Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?

And to what extent do you think current political and economic elites still have the same values?
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Survival of the fittest (Darwin) , wow you must be out of this world not to know that 1, or you have not been in sixth grade, where you learn that the survival of the fittest with animals.
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Probably because mankind has been fighting for his place in the world since he first emerged from the plains of Africa. It is an inborn human trait. The same conditions exist today, ... and likely always will. The weak are displaced by the strong. It%26#039;s not a pretty picture, but it%26#039;s a true one. We, as humanity, have divided ourselves into groups which must continually compete for resources and dominance. It is the only way a group can insure it%26#039;s own survival, ... good or bad, ... right or wrong, ... that%26#039;s just human nature.
Reply:I don%26#039;t think it has ever been socially acceptable like hunting , or fishing , or playing baseball . It%26#039;s more a case of necessity . If you%26#039;re starving and dieing of thirst and some one says they have food and water over there let%26#039;s go get it . Do you say no that%26#039;s not right or do you say okay let%26#039;s go . That has often been the case of conquest . One people has something another group of people needs or wants . If you think back just a few years we here in America were in an absolute frenzy to go to war with Iraq . The reasons for that invasion proofed unjustified but the frenzy was so intense war was inevitable . Those that tried to oppose it were shouted down . I think we are moving into a time when our leaders will find other ways to deal with our nations adversaries . A time when war is the last resort not the first reaction . Still as time goes by the horrors of this war will fade and sooner or later war will come again because of foolish intentions .
Reply:The victors write history. So they write about how great they are. They used to call themselves explorers, instead of pillagers. I imagine the conquered would have had much to say, if they had been allowed to. Today most of our news seems to be sanitized, which is scary. I think our leaders found out how unpopular they became when we watched the real stories from Viet Nam on TV. We weren%26#039;t even allowed to see pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq, until they were released on request through the Freedom of Information Act. It seems that for awhile reporters were allowed to investigate and report news. Now I think you have to dig to find the truth, and most people are so busy trying to make a living that they can%26#039;t use their spare time, if they have any, to investigate what is being done in their names. So we were told what to believe. But now it is in our face, where are the WMD? They don%26#039;t seem to be in Iraq or even under Bush%26#039;s desk. Thousands of young people are being killed and billions of dollars spent to no purpose. I hope that history will record what has actually happened and most of all that we will learn from it and remember this time.
Reply:It is socially acceptable that%26#039;s why. It will be until the time that it is not acceptable anymore. It%26#039;s just a matter of time.
Reply:Because it is economically efficient. Conquest has two wonderful aspects: It obtains more land/wealth if one is successful which can be taxed by the state (often the people who encouraged the campaigned) and two (importantly) regardless of outcome it decreases the number of reproductive males in a region.





Fewer males, less crime. Fewer males, less selective females for those living non injured males. In less modern times, the more females a male had -- (wives, daughters, or slaves) his wealth went up --- due to their productivity --- Women were the weavers, reapers, etc --- women did this hard skilled work.





Current political opinion is still the same --- concentrate power/wealth and make people slaves. Today it is easier to do this with taxes and restrictions on individuals. Reducing males used to keep population low (for is takes 9 month for a woman to have a child and 6 + years for it to become work worthy) --- but if you as elites encourage abortion --- and promiscuity --- women defeat their own interest. Children are why males stay around --- to see them succeed and reproduce but if a women will abort any seed planted and does not choose males for virtue but sexual prowess --- Women are both not dependent on the elite and not producing replacement people. The elites win.





Note: It was not until 1776 when Jefferson et al encouraged that rights belonged to the individual (male and female) was their any hope of progress --- Women between 1776 - 1932 in American gain more collective wealth then ever before --- Yes , there were extremely wealthy women prior to that however their wealth came from males often royality.





It was when the social programs --- of the New Deal and Fair Deal discourage families that women enslaved themselves.