Should we stop using war as population culling of our young people?

[French Patriot]

Should we stop using war as population culling of our young people?

For most of our Godless history, governments and religions have used war to reduce the population of their unruly men and women. This is understandable for those times, as tribes, governments and religions would have wanted to reduce the overrepresented male numbers, as compared to much fewer female numbers. Population balance, unfortunately, was required.

Ancient tough love from the Gods.

Modern wars seem to be designed to continue that vile policy.

Should we ask our political and oligarchic masters to stop wasting our young people with ancient ways?

If we are not to change our ways, cull the old. We are living too long, and the joys are fewer, as we watch the young be buried before the old. The opposite of what nature wants to see.

Culling the old is the moral thing to do. Our ways of culling the young are not natural.

Population control: Is it a tool of the rich?

As the world population reaches seven billion people, the BBC's Mike Gallagher charts ideals and the criticisms of population control campaigns over the past 50 years.

www.bbc.com

Regards
DL

 

[taxslave]

I always thought wars should be fought by leaders with short knives.

 

[French Patriot]

I always thought wars should be fought by leaders with short knives.

Nothing like pressure to improve focus.

To get that from world leaders, people would have to actually demand decent leadership from the clowns we presently allow to lead us.

Waiting.

These days, you can't get a majority to admit that shit stints.

Regards
DL

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What a load of horse shit.

 

[French Patriot]

What a load of horse shit.

Case in point.

Human shit was under discussion, fool.

Do not try to deflect from your birthright of being human shit.

I do like the way you presented your argument along with your opinion.

As empty as you shit filled head.

Regards
DL

 

[B00Mer]

Biden & Company the Climate Radicals would love the draft and kill off a few million to save the planet. As long as they stay the rich and elite.

Is population control the answer to fixing climate change? | CBC News

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Case in point.

Human shit was under discussion, fool.

Do not try to deflect from your birthright of being human shit.

I do like the way you presented your argument along with your opinion.

As empty as you shit filled head.

Regards
DL

I don't need to present an argument. Your alleged facts are utter fantasy. Far, far more people outside the age band of "young people" are killed in wars than "young people."

You have the standard impaired view of North Americans. Because it has been so long since a war was fought on American or Canadian territory, you think that the "young people," i.e. soldiers, are the ones who do the most dying. And that's just plain wrong.

For example, in World War II there were an estimated 70-85 million deaths. Of these, there were approximately 20-25 million military deaths. In other words, for every soldier who died, two or more civilians died. Soldiers being a rough approximation of "the young," they are the group that dies LEAST in war.

You can scream and yell as much as you like. The facts contradict your thesis.

 

[petros]

I don't need to present an argument. Your alleged facts are utter fantasy. Far, far more people outside the age band of "young people" are killed in wars than "young people."

You have the standard impaired view of North Americans. Because it has been so long since a war was fought on American or Canadian territory, you think that the "young people," i.e. soldiers, are the ones who do the most dying. And that's just plain wrong.

For example, in World War II there were an estimated 70-85 million deaths. Of these, there were approximately 20-25 million military deaths. In other words, for every soldier who died, two or more civilians died. Soldiers being a rough approximation of "the young," they are the group that dies LEAST in war.

You can scream and yell as much as you like. The facts contradict your thesis.

It's intergenerational damage as well.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's intergenerational damage as well.

It's that like "lasting psychological damage?"

 

[petros]

In a subjective or objective sense?

 

[French Patriot]

Biden & Company the Climate Radicals would love the draft and kill off a few million to save the planet. As long as they stay the rich and elite.

Is population control the answer to fixing climate change? | CBC News

Population numbers are not a problem. They taper off and reduce to sustainable levels at about 8 billion.

Nature and heat will likely take a billion or two, if we continue to be stupid about our eco system.

Expect a lot of refugees looking to an improving Canada for refuge.

I don't like the numbers, if we start looking anything like the U.S.

We are in for a wild, wild ride in the only remaining frontier country that is generating new arable land..

Regards
DL

 

[French Patriot]

I don't need to present an argument. Your alleged facts are utter fantasy. Far, far more people outside the age band of "young people" are killed in wars than "young people."

You have the standard impaired view of North Americans. Because it has been so long since a war was fought on American or Canadian territory, you think that the "young people," i.e. soldiers, are the ones who do the most dying. And that's just plain wrong.

For example, in World War II there were an estimated 70-85 million deaths. Of these, there were approximately 20-25 million military deaths. In other words, for every soldier who died, two or more civilians died. Soldiers being a rough approximation of "the young," they are the group that dies LEAST in war.

You can scream and yell as much as you like. The facts contradict your thesis.

The how we kill our young is more important in terms of changing our ways.

