduce the population of animals consuming resources in an area.