What’s more inciting, resources or religion & ideology?

Competition for resources has been the timeless government of man. From cave-dweller to contemporary, those who overcame such rivalry alone attained survival – our intrinsic pursuit. Also, historically, it has been apparent that human development amplifies economic disparity (Horowitz, Igielnik, & Kochhar, 2020), with many agents’ resources being commandeered in the exponential growth of other regimes. Thus, Stiglitz (Stiglitz, 2002) claims that in a changing world, globalisation is inversely proportional to individuality and human worth – with limited restrictions to our will, multitudes are “exploited” at relatively undervalued rates, and resources are therefore inequitably distributed to the few that dominate. In both aforementioned examples, the agents who finish with a lack of resources suffer as a natural implication of macroeconomic human behaviour. This is, and generates, conflict. It is not simply historically prevalent, rather it is a testament to our inherent evolutionary inclinations. If truly comprehensible, I believe resource scarcity causes competition, regressive exploitation and jeopardy to survival. It ignites our immutable ways, and is therefore unrivalled.

One must first define the integral terms. “Conflict” refers to “protracted disagreements between incompatible parties,” and can be measured either by social, economic, or environmental unrest or jeopardy to life, from revolutions to wars, and minor disputes. One can assume that a “lack of resources” leads to greater competition for existing resources, with constant (or rising) human requirements and reduced supply; this is accentuated by climate change [resources (most notably land) are disengaged] and a rapidly rising global population. Therefore, conflicts over allocation of, for instance food, provinces and economic equality (resources), prevail, an assumption we shall adopt for this essay.

Firstly, one may argue that resource scarcity triggers greater conflict, as increasing climate change and global overpopulation have intensified the competitiveness for human survival, causing environmental disputes between all civilians and states. The UN (UN, 2012) estimates that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will inhabit regions or countries of “absolute water scarcity,” alongside two-thirds of the Earth suffering “water stress.” It is therefore clear that personal survival this century is proportional to bureaucratic allocation of resources, which, if humanly imperfect, permits disagreements between ourselves and the state, as our very health is threatened. This is exemplified by Yemen’s civil war; for the last decade, Houthi militant factions have seized nationwide water sites to leverage governmental compliance. Thus, as possibly the world’s most critical humanitarian crisis is contingent upon the water prevalence in its population, evidently much basis of international conflict and governmental obligation is contingent upon availability of resources for them, currently threatened by climate degradation. Moreover, 56% (Action, 2023) of Yemeni civil war deaths are due to “food insecurity”  and lack of “medical access” – scarcity is omnipresent in loss of life, exacerbating any conflict. Also, whilst in isolation, such consequences appear only moderately significant, they are heightened by the active societal division correlated to resource lacks. Whereby resources are few, distribution between each sector in the economy becomes crucial; currently, 70% is utilised by the Primary Sector, 20% by industry and 10% by services. Yet, increased demand-pull for the former suggests that by 2050, agriculture will require 90% of all remaining functional Water. Thus, the UN estimates approximately 450,000,000 individuals will be mortally threatened, across 29 countries, for fear of losing financial or health stability – through generation of competition for survival between sectors, and local economies, climate change and 1.25% overpopulation have birthed a battlefield of endless, “evolutionary” conflict; since, not only are we in competition with the state, or are nations in competition, but now we are in competition with each other. As our number of enemies rises, our potential for disagreement also rises. This demonstrates that resource scarcity is a more dominant trigger of conflict in the twenty-first century, as, given climate change, there exists an eternal impossibility to satisfy the collective, and thus we are all mortal foes whereby competition is for life. Although ideology arguably activates more detrimental revolutions, crises in Yemen and Rwanda have proven both the international and domestic threat to life of resource scarcity, far more potent this century than social constructs merely affecting individual groups of economies at one instant.

