Will your next point be about British developing the radar and the radio?
Which attributes are being tested, other than the ability of a society to expand and conquer or destroy other societies?
Preying is part of life. People forget we are animals. Sure, we try to impose some rules on the preying, but who can enforce them but the strongest?
I am not trying to deny our need for liberty and safety. But you have to think about those in the real context of constant conflict. At any time you should look around and chose to support one predator over another, because there are real differences that will impact your needs. And many people from that time and place in the original article chose the white wolves.
Edit to address you question more directly: empires need to provide some things to the ones who are being ruled, otherwise you can't keep order. Lack of order means lack of efficiency, which affects army, which affects their ability to control and expand the empire. So there is a constant quest for balance between taking resources and giving back things. New empires pop up that do it better and they kill everything around until they fall themselves. Evolution.
1. Unnecessary. Unnecessary for what? Anything? Cause in that case I do not agree. The rise, expansion and collapse of empires is very necessary for the development and testing of human organizational models. The price for change (not necessarily good) is human life. That's the reality of the entire history of the human race, you can't simply wish it otherwise.
2. Unethical. Morals are highly subjective and debatable, but I do want to mention one thing. Magna Carta originated in evil white Europe and the whole world benefits from it's forceful spread.