War, although absolutely terrible, not only prunes the population, it helps advance our technology, which may itself save lives. But is it worth it?
Is worldwide peace worth the extreme deceleration of technological progression?
Is it worth it for our population to increase even more then it already is?
Does stopping war really save lives?
Discuss this here, and please, no ****-flinging.
War doesn't help advance in technology, in military technology sure. Only time technology ever made a leap was during the Cold war, but that wasn't really a war.
War doesn't help advance in technology, in military technology sure. Only time technology ever made a leap was during the Cold war, but that wasn't really a war.
Correct me if i'm wroong, but nuclear power was discovered due to WWII.
FLight, that was helped immensly by both WWI and WWII
Competition tends to accelerate technological development whether it's competition between companies or between countries. Competitions such as DARPA accelerate a specific technology in the same way that war accelerates a broad range of technologies, many of which later benefit the civilian world. The space race also accelerated technology, and was a peaceful (if spiteful) competition between countries. As far as population limiting goes, the old saying holds that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This enlightening post brought to you courtesy of a serious overabundance of free time.
Competition tends to accelerate technological development whether it's competition between companies or between countries. Competitions such as DARPA accelerate a specific technology in the same way that war accelerates a broad range of technologies, many of which later benefit the civilian world. The space race also accelerated technology, and was a peaceful (if spiteful) competition between countries. As far as population limiting goes, the old saying holds that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
War cannot be justified because killing cannot be justified.
/thread
So, would you have allowed Hitler to continue the holocaust?
Would you rather kill 5 people, or let 5,000,000 live?
There are plenty of situations where killing is justified.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ever thought about playing league of legends? It's an awesome free game, and I get free stuff if you sign up. So follow this link, play the game, and then we both benefit. http://signup.league...6331e2560658368
Is worldwide peace worth the extreme deceleration of technological progression?
Is it worth it for our population to increase even more then it already is?
Does stopping war really save lives?
Discuss this here, and please, no ****-flinging.
/thread
Read my post or GTFO.
I did read your post.
Correct me if i'm wroong, but nuclear power was discovered due to WWII.
FLight, that was helped immensly by both WWI and WWII
Then post why you think your opinion.
Ever heard the term "The end justifies the means"?
Explain how nuclear power is a good thing. Also, flight would've been become better and better regardless of war.
Well, nuclear fission is not very helpful at the moment, but it is the first step towards nuclear fusion
And yes, flight would have progressed, but much slower.
I hope that's adequate.
You heard that, green and red.
Doesn't really answer anything...
Could you elaborate?
Exactly.
War and violence in general is justifiable, but only in some rare circumstances.
You heard that, green and red.
circumstances such as...?
You could try reading the article I linked you to. I did that to avoid situations like these. I guess it didn't work.
You heard that, green and red.
I apologise, I must have misread it.
I'll read the artical again.
Not keep liberty?
So, would you have allowed Hitler to continue the holocaust?
Would you rather kill 5 people, or let 5,000,000 live?
There are plenty of situations where killing is justified.