Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Inevidable nature of the living.

  1. Mar 1, 2004 #1
    the world is over populated. soon, inevidably there will be war for food. we strive to protect every human life when infact this will bring on more suffering in the long run. more life, more to feed, and the nature of human reproduction demands their be more birth then death so long as we live in a world where death must be prevented at all cost.

    the ideal of world peace cannot be true without starvation. the population of the world grows every passing day even with war. without it the growth of population would be much quicker.

    inevidably people will fight for food.

    i am dumbstruck with how any world peace believer could come up with a solution for this anomoly.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 1, 2004 #2
    Well, I guess at least that’s better than fighting for oil...
  4. Mar 1, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    War is not fought for food, nor does war decrease population. Famine often results from war, but does not cause it. Strangely, most contries at war, other than civil war, increase their population.

    Overpopulation is not quite the terrible problem people think it is. They look at statistics out of context and think, "If we keep growing like this, it will be a disaster." The thing is, it is irrational to think we will keep growing like this.

    Population growth follows a pattern. Poor, agricultural nations have a slight growth rate. As they switch to modern methods, population explodes. More efficient agriculture makes these people unnecessary on the farm, and the population urbanizes and the society industrializes. The culture changes, putting less value on a big family as infant mortality improves. Population growth returns to normal.

    Most westernized nations have very little population growth, and most of that is due to immigration. Some European countries would have population decreases if not for immigration.

  5. Mar 1, 2004 #4
    i never said war is fought for food.

    why wouldnt war decrease population? anyone with the least bit of common sense would disagree with you. i think i understand how it could be possible given human mental conditions during a war. but still, the population growth would take place after the war.

    as for your reply to population growth all together -> thanks.

    i usually post for the answer, not to start a debate.
  6. Mar 1, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    Because modern wars are fought with a minimal, but still existent level of sanity. Battle is usually done for resources, or to defeat threats, thus ultimately with the goal of setting up a scenario where regrowth occurs. Wars have almost never been a case of culling the population. Even Hitler's wars had the goal of acquiring lebensraum for population expansion. And poverty from war is usually attached with an increase in birth rate.

    The reality of the present situation is that food is barely a factor. Distribution, however is. Further, preventing famine is only part of the grand aim of maintaining overall living conditions. Better to starve in peace, perhaps. Birth control and education have also been shown to be effective in controlling population levels.
  7. Mar 2, 2004 #6
    "birth control"
  8. Mar 2, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And distribution (often) = politics. Somalia and North Korea are great examples of where control of food is used as a means for controlling the population.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2004
  9. Mar 2, 2004 #8
    true, and many other ways can be used as means of control as well - like the media. So yes, a war over food is a possibility, mostly because there is probably not just one war left, eh?

    But then perhaps we will colonize moon or something, and find more sophisticated ways of acquiring nu(trien)ts.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook