Does war count as natural selection?

Does war count as natural selection?   (this article is fairly long by the way)

Like if one a huge group of people pressure another group of people into action because of the 1st groups’ collective stupidity…. does that still count?

This is a question that came to me as a result of living in China for a long time, studying Chinese, US & Australian strategy, and paying attention and reading between the lines of various news articles for international & domestic events; and also having an interest in anthropology.

We often think the standard definition of evolution fits only for animals, and that for we as humans, (the animals that managed to stand above the rest by creating tools), this evolution process doesn’t really apply.  However, I doubt this is really the case.

There’s a famous movie and theory called ‘idiocrasy’ by which – in the future, and even now the survival of the fittest is no longer true, and that it’s not the ‘fittest’ that procreate more and therefore pass on their genes, just more the ones that literally procreate more…that push on their genes.

I love this theory, because its honestly something you can see throughout the world.

Despite all of humanity’s advances in modern technology and medicine, we end up protecting everyone at once.  Even the stupidest of our society can pass on their genes even if they’ve had accidents that would normally take them out of the gene pool, due to advances in modern medicine.

And then even the smartest of us might not necessarily have the chance to pass on our genes.  All too often some of the most intelligent humans are socially awkward, possibly resulting in them not to be able to find a partner, settle down, and ultimately passing on their intelligent genes.

Yet, the ones that are either muscle bound, or natural born douchebags that manage to lie and cheat enough to find a partner, or… a combination of both these traits, manage to pass on their genes with ease.

Is the world not quickly coming to a state that we’re having proportionally more of these ‘fittest’  in terms of the animalistic definition of evolution where the strongest & ones that can procreate more, rather than the actual best/ intelligent (the ones that actual allow our society to continue going forward) are the ones that survive.

However, what is the case when it comes to war?

Can one government influence the majority of its population to a point where their collective mindset, and collective beliefs or maybe stupidity means that they manage to piss off other collective of people/ governments to the point where there is a war?

If the 1st collective group of people cannot see that their direction of  thought will cause conflict, and do not have enough resources or weapons, to weather the resulting war, then surely they are not the ‘fittest’, right?

Being able to develop tools is one of the main aspects that puts humans above that of animals, and a weapon is a tool just like any other.  A tool used to kill sure, but it is still development.  It can be used for defence or for attack and thus survival, and should be treated no differently.

Increasing levels of thinking, strategy and tactics used to ensure that you survive can be applied as tools for survival.  If 1 particular culture, government fails to provide this for the people of their country, then they are failing to give them the tools necessary for surviving.
If they enact failing strategies and opinions based on information which has been selectively chosen- stemming from a propaganda kind of way so that the government can remain in control of its people, yet this same education means that the people’s jaded opinion of the world comes at odds of maintaining peaceful existence with other countries, or other people outside of their own sphere….then this is quite simply a  disadvantage in the whole ‘survival of the fittest’ situation.

A government forcing their people to adopt thinking like this explained above could be noted as setting up their own people for eventual extermination.


Because if one group of people are not allowed to develop due to the restrictive thinking that has been placed on them for so many years, and a collective mindset of ethnocentricism has been instilled in them effectively meaning that, despite it might not being the case….especially given their selective, often reduced education levels that they as ‘one sphere of people’ are better than anyone else outside their sphere, and that they don’t need foreign help not interaction to better society as a whole, they are ultimately provocative to others outside their sphere.  This could mean that this sphere of people could effectively bring war upon themselves whilst wrongfully believing, through sincerely convincing themselves of this thought, that they can defend themselves properly and defeat those outside their circle.

The more 1 group of people become detached from the rest of society due to a belief that either they are better than others or that they need to crush others BECAUSE they are better than others and more people should join their world view, the more likely it is that those outside that sphere will form resistance and ultimately defend themselves against the perceived threat.

Think different societies, not just the Germans, throughout the ages defending themselves from the Jewish population that throughout history has segregated themselves from the rest of society rather than integrated whilst also amassing wealth due to the close connections and focuses of their culture, which through one way or another people believe it is because they see themselves as ‘the chosen people’.  This clash of worldviews ultimately creates conflict.
This difference in education and thoughts about their standing in the world, as well as a miscalculation many times on just how others outside their sphere (strategic & contingency thinking) coupled with a lack or preparedness of defence, (should those outside their sphere actually take action), means that those in that position have the chance of being wiped out from this process.

