Quote:
Originally posted by CSflim
War is not needed for population control.
The population level of a species is self regulating, and will evolve in such a way so as to maintain itself.
A shortage of food/resources, will increase the selection pressure, and thus lower the population.
A population will never grow so large that the environment can't sustain it, and thus cause it to become extinct (except in rare circumstances, and in those cases war isn't going to help anyway).
|
Actually with some thought about John Henry's thoughts, I think he made a good point. I mean.. The only time when deer grow like mad is when their predators are low that season (where are our predators? We don't really have any). When the deer are high, we kill them. Well.. Combine that a bit. We in a sense are our own predators, and thus we kill each othen keep ourselves in check. Aslo We understand that killing any other animals to help keep them in check, why do we oppose it so harshly to us as well? I spose that would be another topic for itself. I know I wouldn't want to kill or be killed to keep the system in check, but again perhaps thats why the war is there.
I agree that low resources will more likely make them extinct.. BUT what would you think would be more balance: Growing until out of resouirces and dying off? or Growing and then keeping in check so that resources do not run out? I think that second one sounds more favorable. Its kind of nasty to think that war could quite possibly be a "check" in the system.
Self Awareness is a good thing. If not we'd be 'drones' and not able to have this conversation. It has given us the ability to rise to the top of the food chain (or get out of the chain that could beat us.. you don't see us living in the water....) Again since we're on the top of the food chain.. what animal is there to keep us in check? Well it'd have to be us.. that gives us our balance.. us. We see it as a downside, but nature might just see it as a way of keeping balance. Interesting.