>
> Chad Cooper wrote:
> >
> > Place it in this perspective. The enemy is an alien race
> > intent on wiping us out. You now remove all politicalness
> > from the equation. It becomes very
> > clear what has to be done to save your "Genes".
> >
> > It is politics that brings distaste to the idea of sending
> > your children to fight in a war. It would have to be some
> > pretty awesome politics to make me
> > want my child to be put in harms way for a cause.
> >
> As you talk about "Genes", the problem with a voluntary
> army is that is puts a selective pressure *against*
> volunteers, because they will either die or impregnate
> the women in the foreign country.
Selective pressure will work in the opposite way, in giving an advantage to
_not_ fighting. Volunteers are still fighters. Less fighters means more
pacifists, more peace. If you consider that at one time in history, 1 in 3
males were killed by another man, we are selecting towards those who crave
peace over freedom (pacifists). Perhaps over the last 50+ years since WWII,
we are seeing the results of the "selection" that occurred during that
war(as well as WWI).
Why is it an inconcievable by our latest generation to bomb your opponents
with nuclear weapons?
>
> Maybe the correct way would be to collect sperm from
> every voluntary soldier, and make it - and only it -
> available in sperm banks :-)
This would only promote those who are easily conformed to fighting.
Passionate volunteers will still kill.
Nerd From Hell
>
> Alberto Monteiro
>
