Why Population Pressure and Militant Religion are the most Important Causes of the Developing Global Crisis

Abstract

Population pressure and militant religion are the most important causes of the crisis before us today because we can do something about them, and if we don’t we are doomed.

The history of the earth is vast and many civilizations have risen, fallen, transformed, and sometimes collapsed catastrophically. All of this is extremely complicated, so to boil it down to a couple of variables is ridiculously simplistic. That is, however, one role of theory for complex processes, reducing dozens or even hundreds of variables into a smaller number that minds can more easily manage. So this is a position paper, not empirical research. Controversies accompany definition of many key terms like “civilization,” “religion” (militant and otherwise), “genocide,” “human nature,” “population pressure” and so forth. These will be set aside so that the key thesis can be presented in the space available. I encourage anyone to disprove or improve on these ideas, because however you describe it our global civilization is entering a period of profound crisis. Practical answers matter more than words, and accuracy matters more than ideology. In the past, as cases here show, some civilizations facing similar challenges survived while others perished forever from this earth. So the question of why some fail and why others succeed is not a mere theoretical question.

There are many other variables important to the rise and fall of civilizations, but most will not destroy you if neglected. Population pressure and militant religion can. Plus, we can affect these factors, while goals like changing human nature or eliminating sin are ephemeral.

This paper is built on foundations laid by authors like Clive Ponting, Jared Dimond and Tatu Vanhanen (of Britain, the USA and Finland respectively). But almost every concept is disputable, from the definition of civilizations to the “evolutionary roots of politics” that Vanhanen discusses (and Azar Gat elaborates, 2006) which drive some of their political science colleagues into vehement denials that biology has anything at all to do with politics. The critics are wrong, but rather than argue each of these and many other relevant items extensively here, I will just declare my opinion. Having considered these complex and sensitive topics as carefully as I can, these are my conclusions. Readers may critique and prove or disprove them as they like. My goal is human survival, which I think is at risk to these two factors specifically.