angryscotsman93 said:Well, then again, you're comparing us to creatures with lower cognitive functions, smaller populations, and readier access to food than us. Simply because we don't see lions marching in formations and roaring cadences doesn't mean that we should see them as paragons of peace; this simply means that they lack the intellect to understand the concept of "war" as we humans know it.PersianLlama said:Other animals don't go to war. They may fight sometimes, but they don't go to war.angryscotsman93 said:Hmmm... you've yet to be tainted by the inevitable knowledge that human nature prevents mankind from being a peaceful race... Interesting...PersianLlama said:Or humans could just not fight.asiepshtain said:Whatever they think I could do the most good in, its what I did when I was drafted for real.
It disappoints me to see such a low level of courage here sometimes, either you fight or someone else has to fight for you. We all die eventually, better to live a shorter life of meaning then twenty more years as a coward which serves nothing but himself.
Here's an example: Let's say there are two prides of lions on the savanna. One of the tribes controls the savanna's only local watering hole. As a result, those lions have access not only to the most water, but also to more prey, as they attack the grazing animals coming in for sustenance. One day, the other lion pride is caught encroaching on their territory, heading for the watering hole to hunt and drink. A little fight breaks out, and the "invading" pride is driven away. Now, while this may seem similar to human conflict, there are some key differences, the largest of which is the intention of the aggressor pride. The invading pride simply wanted to make use of the watering hole; it had no intention of holding the terrain forever. When seeing the hole's advantages, the pride only recognized the immediate concerns of water and food, and didn't notice the long-term advantages or consequences of continued ownership of the hole.
Now, let's replace the prides with two clans of humans in Europe. One group of humans lives on land that is difficult to farm- non-nutritious soil, no loam or peat to spread over the area, no grazing territory for farm animals, et cetera ad infinitum. The other group lives on excellent land- nutritious soil, great grazing land, plenty of natural resources at their disposal, and so on. After some months of planning, the clan in crappy land attacks their better-off neighbors, driving them away and rebuilding their village on the newly-won good land. Now, in this scenario, the goal of the human tribe wasn't just to temporarily control the area- the clan's goal was to permanently control the land. The human group had recognized the far-reaching strategic and economic benefits of controlling that land, whereas the lion pride did not.
The difference wasn't that the lions were a bunch of tambourine-shaking beatniks and the humans were all poor hapless by-products of the industrio-military complex; the difference was that one group had access to the necessary cognitive abilities to recognize long-lasting bonuses to a scenario in which the other group would be unable to recognize said benefits.
See what I'm saying,PersianLlama? Oh, yes, and ince you're advocating peace and I'm in the NJROTC, I feel the need to say this: Get a haircut, hippie!
You think that's stupid, I call a guy in or unit a "godless Bolshevik sonuvabitch" for fun.
Humans just might have the intelligence to share the land and provide resources to help eachother. Oh, and my hair is pretty short.
I don't quite get the last comments, were you trying to insult me...Or...?