Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Poverty, Famine, War... Your take. Right or Wrong?

C

calisupra2nr

New Member
A while back, an theorist by the name of Thomas Malthus provided a Malthusian theory to the world which inspired the works of great researchers such as Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection and evolution. Malthus stated that the world naturally goes through cycles of war, famine and poverty in order to keep its population in check as humans will outgrow its own resources over time. This was the foundation for Darwin when he stated in his own documents that humans will always compete for resources and that nature will choose the best fit to do so. Malthus then also said that the government intervening in the way of aiding poverty stricken people is no different than stopping the Earth from spinning on its axis. He said that you would be ruining the balance of nature and over hundreds of years time, humanity will be destroyed because of it. My question to all of you is this, do you find truth in this theory? Do you think it is just some racist, capitalistic, imperialistic scumbag who has no insight to the good in humanity? Or, does Malthus shed insight to the reality of the cruel world that those who can not compete are meant to go their own way (even to die off)? Personally I believe in the latter of those questions and it is not being a bigot but over the course of my life I have seen some of the true colors of the world and the no matter how bad it sounds to say or believe in such a theory, it makes sense to me. And besides, is it really all that radical of a theory? I mean once you dig past the idea that everyone deserves this and that, and get past the idea that humans are the most important thing in this universe? I firmly believe that humans have forged a system that protect themselves from nature (not even AIDS was able to make a big dent in population), and that time will provide the consequence as you can see in the news. The news shows us that we have war over resources, that engineers are building alternate fuels, alternate biocrops, and that we are on a path to a new hope for gathering alternative resources. In the end though, humans need fresh water that is not contaminated by pollution, a healthy atmosphere that is not burned with CFC's, and a healthy ecosystem that does not have vegetation being wiped out by the truckloads every second.

So what do you think about all of this, and please use your cerebellum to dig deep and truly think about things and not just your own biased view point.
 
Last edited:
calisupra2nr said:
A while back, an idealist by the name of Thomas Malthus provided a Malthusian theory to the world which inspired the works of great researchers such as Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection and evolution. Malthus stated that the world naturally goes through cycles of war, famine and poverty in order to keep its population in check as humans will outgrow its own resources over time. This was the foundation for Darwin when he stated in his own documents that humans will always compete for resources and that nature will choose the best fit to do so. Malthus then also said that the government intervening in the way of aiding poverty stricken people is no different than stopping the Earth from spinning on its axis. He said that you would be ruining the balance of nature and over hundreds of years time, humanity will be destroyed because of it. My question to all of you is this, do you find truth in this theory? Do you think it is just some racist, capitalistic, imperialistic scumbag who has no insight to the good in humanity? Or, does Malthus shed insight to the reality of the cruel world that those who can not compete are meant to go their own way (even to die off)? Personally I believe in the latter of those questions and it is not being a bigot but over the course of my life I have seen some of the true colors of the world and the no matter how bad it sounds to say or believe in such a theory, it makes sense to me. And besides, is it really all that radical of a theory? I mean once you dig past the idea that everyone deserves this and that, and get past the idea that humans are the most important thing in this universe? I firmly believe that humans have forged a system that protect themselves from nature (not even AIDS was able to make a big dent in population), and that time will provide the consequence as you can see in the news. The news shows us that we have war over resources, that engineers are building alternate fuels, alternate biocrops, and that we are on a path to a new hope for gathering alternative resources. In the end though, humans need fresh water that is not contaminated by pollution, a healthy atmosphere that is not burned with CFC's, and a healthy ecosystem that does not have vegetation being wiped out by the truckloads every second.

