>>7673149>its wrongthere is no universal "wrong". maybe in a given society of Christian people it is considered so. not in a different society with a more militant moral system, or no morals at all. it is generally considered wrong to kill a member of a group, inside the group, in most cultures; but the treatment of outsiders is different, and rightfully so, because the moral serves the interest of the group.
in general it is actually less efficient to kill people in civilized countries, because they actually contribute to society, as evidenced by their wealth. there's no point in slaying a goose that lays golden eggs, or every single animal that doesn't do much harm and occupies little space, unless you really have something much better to make up for it.
but other people will simply take away from society and hinder its development. they could be retarded. or they could have proven, with their actions, that they are not compatible with society. these usually wind up in jail for their actions, being supported by taxpayers' money because it's "immoral" to kill them. so please tell me how supporting them is more beneficial for society, besides upholding abstract moral ideals of Christianity.
>all the deserts, jungles and caves these are uninhabitable though. of course they aren't colonized. the cost of living there is very high. consider that people already live in Canada where climate is harsh.
good land is a very valuable resource. by definition it's limited. unlimited resource is something like air and sun (with some exceptions of course).
if Europeans didn't conquer America, likely the history of the world would be different and way worse. Likewise, the story of Ayn Rand would be different, too.
