Can overpopulation be the source of war?

[Vinayaka]

Don't you think that people wage wars for access to the sea, for land, for strategic positions, or for a perception of a need to protect their way of life?

For sure. Ethnocentricity is a problem for humanity, if taken too far.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is more to it than just food, though stealing from neighbors has always been a popular route to tribal prosperity.
There's also territory and resource access, like tin, lumber or spices. There's also the fact that humans like conflict, it's exciting and a social binder.

"Localized" problems in today's world tend to ramify far afield. A drought in the middle East can lead to right-wing governments in Europe and massacres in Norway.

My point was that it WASN'T generally due to food. The Islamic invasions, and world wars weren't about food.

 

[Valjean]

So Europeans and Japanese, for instance, with their populations heading into
what some call the "death spiral" need to curb their children even more. To the
point where you have senile old societies - and Africans, for instance, who need
those kids, can keep having a bunch more.

Good points. The economies of current civilized societies depend on perpetual growth. This is obviously unsustainable. Either we radically alter our growth and consumption economies, or the house of cards is going to collapse.

African societies used to be stable when natural checks like famine, warfare, disease and injury kept population in check, but these have been largely alleviated, and population is soaring. Watersheds, flora and fauna are severely impacted.
So yes, where natural checks and balances have been alleviated, populations should be encouraged to have fewer children, and alternative social supports should be instituted.

 

[Nakosis]

Wasn’t sure where to put this one, but some fundamentalists believe that we should overproduce humans. It got me to wondering “Can overpopulation be the source of war?”

For example if there is enough oil for the population of the whole world for the foreseeable future why are we fighting over oil?

Could it be that some of our wars are driven by simple overpopulation?

I think more likely it'd be a lack of resources, which could be a result of overpopulation.

Oil is important for our economy. We'd want to make sure we have continual access to it.

 

[calm]

Wasn’t sure where to put this one, but some fundamentalists believe that we should overproduce humans. It got me to wondering “Can overpopulation be the source of war?”

For example if there is enough oil for the population of the whole world for the foreseeable future why are we fighting over oil?

Could it be that some of our wars are driven by simple overpopulation?

We humans have been commissioned by God to fill the earth, for He said:
(Genesis 9:7 KJV)
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

There is no "overpopulation", as the media claim and spread; and it never will.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'd favor a three child policy that'd sterilize anybody who has reproduced more than a few offspring; this would result in a sustainable human population size.

Three child policy will over-populate the world. For a static population, the figure is 2.1 (at the moment).

2 - which people should have "fewer children" ?

I think the poor people should have less children, because they cannot feed or educate them well.

So Europeans and Japanese, for instance, with their populations heading into what some call the "death spiral" need to curb their children even more.

No one has asked them to do so. It is their own wish, and I would say, faulty thinking. If they do not procreate, they will be wiped out. They don't want to take the trouble of raising children.

 

[joe1776]

Wasn’t sure where to put this one, but some fundamentalists believe that we should overproduce humans. It got me to wondering “Can overpopulation be the source of war?”

For example if there is enough oil for the population of the whole world for the foreseeable future why are we fighting over oil?

Could it be that some of our wars are driven by simple overpopulation?

I doubt it, Daniel.

We humans have an unconscious need to feel superior to others in human worth. The need to prove ourselves superior causes arrogant-competitive behavior. The three major causes of war can be classified as arrogant-competitive behavior on the part of the aggressor:

racism: Our race is superior to theirs!
nationalism: Our nation is superior to theirs!
religious intolerance: Our religion is superior to theirs!

I see group pride, usually thought to be a virtue, as disguised arrogance since we know intuitively that the man who is supremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud had he, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. It's not that he thinks of his groups as wonderful; it's that they are HIS groups and He is wonderful.

 

[SomeRandom]

No he was only a titan

Ego then?

 

[Darkforbid]

Ego then?

Yep, I'm obviously superior to all other life

 

[SomeRandom]

Yep, I'm obviously superior to all other life

Ahh of course

 

[unisus]

The opposite is true; humans are a much more valuable resource than oil, and they are considered livestock to bankers. The militaries are at war to absorb the populations, not for the oil; the oil may be a side perk or a factor in a much larger equation to invade, but the ultimate objective is usually to hijack the population to control its economy. From there, instantiating mind-control tactics like sex-fused capitalism & subliminal messaging in technology will be used to drive the nations for whichever purpose the bankers see fit.

The war in Iraq was a strategic conspiracy between the American/Israeli alliance. Israel wasn't going to be made into an American state by accident. Not only was Israel funded by the American military into its existence, it is literally an extension of America despite what they will tell you.

The Americans did themselves a massive disservice when they belligerently rejected Israel as a state; they cooperated to reject this from happening, and they also now deny that Israel still has virtually the same status as an American state. As you walk around America they will, sometimes forcefully and with vehement hatred, tell you that you are deluded in believing this is the case.

But it is not only historically fact on every account, it continues to remain the same situation. It is the idiocy of the populace that has conspired to disguise this knowledge for whatever unknown reason. However, dual-citizenship, militant alliance, and even attempts at forcing the people to recognize that Israel is a state has simply flown under the radar—but it's there.

