Social Darwinism writ large, eh Techie? You're trying to extend that house of cards, but like a real house of cards, the more you try to extend it the shakier it becomes.

Death does not improve a species. Mutation brings forth the improvements, and natural selection employs differential mortality to favor the beneficial mutation. Death without mutational improvement is only death.

Where does that death come from? Rarely from within the species, and evolution naturally keeps in-species murder to a minimum, otherwise the species would simply kill itself off. Murder, then, is not evolution-positive.

Yet, you're trying to develop the premise that our species' ability to kill itself is somehow in harmony with evolution, that we improve ourselves by killing ourselves. Right. Seeing as how we've become so good at killing that we can wipe out humanity, and most other life on Earth, you're basically asserting that extinction would improve humanity.

Perhaps so. When I read nihilistic screeds like yours, I think that evolution will have no choice but to punish us with extinction.

A less self-serving reading of history would recognize that all the supposed benefits you ascribe to war are only realized in the peace that follows war. What counts is not the ability to wage war, but the ability to create and maintain peace.

The Allies proved competent at fighting during the first World War, but proved utterly inept at creating peace. The League of Nations was a farce, and the revenge taken upon Germany led inevitably to the second World War. The interregnum between wars wasn't characterized by the utopia you imagine, it was characterized by the Great Depression and worldwide misery.

But the outcome the second time around was very different. We created an enduring peace by creating global institutions for conflict resolution, and more importantly, by showing compassion for our vanquished enemies. Up until Bush II took office, we could count Germany and Italy and Japan as our allies and friends. We resisted the temptation to press our advantage and take over the world as its master; instead, we were rewarded as first among equals, for our leadership and generosity and willingness to cooperate. We owe our present prosperity to a willingness to build, not a willingness to destroy.

That's what works, SDAI-Tech1. War may be hard for humans to avoid, but what counts is our skill at creating peace. We thrive by overcoming war, not by wallowing in it as you advocate.

The asymmetry between psuedoscience and real science is so severe that it's not humanly possible to rebut what you had to say on a point-by-point basis. I would urge you to study some real science, like primatology. I think you're basing some of your cockeyed theories on old observations of the propensity for violence long observed in our close cousins the chimpanzees. But if you'd look into it, you'd find that in the last century a subspecies of chimp was discovered called the bonobo. Chimps and bonobos are virtually identical physically, with bonobos having longer legs and a distinct part in the hair on their heads, but the differences in their social orders are like night and day. Both are capable of violence when necessary, but the bonobos eschew the gratuitous chimp-like violence you advocate. Chimps make war upon their neighbors and slaughter them, just like humans; but bonobo intertribal conflicts rarely go beyond ritualized displays of belligerent behavior. Chimps are known to kill members of their own tribes, but such pathology is extremely rare among bonobos.

Careful study of bonobos has revealed that they have a particular gift in much greater measure than chimps: The power of reconciliation. Our cousins the bonobos know how to create peace by minimizing warfare and maximizing their ability to forgive and move on.

We humans seem to possess the traits of both our cousins, and to understand humans you have to allow that both exist, and not just focus on the propensity for war of one. When humans try reconciliation, we've always found that it works well. Not just in any touchy-feely "doing the right thing way", but in the concrete and material benefits of renewed social and economic ties. Economies can "run hot" on war for a while, but for long term prosperity you need peaceful relations with your neighbors and trading partners.

War is not the answer, man. It may make you feel good to scratch that primal itch, but the gratification is short-lived, and the bill always comes due.