> > It wasn't the strongest that survived...it was the fittest. Dinosaurs were
> > much stronger than any human alive yet they are still dead.
> Strong in what sense?
Strong in any sense other than meaning "fit". Strong doesn't
mean fittest, although it can mean fittest at times.
> When dealing with cultural/physical conflicts,
> its often the strongest that survive unless the weaker develops a weapon
> capable of overcoming brute strength.
This is exactly what I mean. The race isn't to the swiftest, the strongest,
or even the most intelligent. The race belongs to the fittest. Inventing the
fittest weapon fits right in with that principle.
> This ties into my point below in
> that wars provide the greatest impetuous to memetic/cultural development
> while times of peace allow for a time of integration of the new
> `technology' (whether it be physical or memetic) but eventually lead to
> stagnation as no new high-power injections of energy enter the
> pool/society.
I don't need such prodding but apparently many do, and hopefully the
evolution of man is leading away from such primitive and childish
ways of thinking. ANY TIME is the greatest opportunity for growth. If
we cannot always find opportunities for growth, wherever we are at now,
then maybe the human species is not as fit for survival as it thinks
it is.
When has any war ever been the "best" thing that could have happened?
Are you saying that in those circumstances you couldn't imagine
anything "better"? War is not the best of anything.
Is racial or ethnic cleansing also right up there with the "best of the best"?
Competition also creates growth and does this by preventing stagnation
and by destroying monopolies. But that doesn't mean that growth is
impossible without competition.Growth can be encouraged by many things
negative or positive such as: greed or love, obsessive-compulsiveness
or curiosity, fanaticism or single-mindedness, and so on.
We don't need competition and war in order to create progress.
Have you ever heard the terms, "Dog-eat-dog competition"? Or how about
"rat-race"? That is the kind of environment that competition creates.
Competition pits people against one another and teaches that us that
no matter how much effort or no matter how good the intention, none
of that matters unless you win. Second best is never good enough in
this world of competition and "winning the war" is everything. I would never
want to believe in that and I don't understand how anyone with a
heart would want to either.
Technology, strength of will, courage, and persistence are not
developed much more efficiently in war than in peace. It is just
that primitive man has chosen to act that way. You don't need
a war to "efficiently" develop these qualities...all you need is
desire to have these things. You can develop anything into a
challenge to develop these qualities and anyone who thinks that
killing men, women, and children is "the only way" or "the best
way" has obviously lost touch with reality. Are you saying that
war has never sapped people of their strength of will, has never
sapped people of their courage or turned them into chickens,
drained people's patience, or hindered technology?