If everyone's base needs (food, water, shelter) were met, humanity would grow bored and eventually self-destruct. This is why it is moral to sow conflict, so as to prevent total annihilation of humanity.
>>18588886>This is why it is moral to sow conflict, so as to prevent total annihilation of humanityLet's start by cutting off your access to internet
Depends. If their average IQ is under 95, but the high IQ will use peace and abundance as an opportunity to try new things, like this. As the national IQ drops below 95 however then pointless endemic conflict becomes the primary means of "stimulation".This is why some civilizations surged so far in advance of others. It is partly because they produced more high IQ geniuses, but in large part because the rest of the race recognized the value in what they were doing.
>>18588889Let's also start by drafting xer and making her go through a minefield naked.
Disagree. A common enemy does help overcoming internal dissent. But the thing about basic needs being met is the #1 reason for plummeting birth rates everywhere for many decades except in the pre industrial conditions third world despite cold war nucold war culture war GWOT etc etc. Hence eventualy there will be 6 billion africans still doing subsistence farming but actually having kids just inherit the planet by default as whites and asians go extinct from not having kids.
>>18588886there are hundreds of millions of people with middle class lifestyles that have all of these needs comfortably met and last I checked they haven't self-destructed yet
>>18588906>they haven't self-destructed yetcock is ticking
>>18588905>as whites and asians go extinct from not having kids.Why do retards think this is how this works? As birth rates go down, mating becomes less competitive, which will cause birth rates to rise again, the population is simply reaching an equilibrium, and the same thing will happen to the browns too
>>18588906The experiment with rats says that wrre on the way there... Just wait till UBI is here and then its ogre
>>18588886>This is why it is moral...According to who? It can't be God because there is no such doctrine. It cant be according to morals relativism either. Only an idiot needs an explanation as to why that's absurd.
>>18588931According to Wallahi
