its existence, and will, ultimately, be master of its own destiny.
Secondly, even apart from such philosophic considerations, we contend that War does not ensure the survival of the fittest. If men were animals, it certainly would. The stronger men would kill the weaker and this would improve the race, physically at least. But in our wars, the strong men are killed and the weak ones remain at home. Bullets and shells, moreover, kill men on the battlefield indiscriminately. It might be argued that amongst the fighters there are strong ones and weak ones, and that those who come back alive, are the strongest. This held good in olden days, but owing to our modern instruments for wholesale murder, the killing is done quite indiscriminately. Of course the stronger men will recover from wounds better than the weaker ones. But this factor would not be of sufficiënt value in favour of War, and would be much more than outweighed by the indiscriminate killing of the strongest men of the fighting nations.
It has often been said that War brings out the finest qualities of men, and that warring nations are more "virile" than others. I do not understand why we should require War to bring out our best qualities. We might just as well say that Plague and Earthquakes are good things, because the Plague gives doctors and nurses a chance of showing heroism, and patients a chance of showing their endurance, and because Earthquakes bring out our fine qualities of charity