### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###
Humans have fought wars for thousands of years. Is it part of a human nature to wage wars and kill other humans, or is it some kind of pathology?
War is rejected by the vast majority of people. Unfortunately, you always have those who seek control and power. It is from this group that wars are typically instigated. good for you! i, jesus christ, am here channeling thru a christian buddha. it will be a long time before i come back to life on earth but i am always here in spirit. this is jesus christ responding to your threat. your life is in danger not the west's. my father and i have had it. i am middle eastern and you make us look bad. shame on you. alla and i will take you down before you ever do anything again. you can guarantee it.
You are a fool. Jesus will return soon, and all of you will be cast into the lake of fire. Repent, before it's too late sorry you are wrong i have heared from a friend of mine mankind will grow faster if they make war it is also easier(you know the easy way mostly leads to evil things)
but peace takes a lot time and hard work and it takes longer that mankind will grow from it but when it grows i am sure it will grow hard(hard way leads to enlightment some say :P )
its not the human way but it is thought us to do that way but what should it be if it were thought us different?street art about weapons and how its the only thing that can protect usAs long as every person in the world has a different personality or different idea of anything at all THERE WILL BE WAR.
There is war because people think different from other people.. Thats why theres war. So there will always be war, you cannot stop that. You can reduce it, like by having wars without killings maybe that definitely a goal worth to die trying to achieve. But people are always gonna fight over individuality and we are BORN individual, so yea nothing you can do about that eitherBut brains will only get you so far, physical will get you there on your feet, your brain will get you there in a jar. Both are necessary, but you only need so much intelligence before it becomes unnecessary, and possibly even a burden. If you were smart enough to figure out everything, then you wouldn't worry about things happening because you could "control" it. Then it happens and you don't have the strength to actually control it.I only say its weakness, because it times where fighting is needed, a pacifist will work around it, instead going straight for peace then war. If we live in peace forever then eventually there will just be too many people, and somewhere things will go into choas and everything will fall with it. Peace is only bad if thats all you try to attain, there must be a pecking order, if not then everyone becomes unhappy and it just ends badly. Muscle (sword) is not stronger than a pen (gun), nor is it more useful. Why would pacifism be defined as weakness? Without the rule of law and justice, modern society would become anarchistic and people would get nowhere. I think you have a very good point. I think that fighting and general aggression is more natural for some, just as genius is for others. The only difference to me is that, fighting is necessary for survival, and genius is necessary for advancement and increasing productivity. A group of people could live without technology in the medieval ages, but without warriors they are to die soon. Therefor, the sword is far more useful then the pen. What does it mean to be weak? Humans may have become physically weaker because they don't work in the fields any more, but spend most of their time doing less manual and more intellectual work, but in the same time humans have become intellectually stronger. I think that is true in only todays warfare. Farther back, you would HAVE to fight to defend yourself, and there was more sense of honor. Back then you sit in an inn, someone bad mouths you, you fight them, now someone does the same thing, and you sue them? Or worse,do nothing about it. People have as a whole, become pacifist, do anything to come to peace, but yet, its war that is necessary, otherwise the gene pool is muddied by the weak, and the whole becomes weak and just pathetic. The cold hard truth, only three things kill off humans, disease, age, and your enemies sword. The only thing anymore killing us off, is age, and thats a longshot. With modern medicine and warfare almost nothing, we are living far to long. And anymore, war would be the only thing to drastically reduce overpopulation, but its being fought with robots, or at anyrate their is no such thing as the front lines. Its more of a hunting game, set up, wait for it to walk in your crosshairs, and pow.
Mathematics, indeed, becomes too unrealistic, as it can generalize concepts into infinite or infinitesimal levels. Physics, as a "root", so to speak, is the only valid contestant in terms of applicable mathematical reality.
Sociology is in fact a misnomer, with 'socio' being Latin and 'ology' being Greek lol.
If one wishes to obtain a more realistic view of life, I suggest they research every discipline they can think of - as they all relate in one way or another.
Maybe all behavior can be reduced to physics, and even one step further -- to mathematics, but that does not seem realistic.
When systems get more complex, they also gain qualitatively new -- qualities! Physics is on the lowest level, than there is chemistry, than biology, than again sociology, and finally psychology. Or is it psychology and then sociology?
People act differently when alone, and when in masses. How can this be explained on the physics/atomic level? From a biological perspective, cells are xenophobic - they reject everything they don't consider as "part of" the body. Their specific molecular composition causes this disagreement - yet on an atomic level, they are the same. It is possible that human rejection then, is due to the lack of civility as well as conflicting opinions. This is analogous to the description of cellular/molecular interactions. On a fundamental level, our bodies merely interact according to physics.
Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong.
War has been around since the dawn of mankind (one family may not like the other). So it will continue to be with us.War is not really about people killing people nor is it really a question of human nature. Historically wars were about conquest and gaining or maintaining terrirtory. Today wars are more political in nature.
War is about the conflict and survival of ideas and about personal freedoms. When two differing ideologies clash intensely there is little that one will not do to the other in order to preserve its existence. When personal freedom is threatened we will rise to defend.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Is overpopulation a problem?
Regarding the above does a misnomer really ever exist? For a word's meaning comes not from its constituent parts but rather is definiton? Or hence from 'misnomer' being defined does it forewith exist... War has become redundant. We need it to thin the weak from the gene pool. but now we've been in a "war" for almost ten years and have lost ~500 troops. That's fucking PATHETIC.
Wars are vital to the healthy continuation of the human race, and now The leaders are too weak to see that.
Just Stating The Obvious.
Part of the Many,
Anonymous Usama bin Laden is dead, but with his death a new and great leader will rise from the ashes who can carry our cause far into the future. Already, the elders have gathered, those who are too old to continue the fight long enough, to choice the successor to take us well into the next decade and beyond. The West will celebrate the Great One's death and think that the end is near, but it is still only the beginning and the fight will continue until all of them have fallen. Death to the west. Humans rarely if ever spontaneously go to wars, but are instead forced, drafted, conditioned with prison, thought how to fight, convinced by propaganda that they fight for good causes, etc. and all that is initiated by government, by few people and not all or most humans. They send soldiers to wars for selfish reasons. If wars were human nature, all these actions would not be necessary because people would gladly take arms and go to wars.
Wait! It is too soon to make any conclusions. For example, genius is also not common, and yet, it is not considered a pathology. Maybe I need to approach this problem from some other angle. Persons have been killing other persons for thousands of years, and therefore it could be considered a common behavior.
But immidiatly I have noticed that only a small portion of persons have killed. Majority of persons did not kill. Therefore I conclude that killing a is not a common behavior but a pathology that exists for millenia.Humans have fought wars for thousands of years. Is it part of a human nature to wage wars and kill other humans, or is it some kind of pathology?