h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Whether there's another world war III or not, war can be seen as something desirable.
Like any natural disaster, war inevitably aids in not only 'physical' natural selection, but social, moral and economic 'evolution'. Indeed, those that partake in a war, and loose, will inevitably have to concede to the prevailing victors wishes (for example Germany and Japan, after world war II).
Furthermore, with necessity still being the mother of invention, an arms race, and a subsequent war, helps to develop a nations technological prowess.

However, there is a further, and more important reason.
It is a well known, but rather un-documented fact that humans thrive on conflict. Humans are probably designed to want to have wars; we have always had them, and still do. However, what makes war good for humanity is that while it divides, it also bonds. If there were another war against Germany (for example) people in the UK would forget that some of them are women, or men, black or white...what it comes down to, is the British Vs the Germans. The same goes if it was Europe at war with America. We wouldn't think of them as onion munching Frenchies, or El Spaniolas...it'd be US vs. THEM.

Which brings me to the final point, which is...
The ONLY time I can see humans overcoming their self-destructive tendencies is when little green men invade and start blowing things up. Then, we'll just be HUMAN

I disagree with your comment about "'physical' natural selection". Generally, we only send our most fit young men to fight in a war. The weak are left behind, and they will survive. The people who die during a war are chosen as often as not by chance and decisions made at higher levels than the individual.

War hardly aids in natural selection. It works against it.

Hmm, it depends.
What about those 'strong' people that go to war and survive? If your theory was correct, then there would be a whole lot of string women around? After all, they hardly ever go to war

I'm of the opinion that natural selection pretty much stopped when we developed civilization. Individuals rarely die before they have a chance to pass on their genes. We go to extrodinairy lengths to try and let everyone live some sort of normal life. The most successful members of society breed the least. The underclass on welfare breed the most.

I don't think we're really moving anywhere.

Hmm, once again, I can see your point, but I don't agree 100%
Yeah, we all seem to have kids, and the most succesful people seem to have a lower number....

However, 'succesful' people, those who make lots of money, are educated etc, usually only have children with people who are similar. Some nobel prize winning chemist isn't really going to have kids with some red-neck idiot.

So perhaps we'll find a duelist society, which we've already had (to some extent) for a long time. A sort of class division....but rather (or perhaps, as well as) merely culture a physical and mental divide will emerge?

A bit like Neitzsches Ubermensch

I don't know. I suspect that changes in families' econmic status change far too rapidly for evolution to be occuring. I forget the numbers, but the percentage of people who move from one economic group to another is pretty amazing. (If I had the numbers this post would make some kind of sense.)

In fact, social mobility is at its lowest point for the last thirty years due to the economic policies of the right; the disparity between the income of the rich and the poor (both on a national and international level) is higher now than it's ever been.