They, in this regard, are lacking the tools for survival, and therefore I think can quite reasonably be declared that they are not the ‘fittest’.

Don’t forget I’m inferring that the tools for survival, for humans at least have always and should always include intelligence- of course our greatest tool as humans, but this also generates other related tools such as weapons and defence building, relationship building, strategic thinking, contingency planning, which may lead to integration and compromise with those outside your sphere but which definitely doesn’t translate to ethnocentricism for which the Germans were obviously guilty of…and if you’ve followed my line of thought here, the Chinese is most definitely a modern example of.

Now that being said, the Chinese….not the masses, because anyone that has ever lived in China has a mountain of evidence to prove against that, but certain government members definitely has the strategic thinking to provide enough of an increasing barrier to protect against this from happening just yet.

That being said, for what I mentioned about education, mis-information, propaganda etc., the Chinese regime is definitely aligning itself with those points outlined above. Its historical culture and modern culture, emphasised through Chinese Communist Party government propaganda certainly create a mindset of ethnocentricism, distrust of foreigners, un-integration and all manner of things that can potentially lead to conflict.

The recent announcements of the government censoring education even more to ‘remove western values’ from higher education, despite the fact that many western values are the same as Chinese values, and that totally removing supposed ‘western values’ would technically mean removing logical thinking, best practices, family values, human rights, moral behaviour etc.,  would be incredibly detrimental to the education of the Chinese people.

These wishes of the government may be generated from wanting to keep the masses in line, and to remain in power themselves by effectively controlling their people in the only way they seem to know how, but ultimately it creates a society that is at odds with the rest of the world.  It creates resentment of others and matched with a perception that they are better than anyone else simply because they are Chinese, means there’s a chance that active showing of resentment is a real possibility.

The Chinese government will often come up with great ideas to thrust the economy forward.  They need to keep up the growth of the economy because they don’t seem to be providing much else to their people, and this is one of the only ways that they can maintain power-  If people have better standards of living, then it’s a sign of good governance.
Of course if this comes by the way of increased control and less freedom, then the growth of the economy has to be always better than other benefits that the government could provide.

One great idea that Xi Jinping announced is that they would increase ingenuity、 creative thinking among the people, and increase entrepreaunialship within the economy, and that this should lead to generation of new industry … and of course with a healthy dose of protectionism (which almost always pisses off those that have already developed such related businesses and whilst have been promised trade with china, have now been shut-out because of a government change of heart) ; it meant that China could reclaim or at least widen its world money generating potential.

It should be obvious to most, that centuries of ethnocentricism, mis-information, government propaganda, and an education system that is aimed at not teaching ‘why’ and churning out people that are all equal, and easily controlled…because they are simply not thinking enough… that this cannot be turned around by the government by simply clicking their fingers stating ‘let’s be entrepreneurial now’.
The same government that forced this level of basic/ restrictive thinking in the first place.

So are they going to have the greatest weapons to protect themselves from their own eventual stupidty?   Stupidity which as defined in detail above results from self-segregation, ethnocentric behaviour, and provocation which ultimately leads to them bring war, or at least conflict upon themselves?

The simple answer would be no. , They wouldn’t have the inguinuity to create the defence needed to protect themselves from their own stupidity.  And therefore in the definition of evolution….would not be the ‘fittest’.

Now there’s a few of you that know, the Chinese…and especially the Chinese government are pretty awesome at ‘reverse engineering’ (otherwise known plainly as copying…or ‘stealing shit’).  Although the concept is quite self-explantory, its essentially stealing the work of those that are smarter than you, and have created a product that is better than one of your own people could have come up with; then taking it apart and copying it from the ground up.
Of course from there, once you know how it works, and potentially why it works…you can add to it, modify it and essentially make it yours.

The Chinese government have been doing this for years, it is government directed, military implemented and corporate benefitted.