So what do you think about all of this, and please use your cerebellum to dig deep and truly think about things and not just your own biased view point.
Click to expand...
I am certainly no expert on this subject but from the above it sounds as if this theorist Thomas Malthus thought Famine/Poverty and War is a natural occurrence of necessity. Did he feel like it was the Will of God? like Hegel thought or was it more of a 'naturalistic' approach like Dawrin's or Marx's? Also do you think we have reached the breaking point? where now all we will be able to do is dwindle in numbers? My concern is about population distribution verses population abundance. does the world feel confined with people because we are as close knit societies? or is there some room to spare to not feel so 'congested' with out the risk of harming places reserved for produce and live-stock i.e. 'farmland'
 
I do not feel that congestion is the long term problem. I think that it is a recurring short term problem that countries such as India and China face but as recent studies have shown, China is on a downward trend thanks to their infancy cap per family. It is measures like statute that guarantee some stability in high dense areas. On the bigger scale though, abundance is the problem and although we see it more and more everyday, I do not agree that we have reached a "limit". I think a finite number is almost impossible to recognize largely due to technology and changing climates. Malthus was a naturalist which is why Darwin followed him so closely before publishing his theory of natural selection and descent of man. He was certainly not like Hegel and did not even recognize a god. Darwin on the other hand, recognized god as being the spark of life in which evolution spurred from over millions of years of natural selection. I find that Malthus was absolutely correct and the ideas of a war free world and a world without poverty and suffering are near the brink of impossible unless our population was back down to the size of 500,000 or less. In that case humanity would be basically wiped out, which unless a large cataclysmic event such as a virus or nuclear fallout were to occur, I find that highly improbable. Marx was on the opposite side of the fence calling for nature to really not play a role in terms of survival of the fittest. The drive for perfection in humans leads to aerospace engineers and nanotech field researchers who have an extremely high IQ and can flourish where others can not. The same can be said for healthy athletes who are able to endure a harsher environment simply because of their physical impressions. Marx took these ideas of being great at something and striving for more, down to a field in which every person no matter their intelligence or physical fitness are able to coexist side by side. That is simply not the case as humans will always want more than their neighbor and some are willing to go further, by studying or exercising more to achieve more. In essence Marx had a wonderful world planned out but it defied nature and humanity itself.
 
It is impossible to keep everyone happy but happiness is not necessarily what the world is concerned with. It is however a large piece to the puzzle when it comes to diplomacy over foreign resources. As the world becomes smaller, the bigger this problem grows as we reduce our supply and increase our population.
 
Space colonies, move off this planet and onto viable planets in extra solar systems, problem solved =P
 
People are just dumb. Wars are still held as there is something is something call War Economy to be uphold, especially in times like this. What would they do else with all the guns and amo? It would be 'just another waste of money to turn it into something useful'.
 
afstandopleren said:
People are just dumb. Wars are still held as there is something is something call War Economy to be uphold, especially in times like this. What would they do else with all the guns and amo? It would be 'just another waste of money to turn it into something useful'.
Click to expand...

Wait... You think they start wars just for the sake of using their weapons?
 
Actually, yes. I just read an article in a Dutch magazine called Quest. Very interesting and it really has a part on how some wars are actually kept intact by the people who start the war for the sake of war itself.
 
afstandopleren said:
Actually, yes. I just read an article in a Dutch magazine called Quest. Very interesting and it really has a part on how some wars are actually kept intact by the people who start the war for the sake of war itself.
Click to expand...

Okay, that little, little, tiny respect I had left for you, I just lost.


Omg.
 
War is over resources whether it is energy, land, personnel, or weaponry. I think saying they start it just to use weapons is too vague, but it has been noted that smaller countries go to war to help use up left over resources.
 
calisupra2nr said:
War is over resources whether it is energy, land, personnel, or weaponry. I think saying they start it just to use weapons is too vague, but it has been noted that smaller countries go to war to help use up left over resources.
Click to expand...

I would really like to see where it is noted that smaller countries go to war for basically no reason.
 
Ardoptres said:
I would really like to see where it is noted that smaller countries go to war for basically no reason.
Click to expand...

No reason? Smaller countries such as the Congo Republic and other impoverished nations will go to war to not only expel certain resources (such as infidels and guns) but to also gain better land and weapons. That is what I meant.


Also I did not mention religion as it is highly controversial but should not be overlooked, so thank you for bringing it up.
 
Yeah, I never said they wen't to war for the sake of it? I also said they did it to expel resources, anytime a nation does this it is implied by the nature of humanity they will attempt a gain.
 
Saying they go to war just to use leftover weaponry is basically the same as saying it is for the sake of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top