Can overpopulation be the source of war?

[Augustus]

And, we're known forever that cooperation is a good idea and competition is not. The mystery is: Why do we compete?

Both competition and cooperation can be beneficial in their own ways.

Also you have scalability, competition and cooperation may become detrimental if they exceed a certain size, try coordinating a very large team for example.

If you were looking to design something and had 30 workers, you might well be better splitting them into 3 competing teams, than having one group of 30.

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

Can you explain anything about the water is wet hypothesis that we haven't already known for centuries?

How does the fact we've known about in/out groups for centuries detract from its truth or utility. It's true or it isn't, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests its true.

You're describing an effect. If we're looking for a cause ask: Why do arbitrary groups do that?

Because our brains evolved to display in-group bias as it helped us to survive.

 

[joe1776]

Both competition and cooperation can be beneficial in their own ways.

Also you have scalability, competition and cooperation may become detrimental if they exceed a certain size, try coordinating a very large team for example.

If you were looking to design something and had 30 workers, you might well be better splitting them into 3 competing teams, than having one group of 30.

you're nit-picking with exceptions to my general statement.

Can you explain anything about the water is wet hypothesis that we haven't already known for centuries?

How does the fact we've known about in/out groups for centuries detract from its truth or utility. It's true or it isn't, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests its true.

The point you missed is that you presented an hypothesis which explains nothing we didn't already know and you're offering it as though it has scientific merit.

Because our brains evolved to display in-group bias as it helped us to survive.

Cooperation is the key to survival not in-group bias. Societies are essentially cooperative endeavors.

In-group biases and their counterpart out-group biases are threats to our survival.

 

[Augustus]

you're nit-picking with exceptions to my general statement.

I'm actually rejecting the general statement. Most competition is either beneficial or at least non-harmful. It's also, to some extent, hardwired into us.

It's only a minority of unhealthy competition that causes problems.

The point you missed is that you presented an hypothesis which explains nothing we didn't already know and you're offering it as though it has scientific merit.

It does have scientific merit. If we didn't already know it, I doubt it would have scientific merit as if it were true we should have been able to observe it in real life (which we have).

The science confirmed what we already knew.

Cooperation is the key to survival not in-group bias. Societies are essentially cooperative endeavors.

In-group biases and their counterpart out-group biases are threats to our survival.

In-group bias facilitates cooperation in the group. Society (in group) is far more important than abstract universalism.

 

[joe1776]

I'm actually rejecting the general statement. Most competition is either beneficial or at least non-harmful. It's also, to some extent, hardwired into us.

It's only a minority of unhealthy competition that causes problems.

We disagree on this but that's a debate we can save for another time.

It does have scientific merit. If we didn't already know it, I doubt it would have scientific merit as if it were true we should have been able to observe it in real life (which we have). The science confirmed what we already knew.

Now, you're making things up. Nothing was confirmed because experiments are not possible. Strictly speaking it's not science. It's just people who think of themselves as scientists pinning new labels on old ideas: group-pride = in-group bias, group prejudice = out-group bias.

In-group bias facilitates cooperation in the group.

You're straining now to make a logical connection. An American can cooperate with other Americans without the need to feel that Americans are superior to the people of other nations.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

Yes, a major factor could be too many people, too few resources - or a combination of the two. I don't know if that would explain all wars throughout history, though. But it seems to be a recurring theme of "haves vs. have nots," in one form or another.

And then there are those who already have a lot, yet they still make war so they can have even more. That's something I've found to be a bit curious.

It's also a power game, where someone decides they have to be the biggest and toughest gang on the block.

It may start something like this:

Overpopulation and poverty are definitely underlying causes that give fuel to human anger and resentment, but there's a certain propensity for people to get riled up and want to make war. Someone who has a certain level of influence or powers of persuasion or charisma can get large crowds cheering in favor of violence and war.

We have a long history of war. Our culture glorifies war. It also seems to affect the overall mindset of the public. Pretty much all of my life, we've always been involved in some kind of mess, if not a war, then some other crisis or war-by-proxy. I don't recall any period where we could say we had real "peace," but we're more in a kind of half-crisis mode running in the background, where it's "not quite peace, not quite war," but somewhere in the middle. That's been pretty much a constant thing for as long as I can remember.

 

[Earthtank]

Oil, power, greed and money are the source of war, not population (unless you live in china maybe)

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

Consider that many wars are fought over resources, I'd say "yes", at least indirectly. In some cases, it's greed to take some resource (like water, gold, oil, land, etc), but I can totally see that overpopulating an area could lead to a need to relocate and expand territory and increased need of food, water, and so on.