And so if you stop lying to yourself, you will find that most Americans barely believe smoking is doing them damage or cheeseburgers, let alone acknowledging the relationship between Israel & America. It's an extension of our military & vice versa; there has long been an agenda to expand Israel. Israel was taken in the first place from the Palestinians mainly due to the fact that Israel is prime real estate; it is a massively valuable trade route between two continents. They'll tell you it was for religious reasons, but it was mainly for economic privilege of owning the tissue between Africa & Asia. You can makeup your own mind, of course; I'm sure many will beg to disagree.

At the end of the day, Iraq was a large chunk of the Middle East and they wanted to expand Israel. In other words, the bankers operating the American/Israeli alliance wanted another territory to add to their belt. From there they will be able to instantiate the mind control of capitalism to drive the population for taxes, veritably replacing one religion with the cult of capitalism which is actually originated from an occult "religion", itself.

The idea that capitalism is magically secular and that all forms of cults exist, exempt of being classified in the pagan pantheon of "to whom do you serve" is specifically an occult practice to gaslight the people in refusing to protest. Capitalism is the cult of Cupid, and they wanted to spread its infections through Iraq so they can begin to use sex & pleasure-based programming to control the population through advertising: ie. psychological & manufactured scarcity-based enslavement.

Iraq will then be used to absorb the taxes, energy, resources, and calvary of soldiers for the shadow puppeteers behind it all.

But rest assured, the core agenda is to absorb or eradicate populations, because there is no greater threat than the power in numbers. Oil is a perk.

 

[MonkeyFire]

War is original sin, that is where war begins.

 

[Wandering Monk]

World population growth rates have been falling for a while now:

 

[Valjean]

We humans have been commissioned by God to fill the earth, for He said:
(Genesis 9:7 KJV)
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

There is no "overpopulation", as the media claim and spread; and it never will.

So despite massive evidence to the contrary, you choose to live in a fantasy world.

I haven't noticed media claiming overpopulation, if anything it's a taboo subject.

 

[Valjean]

World population growth rates have been falling for a while now: View attachment 33886

Growth rate, though, is not growth. Our population is still growing.

Humans are using resources faster than they can be replaced. Obviously this isn't sustainable, and is clear evidence of overpopulation.
Human have impacted the ecosystem since the Pleistocene, even with low numbers and little technology. Today we're sustaining ourselves with increasingly complex technology and the planet's on the verge of environmental collapse.

 

[Milton Platt]

Wasn’t sure where to put this one, but some fundamentalists believe that we should overproduce humans. It got me to wondering “Can overpopulation be the source of war?”

For example if there is enough oil for the population of the whole world for the foreseeable future why are we fighting over oil?

Could it be that some of our wars are driven by simple overpopulation?

The pat answer is :Yes". A shortage of resources, especially food and water, can produce wars.

 

[Augustus]

I see group pride, usually thought to be a virtue, as disguised arrogance since we know intuitively that the man who is supremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud had he, by some twist of fate, been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran.

You don't think your wife is the most beautiful or your daughter is the smartest because it's an objective statement of fact, you think it true because they are your wife and daughter.

It's not that he thinks of his groups as wonderful; it's that they are HIS groups and He is wonderful

It's more that he thinks they are wonderful because they are his group. Like he thinks his family are wonderful because they are his family.

It's the way our brain works - in-group bias

 

[joe1776]

You don't think your wife is the most beautiful or your daughter is the smartest because it's an objective statement of fact, you think it true because they are your wife and daughter.

Yes, that's true but it's irrelevant because the love of family is unlike group attachments to strangers and the bias is understandable.

It's more that he thinks they are wonderful because they are his group. Like he thinks his family are wonderful because they are his family...It's the way our brain works - in-group bias

OK but in-group bias is an effect not a cause. I'm explaining that in-group bias is caused by the arrogant-competitive need to feel superior to others.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, that's true but it's irrelevant because the love of family is unlike group attachments to strangers and the bias is understandable.

Group attachment to those who are part of your in-group is also understandable. We evolved as social, but tribal, animals.

Our social evolution relied on being able to make bonds with those who we are not directly related to, what is known by anthropologists as fictive kinship.

OK but in-group bias is an effect not a cause.

It's very much a cause as it is a fundamental aspect of our cognition.

Assign people to completely arbitrary groups (red/blue) and they will instantly start to show in/out group bias.

 

[joe1776]

Group attachment to those who are part of your in-group is also understandable. We evolved as social, but tribal, animals.

Our social evolution relied on being able to make bonds with those who we are not directly related to, what is known by anthropologists as fictive kinship.

We humans have observed for centuries that group pride and its ever-present companion, group prejudice, existed. And, we're known forever that cooperation is a good idea and competition is not. The mystery is: Why do we compete?

Can you tell me anything that the in-group, out-group hypothesis explains that we haven't already known for centuries?

It's very much a cause as it is a fundamental aspect of our cognition.

Assign people to completely arbitrary groups (red/blue) and they will instantly start to show in/out group bias.

You're describing an effect. If we're looking for a cause ask: Why do arbitrary groups do that? Behavior satisfies needs. So, what need does the behavior satisfy?