Put your own child in an infantry line of any king, such as portrayed, and tell us if he belongs there or if you do.

infantry square line - Google Search

If a in one of those infantry squares, and waiting for my turn to die, as those in the forward squares were destroyed by what would look like a human tsunami, I would wonder why my parents created the conditions I was dying for.

The wrong generations and cause of the situations are doing the dying.

The old should step up and die for their mistakes, for justice's sake, and step up their children, for decencies sake.

Regards
DL

 

[French Patriot]

It's intergenerational damage as well.

True to a point.

Fact is, we produce almost perfect mimics in our children.

I like that in the bell curve of intelligent use of information, and the intelligence in our children to use it, we are near the next quantum jump in how we govern ourselves.

The demographers will rule, just as Socrates predicted democracy evolving to.

Regards
DL

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Culling the old is the moral thing to do. Our ways of culling the young are not natural.

I seriously doubt that culling the young was a significant motive in anyone's decision to go to war, though it's probably true that some of the Crusades were at least partly motivated by a desire to find an outlet for some unruly noblemen. Until the advent of modern scientific medicine, most of the culling was done, even in war, by disease. Given how common war is in human history, the claim that it's not natural lacks a certain credibility, it's certainly common enough to be called normal human behaviour. And what would you suggest as a moral way of culling the old? Deny medical treatment to anyone over 70, perhaps, or set them all adrift on an ice floe? Gas them on their 70th birthday? Tie them out in the woods for the wolves and cougars? And how will you feel about that on your 70th? Maybe you should rethink the ethics of that claim.

 

[French Patriot]

I seriously doubt that culling the young was a significant motive in anyone's decision to go to war, though it's probably true that some of the Crusades were at least partly motivated by a desire to find an outlet for some unruly noblemen. Until the advent of modern scientific medicine, most of the culling was done, even in war, by disease. Given how common war is in human history, the claim that it's not natural lacks a certain credibility, it's certainly common enough to be called normal human behaviour. And what would you suggest as a moral way of culling the old? Deny medical treatment to anyone over 70, perhaps, or set them all adrift on an ice floe? Gas them on their 70th birthday? Tie them out in the woods for the wolves and cougars? And how will you feel about that on your 70th? Maybe you should rethink the ethics of that claim.

I have no need to because, as you point out, we are not doing as nature would dictate.

You are correct in that there is and was natural culling going on, but you forget the shortage of women for the men to fight over.

I do not think the last 5,000 years of our war history is normal.

I think the better than 20,000 years of peace that proceeded that is our natural state.

As to how I would cull the old instead of our young, change the rules of war to reverse our un-natural ways.

Go natural.

You are talking suicide and such, while I am talking our moral duty as parents.

Regards
DL

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

NOW you have something. Well, sort of. I don't put much stock in calling this or that "natural" or not. But the advent of warfare was contemporaneous with, and I would argue was caused by, another innovation. . . agriculture.

Agriculture requires certain things that are necessary conditions for war.

1. Motivation: When your food supply comes from crops, you have a motivation to go take other people's crops. That's the attackers' motivation. The defenders' motivation is that they must hold this ground, at least until harvest time, or starve. Preferably longer, because clearing and tilling a field that was cleared and tilled last year is far easier than starting fresh. Hunter-gatherers have no such motivation. They move around naturally, and if another bunch comes into the territory, one of the two bands will soon move on.

2. Population: Agriculture is so much more efficient at producing food than hunting and gathering that it makes concentrations of population possible. It also makes them necessary. Agriculture is very labor-intensive. But it is so productive that it leads to the next factor. . .

3. Specialization: Contrary to the myths of the Shemanese, Native nations in North America did not have "warriors." They had hunters who would sometimes fight. The primary work of hunter-gatherers is the production of food, and it takes all working for all to eat. Even the most primitive forms of agriculture allow a relatively small percentage of the population to feed everybody, so the people who aren't needed in food production can be full-time, specialized toolmakers, artists, priests, managers, kings. . . and soldiers.

And there you have it. I could go on for pages, but that's the summary. Just about all the aspects of nationhood: land, property rights (ergo law), heirarchies, and us-vs.-themism are simply unnecessary without agriculture.

 

[French Patriot]

NOW you have something. Well, sort of. I don't put much stock in calling this or that "natural" or not. But the advent of warfare was contemporaneous with, and I would argue was caused by, another innovation. . . agriculture.

Yes agriculture was a part of it all, but the largest factor was our ability to kill each other with weapons of bronze, and later steel.

We did not have a need for fortified cities for 20,000 years under Goddess worship.

We only needed them after we could kill, en mass, and put our male war God in charge.

I have a long link of a boring professor should you want more details.

Happily, she gets to the main parts in summary in the last 20 or so min.

The World of the Goddess - Marija Gimbutas - YouTube

Regards
DL