It's easy to say war doesn't work, nor killing. For you and I and a large portion of the world, violence is abhorrent. I didn't say I like war, nor were my views meant to be a political position.

In the jungle domination and competition are the order of the day. For humanity, these traits are still present and daily the powerful dominate the weak. The intelligentsia generally abhor this practical reality because it goes against their developed moral senses. This is the same reason why most college professors and educated people tilt to the political left. They seek to distance themselves from the rich exploiters of humanity and feel a moral compunction to support the underdog.

Often they resent the rich and realize the rich often do not have the intellectual capacity of the educated man/woman. They see this exploitation and animalistic drive for material gain in a different light and pursue other things beside money. It seems nonplussing that dumb folk should control and dominate large portions of society.

No sane person wants to see a forest burn, and yet they do burn. Circumstances conspire against the forest and lightning, nature and man contribute to this inevitable outcome.

The same is true of war. The intelligent folks find it repulsive. The lower orders of humanity see it in a different light than you do. They see it as a means to increase their domination over their fellow man. They care not a whit about human suffering or death. They will wage war when given the resources and opportunity. Like the primates you are reading about, when a male feels empowered to challenge the leader of the pack, he will.

War is inevitable when a portion of humanity exist on the lower evolutionary scales. Of course the left has an aversion to admitting the existence of lower/higher echelons of humanity as they paint an artificial equality over humanity. This equanimity of course does not really exist. So the lower echelons wage war against each the other while the higher echelons either distance themselves from these folks or find themselves victimized by these lower orders.

The same pattern is witnessed in the choice of folks who can choose where they live. The intelligentsia do not by choice live in the ghettoes or the high crime poorer neighborhoods. They do not live in countries where freedom is unavailable or where tyrants rule. Here we see the reality of the lower and higher echelons of humanity. The disparities are NOT simply economic or educational, but rather are evolutionary and genetic. The intelligent are loathe to admit that there exists a varying capacity for learning in different segments of humanity. Their moral sense demands that they treat all equally and so find themselves conflicted by their ideal and reality.

This is your problem Robert. Your moral sense abhors my statements and the logic contained therein. War is abhorrent for YOU. You cannot fathom that anyone would see war a legitimate enterprise and tool to expand one's power over others and increase one's material position.

You need only look at the history books to see that war and killing are humanity's legacy and destiny. For lower orders this violence and exploitation is a natural side-effect of their survival instinct which dominates over all others. For you and I, our survival instinct is much modified:

For us, the moral righteousness of our actions is weighed nearly equally alongside physical survival.

This is not true for millions of humans alive today who would as easily kill you as look as you if it would benefit them materially.

That is why war works. War eliminates portions of these unintelligent groups wholesale. It is nature's method of spurring human evolution.

I will continue further as to the behind the surface appearance of humanity.

My own extrapolations try to see the inside workings of nature and take apart the watch, so to speak. With reincarnation, I see those who die as returning with new data to use in future lives.

I don't believe in the ability of man to learn lesson's solely from booklearning or environmental influence. I see your development and mine as the result of countless experiences that have shaped and so fortified our moral beliefs and convictions. When humanity is viewed in this new light, one sees that two 25 year olds can be thousands of years apart in evolutionary development.

An individual can be told that killing is wrong and his/her past experiences as both victim and perpetrator and the ramifications of both will reaffirm this education. In a sense the newborn child integrates information from a quantized field of cumulative lifetime data into his/her new physical consciousness.

More experience will tend to contribute to greater intelligence. Genetic attributes are merely an extension of consciousness development and are manipulated as necessary to provide a new tool for learning in the material environment.

This view is one most folks can't yet confirm and so can't even contemplate. There is also, at this time and place, no way to confirm the continuity of the human 'soul' or consciousness and the way this data perpetuates in field form.

So it remains spurious speculation to most. Much like the way the lower orders would challenge the wisdom of pacifism and non-violence when it is so obvious to them that these are useful tools to acquire power and eliminate one's enemies. The required dataset is absent to make the necessary connections.

Nature provides the learning grounds for human evolution. The universe does not need to consciously perform this feat, but rather does so by default. An infinite universe must provide all these things automatically. Members of humanity cannot grow from survivalist killing neanderthal to intelligentsia pacifist philosopher overnight...or in one lifetime. Our educational systems are ok, but not THAT good.

;-)