[Razengan]

> “War…What is it good for?” the classic song asks. Many universities agree on the answer: “Absolutely nothing.”

War culls human populations, and carries out natural selection.

So it's "good" for something even if we don't want to admit it or to use the word "good" when bringing up those things.

[wizzwizz4]

Natural selection isn't good. In terms of “bad things to do to humans”, it comes in just behind eugenics, and that's only because we haven't worked out how to do that without horrible horrible crimes against humanity (yet). (Yes, natural selection is legitimately bad enough that “make eugenics less genocidey and then do that instead” is actually on the table – I am so glad the problem can probably keep for another century or two, so I won't have to be responsible if we end up with some dystopia or other.)

These aren't good things. I mean, war does accomplish them, but… I'd rather they weren't accomplished.

[Razengan]

Whether humans like it or not and whether we want to admit it or not, wars do end up with mostly the fittest (not just in terms of physical ability, but also intelligence, cunning, etc.) surviving.

[wizzwizz4]

Wars end up with those best at surviving surviving. The ones best at getting allies to protect them, the ones who keep their children alive even at the cost of thousands of others' lives, the ones who groom an ally to throw themselves on the grenade, the ones who climb the power ladder and then use that power to keep themselves safe from the conflict…

War is a terrible selection pressure, if you value the light and good in this world. (Probably) less bad than the ones genocidal dictators apply, given how indiscriminate (and therefore bad at selection) it is, but it's certainly not in the “good” category.

[Razengan]

> Wars end up with those best at surviving surviving. The ones best at getting allies to protect them, the ones who keep their children alive even at the cost of thousands of others' lives, the ones who groom an ally to throw themselves on the grenade, the ones who climb the power ladder and then use that power to keep themselves safe from the conflict…

Yes, natural selection at the civilization level. Those survivors will be the ones to write history and continue the species’ civilization.

Civilization gave rise to the warring forces and allowed them to come into power, and those forces in turn shape civilization.

> it’s certainly not in the “good” category.

Our sentiments don’t matter to the grand picture, which has been painted by thousands of wars and continues to be.

War is certainly not a natural calamity. It’s caused by millions of humans who willingly want it to happen, so maybe we “deserve” it, to be sentimental.

[wizzwizz4]

Next you'll be saying millions of humans want to be addicted to social media. I don't understand how you could even think this in the first place, let alone believe it to be true.

[Razengan]

I mean you believe that human sentiments of “good” and “evil” matter much outside of human heads, or that the world would magically be a much better place if no wars ever happened.

(of course I predict you will cherry pick some wars to be perfectly justified)

[machiaweliczny]

Not neceassary it's overall positive. You usually kill best&brightest from oponent side first, so summing over average capability of human population wars can cause regressions.

[watwut]

> wars do end up with mostly the fittest (not just in terms of physical ability, but also intelligence, cunning, etc.) surviving.

1.) There is massive random factor.

2.) The fittest are often selected for unit that have large mortality. That was the case of SS in Germany - supposed to be the fittest selection. And as result going to hardest fights dying the most.

In Russia, it was year of birth that made difference. The guys who were 18 by the start of the war died almost all. You was better off if you was 17 or 22.

3.) The fact is, the fit male goes to combat and is more likely to die. The weaker one who wont be selected for that, survives.

[Bakary]

War kills off the healthy, the young, the brave, the stress-resistant and so on. All of these are qualities that can make society better in a context of peace, but are a liability in the context of war from the perspective of the individual. The deformed, the less healthy and those adept at finding loopholes get to stay at home. A war on a massive scale thus has a negative effect on long term fitness.

[Broken_Hippo]

Someone dying isn't natural selection: It is just death.

Sex education and free access to birth control, sterilization, and abortion lowers population without the trauma of war.