I've been thinking lately how chicken in chicken farms go crazy and start attacking and killing each other, and that's why they have to cut their beaks... maybe we're going crazy too from getting to crowded?

 

[Valjean]

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?

It was evolutionarily selective during 99% of our history on Earth. We lived in small bands, in competition with neighboring bands.
Strong in-group altruism helped cement the band into a cohesive unit.

 

[Valjean]

Cooperation is the key to survival not in-group bias. Societies are essentially cooperative endeavors.

In-group biases and their counterpart out-group biases are threats to our survival.

Co-operation within our tribes, to the exclusion of competing tribes, was essential for most of our evolution.
Today, though, with our huge, cosmopolitan societies, the tribalism that bound us into functional units during the Pleistocene is counter-productive and harmful.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It got me to wondering “Can overpopulation be the source of war?”

I quote from the public domain book "Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race" by Thomas William Shore

"William of Malmesbury, who wrote early in the twelfth century, tells us that the ancient country called Germany was divided into many provinces, and took its name from germinating so many men. This may be a fanciful derivation, but he goes on to say that, ‘as the pruner cuts off the more luxuriant branches of the tree to impart a livelier vigour to the remainder, so the inhabitants of this country assist their common parent by the expulsion of a part of their members, lest she should perish by giving sustenance to too numerous an offspring; but in order to obviate the discontent, they cast lots who shall be compelled to migrate. Hence the men of this country made a virtue of necessity, and when driven from their native soil have gained foreign settlements by force of arms’[22] He gives as instances of this the Vandals, Goths, Lombards. and Normans. There is other evidence of the prevalence of this custom. The story of Hengist and Horsa is one of the same kind, The custom appears to have been common to many different nations or tribes in the northern parts of Europe, and points, consequently, to the pressure of an increasing population and to diversity of origin among the settlers known as Saxons, Angles, and Jutes in England."

As we see here, this very ancient western cultural tradition seemed to have continued long after the middle ages, resulting in the modern formation of America, Australia, Canada etc. I suppose it will also drive us to the moon and mars soon enough.

I never would have imagined this was how it went down in olden times before I read this bit of history, but the tradition of 'casting lots' to see who would get kicked out and try their luck elsewhere is quite a contrast to planned conquest. Rather, it turns out that western expansion throughout history seems to be a product of 'compelled conquest.' Puts a new spin on the vikings (normans) as well, perhaps they were 'compelled to be fierce' so to speak, rather than people who seem to be defined as being innately fierce.

 

[joe1776]

It was evolutionarily selective during 99% of our history on Earth. We lived in small bands, in competition with neighboring bands.
Strong in-group altruism helped cement the band into a cohesive unit.

You are confusing in-group bias (group pride) with cooperation. In-group bias isn't essential to enable cooperation within the group. Moreover, it's ever-present companion, out-group bias (group prejudice) is the most likely cause of competition with other groups and a major threat to survival.

In other words, I don't need to feel that America is the best country in the world in order to cooperate with other American citizens.

 

[joe1776]

Co-operation within our tribes, to the exclusion of competing tribes, was essential for most of our evolution.
Today, though, with our huge, cosmopolitan societies, the tribalism that bound us into functional units during the Pleistocene is counter-productive and harmful.

See my Post 71.

 

[tas8831]

That's genocide!

Only if particular groups of people were singled out.
It could also be accomplished through restrictions on family size.

 

[columbus]

Only if particular groups of people were singled out.
It could also be accomplished through restrictions on family size.

Or homosex.

People can have all the sex they want, while also achieving reductions in procreation, if they have nonfertile sex. Homosex isn't the only nonfertile sex. But it's demonstrably more reliable than condoms.

Tom

 

[Sand Dancer]

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?

Fighting over resources is definitely part of it.

 

[tas8831]

Or homosex.

People can have all the sex they want, while also achieving reductions in procreation, if they have nonfertile sex. Homosex isn't the only nonfertile sex. But it's demonstrably more reliable than condoms.

Tom

True.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 certainly think it's a factor. The more people are closer together , the more incidents of violence and conflict.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I certainly think it's a factor. The more people are closer together , the more incidents of violence and conflict.

Ever been to Japan? High density population, low crime rates.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ever been to Japan? High density population, low crime rates.

Try removing the stringent controls, and see what happens....

Japan’s crime problem? Too many police, not enough criminals

 

[Shad]

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?

Overpopulation itself? No I do not think so. If modern trade were to break down nations which are inhospitable areas could wage war to gain more arable land to feed their population. KSA for example as it is a foodstuff importer thus can not feed it's own population with it's national resources.