But the difference between what you see as moral and I do is quite small - things which benefit society/species as a whole are seldom detrimental to individuals. Murder and violence
Absolutely not. In my home country there was a race of indigenous people living on an isolated island. They had a culture of pacifism. They didn't fight, they we happy, healthy and contented.
Then another group from the mainland sailed out there and murdered almost all of them.
That part of the gene pool has been pretty much obliterated because of too much peace leaving them vulnerable to invaders.
You may want to re-read what I wrote. Key work is "seldom". You found one example where this wasn't the case. Your Europe example is meaningless, as the timeframe of European advancement is both far too small to have a meaningful evolutionary advantage, and far too much outbreeding has occured to restrict those gains to europeans alone.
War is often good for future generations and survival of the species, but bad for individuals at the time. By my morals it's bad, by your morals it's good. So we don't agree.
You must not understand evolution very well to come to this conclusion. War tends to deplete gene pools. That is universally a bad thing - its taken us ~6 million years to develop the diversity we have. A war can remove a lot of that. The number of "future generations" you need to recover that is sufficient in number that they will most likely no longer be human.
Bryan