It’s been well documented in journal articles and intense research for years, however it rarely makes its way to the normal public understanding/ realisation.  That being said, ‘China un-censored’ [link] did a video article about this that can more or less bring you up to scratch.  Whilst not complete in its explanation, it is reasonably good at explaining what is happening, but not why.
They [the Chinese government] can do this, because in their minds they have convinced themselves that they are constantly at war.  An ethnocentric society that views everyone else as against them can of course very easily come to this conclusion.
This kind of thinking is obviously at odds with the fact that they believe they are the smartest, because if they really were the smartest they would come up with these ideas and products themselves.  And their ‘ingenuity’ could easily facilitate this, however clearly this is bullshit because they have gone for the stealing route instead.

The corporate, yet government sponsored espionage / stealing route is clear to cause conflict and tension from those that actually created the product, investing millions of dollars in the first place.

One thing that the Chinese government is ahead of the curve at, which is of course is in direct relation to this, is computer hacking and computer related espionage.

The USA keeps complaining about this, but can do little about it, because THEY believe they are not at war.  War rules are different than that of non-war times, you can essentially do anything to ensure your survival.  Of course this is not what western governments say, yet it IS what actually happens whether it is right or wrong, it should be stressed this IS what actually happens.

China is winning this current war, because essentially they are the only ones that are actually attacking.  The other side doesn’t even know it is at war yet.
But what happens when the other side realises that it IS at war?   Their, by which I mean the USA of course, military or fighting advantage is in ‘traditional’ war.  Whereas the Chinese strength is in asymmetric and non-traditional war, long term strategic planning…etc. Clearly something which the USA government has not been so strong in the last few decades.

Strategic thinking denotes that one should only enter a war knowing that they have a good potential at being able to win it.  Especially given their tools on hand.

Yet what happens, as stated above when one group of people through their own stupidity, force a war to take place due to provocation etc.?   Well the otherside, can always find ways to turn an asymmetric war into a traditional one.

How?  Through provocation or issues the other side is sensitive to.

Where the Chinese side is smart however, is foreign policy, and whilst Chinese might have proved themselves as not being able to integrate so well… the integration that HAS taken place has allowed foreign companies to establish a presence within Chinese borders, and Chinese companies to take stakes in foreign countries, meaning effectively a traditional war is difficult to fight as tactics like carpet bombing can affect your own countries assets because you could be bombing your own side.

Thus, strategic infiltration is needed, …something which the Chinese government is and has been undertaking for quite some time already.  Slow but steady provocation has been conducted to effectively test the waters of how the other side will react, such as is the case with the South China Sea, and island-building in contested waters.
So far, effectively nothing has happened, and even though international courts and tribunals have found that what China is doing is illegal by international rules, the same rules which their government also agreed to; this doesn’t actually result to anything because the Chinese government refuse to take heed, and have realised that whilst there may be a ruling; the clout that they have for control in the world economy means that by denying one country something due to a stance they may take on one issue to selling rights/ economic rights within China, they can effectively continue to do whatever they want.

That being said, whilst the government may have control over this foreign policy side of things and may be effectively winning the one sided war that they are waging, they are slowly creating a domestic atmosphere which is also increasingly at odds with the international community.  Which if continues may create a situation that whilst a certain amount (of the international businesses) might remain due to economic potential, it can also lead to a withdrawal or un-integration from the Chinese.  Thus coupled with increased provocation from their domestic population and Chinese actors abroad could lead for more chances of traditional war as the worry of damaging one’s own assets decrease.

Strategically the USA has already missed its opportunity for a traditional war with China, it’s resources are being wasted chasing expensive wars, because expensive wars are the ones that generate profit for the American Hamiltonian elites (see article) ; the ones that are invested in keeping the traditional war industry going.
Computer hacking, drones, & strategic espionage operations are relatively cheap compared to building and manning of aircraft carriers; or large infrastructure construction projects such as missile defence domes.  Thus meaning that the USA’s biggest stupidity and provocation is the greed that comes from monetary expansion, and short-term gains, by allowing these elitists to remain in power, and the common people not realising what is actually happening and how their country is actually run.  The control of any one country’s people done by the need to stay in power to create wealth for these leaders and elites as showcased by both China and the USA means that both are likely to bring war upon themselves.

The USA and China (in terms of it’s governments and the control and shaping of their own societies) seem to be both leading their people to the stupidity that will lead to provocation, and eventually to war.
If they’ve both managed to do this, then I think it’s reasonable to say that either side could be thinning out the herd with humanities latest application of ‘survival of the fittest’  and evolution will prove to be ever present and applicable even in the human race.