Quote:
Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
Over crowding is actually do to science and technology, allowing higher population density. As far as I am concerned, this is useful progress, but something closer to atheism fixed one problem and created another. There was short term progress leading to new long term problems. Now we need a social mop to clean up the mess.
The process is almost getting mud on your hands, as the social scientist cultivate within the atheist garden of science, which is very nicely done. You go inside the house to clean that off your hands, but mess up the sink. Now we need to clean that mud off, but in doing so spray water everywhere with the sink shower. Then you walk in the water that fell on the floor to make foot prints on the floor. While cleaning that up the bucket gets tipped over. Before long one forgets the muddy hands was the original cause, since one is now using towels to dry the rug. If there was enough fore-thought maybe the outside hose would have been a better way to clean off the hands.
|
Now I see what you mean. It is good to see something else who recognizes even the problem.
Here below is what I have been working on:
This time, civilization will not be able to experience quite the same social evolutionary process as in the past. When past civilizations experienced religious reaction and decline, there was always room for another new civilization to arise and find its place in the world. When the level of stress became so excessive in the old society, a new WV brought about a new society and civilization. Now, however, we have no room left for even two such separate civilizations here on Earth. There is only room for one, and it is in decline.
We do not need to ever run out of space, however. Unlike the rest of the biological world, we have the whole universe to expand into---if we can do it in time. But we do not have enough time. We lack both the time, the resources (such as energy), and the intense popular focus needed in order to build the colonies we would need to house what would be, by then, our even more excessive population.
All this is ominous. We have finally over-crowded the mainstream. For all practical purposes, we have to now see ourselves as having run out of room. Like all biological organisms, there is an ultimate limit to human numbers as long as the space is also limited. The maximum number we can sustain before sliding down the bell curve is not set by the amount of food we can produce nor how many people we can stack up in tall apartment or condominium buildings. It is determined by the amount of stress we can endure. The more our numbers expand while our WV systems continue to divide us, the more stress accumulates because the Earth's limited space now restricts the number of social organisms it can support to, in our modern world, only one! In the mammalian world, species that are not being culled by predators---such as we---ultimately experience stress reaching such levels that the species either experiences killing rates of adrenal gland exhaustion and/or experience a “social-problem” behavioral crisis. In both cases, what follows is a population kill off or collapse. We face with the prospect of a biological-type population crash.
Since mankind learned to speak, he has had occasion to think of not just our beginning but, as well, our end. In the last 2,000 years alone, there have been hundreds of predictions of “The End Times.” Obviously, of course, all were wrong. But does that really mean it won't happen? We are a biological entities or organisms. It is unrealistic to see us as separate us from the nature that we evolved with.
How big a crash in numbers might we expect? When we consider that we presently have some 15,000 nuclear bombs and that our air travel connects to every part of the globe makes us so vulnerable to a new form of plague that we could lose over a third of our numbers---two to three billion people---in just a few weeks. Nuclear radiation and “a nuclear winter” could take an even larger toll. The fact that all previous predictions of an “End Times” were wrong is no indication we are not now approaching a very real and catastrophic one, and the closer we approach it, the more stress we can expect.
Both militant Christians and Muslims, believe an End Times world nuclear, chemical and/or biological war would be followed by a paradise of bliss and righteousness either in "the next world" or in “God's Kingdom on Earth.” According to their scriptures, we need to be destroyed to be “saved.” With a reactionary trend in place and the Religious Right in increasing control---after the current liberal counter-reaction---the vast remainder of the world would have leaders who were increasingly inclined to see themselves as “the hand of God” and, thus, increasingly inclined to work to bring it about. At least, they would have a conflict of interest and, hence, lack the normal motivation to prevent it. There is no scriptural commitment to the very survival of the human race by the more militant believers of any of the old “spirit”-based WV systems, and everything that is not in their old Scriptures is merely the “profane.”
In Ancient Rome, stress levels evidently rose to such levels that people wanted to “leave the world” and see the rich left behind to burn in hell.” It was largely for that reason that they converted to Christianity. If there is no new and advanced WV system to adopt, stress levels in those who are not the militant believers would keep rising until people would become obsessed with death and want to get it over with in the same way as with the Romans. Stress would build up into a sort-of “death-wish” because we could see no escape. Suicide rates would not rise alone but with a general, widespread wish to end it all.
Yet, neither the academics, the public media, or public opinion can officially, openly, or even consciously acknowledge this threat. To even explore this subject would be antagonistic to both secular and religious beliefs. In the same way, the international deterioration in behavior, or the Antagonistic-Retaliatory partnership process, cannot be recognized in either current history or in political science references. The secular system's very survival depends upon minimizing conflict between the religious systems. Academically, “the Clash of Civilizations” cannot happen. Acknowledging that such conflict is growing would be to admit the secular system is failing, something that would be suicidal for the leadership of the secular society.