However, competition for resources has historically failed to generate as much division as ideology and religion, perhaps because the latter two are present everywhere, despite revolutions individually affecting few nations at one instant. Seeking perfected self-government has fuelled much thought over time; from Confucius to Muhammad, ideology and religion have shaped the hierarchical pyramids which include each economic agent in the world. As they challenge intellect and individuality, our single greatest gifts, they by nature cause controversy everywhere (Ideological Conflict, 2004); social, economic, and environmental, not merely potential for conflict (resource scares notably only severely jeopardise “29 countries” (UN, 2012) out of 197). For instance, the second largest clash of this century, by death toll, is the Syrian civil war, based entirely upon ideological feud. Approximately 500,000 lives have been taken, alongside the annihilation of a previously developed civilisation, as jihadist and nationalist groups opposed Bashar’s “secular leadership reforms.” Due to contrasting interpretations of power and religion, the most fatal exhibitions of humanity have taken place, violating rights, livelihoods, and freedom for growth; ideology can idiosyncratically extinguish all opportunity. Furthermore, whilst the risk of resource scarcity has an evolutionary rationalisation, much can be speculated about ideology also. If we accept that humans seek survival and, for many, domination, the latter influences other beings – thus, imposition of beliefs is fundamentally natural (to many), merely to seek leadership and power, under these assumptions; often these people accumulate greater “social influence” and  “resource access” with greater “coercive control” (Zeng, Cheng, & Henrich, 2022). Yet, as citizen’s beliefs invariably differ, the views of the dominant need not equal the views of the dominated – therefore, imposition can only be attained via conflict, justifying the widespread, international evidence. This links to how religion and ideology may trigger dispute this century, dividing each region and pact (Dorrel, Henderson, Lindley, & Connor, 2019), being the result of humanity’s pursuit of truth, and domination. However, resources are the very tool which we use in pursuit of domination, to cause calamity, and are thus used as “control variables” when measuring religious disputes (Fearon & Laitin, 2003); therefore religious and ideological conflict is dependent upon resources, making the latter more significant in conflictive behaviour.

Moreover, not only is ideological conflict dictated by resources, however much ideological conflict correlates to an initial lack of resources, and its ramifications may thus be attributed so. This century (extrapolatable) has overseen increasing globalisation, and therefore international plutocracy is becoming more evident; Stiglitz (Stiglitz, 2002) suggests Western nations suffer reduced barriers to trade relatively less than developing nations, whilst benefitting relatively exponentially more from their services; the disproportionate burden upon the poor is “regressive”. Therefore, as the world naturally develops, a class of “exploited” civilians may emerge, who, after uniting to comprehend their “exploitation,” often intermittently develop unrest. Such begins the “proletarian revolt” (Marx & Engels, 1848). This has historically occurred (sometimes cyclically) in developing economies, as demonstrated by both the French (1789) and Bolshevik (1917) Revolutions, both previously absolute monarchies, having deprived the majority of resources, later correlated to unprecedented disagreements. This is proven by the USSR GINI Coefficient of 0.362 (high income inequality) in 1904 (Lindert & Nafziger, 2014). And thus, the ideologies of Marxism, and “liberté, égalité, fraternité” were born, eventually over which approximately 41 civil wars transpired, including most notably the Vietnam War, surpassing 3,000,000 deaths (How many people died in the Vietnam War?, 2023). Furthermore, according to research conducted by the University of Oxford, a lack of resources (economic failure) invariably gives way for radical, “atypical” political environments and ideologies, which typically precede conflict (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004, pp. 563-95). This is furthered, as their evidence suggests “economic variables” to possess more “explanatory power” than “political and social variables” in the context of Civil War, a persistent example of quarrelling in the last 75 years (post-Cold War). This demonstrates how “structural scarcity” (UN, 2012) is strongly correlated to much ideological disagreement and therefore, not only are resources often the objective, and dictator of terms for, but their scarcity also fuels the cause of, ideological conquests, deeming them to be superlatively significant.

On the other hand, whilst much of the current ideological and religious conflict may be dependent upon lack of resources, currently dependent upon climate degradation, this is not perpetual. Rather, it is dependent upon the rate of climate change relative to the prevalence of religious division or radical ideology, subject to change. Whereby climate degradation falls and religious division rises, the latter becomes more likely to cause disputes. For instance, religion is growing at a swifter rate than atheism, agnosticism, and secularism. As Christianity grows by 1.17% per annum, Islam reaches 1.93%, collectively outweighing atheism, at merely 0.22%, internationally (Christianity grows..athiesm..Islam, 2022). Therefore, the potential for religious conflict arguably rises, as the proportions of society occupied by different religious groups rise, having historically been a source of warfare. This was demonstrated by the Crusades, incurring up to 3,000,000 deaths. Moreover, this is amplified as the presence of political extremism in both Europe and North America is rising. Right-wing extremist violent attacks quadrupled in the USA between 2016 and 2017 (Jones, 2018), and Islamophobia surged in Germany, with militant groups such as the “National Socialist Underground,” responsible for approximately 10 undetected assassinations until 2011 (Koehler, 2016). Thus, arguably, ideological and (potential for) religious conflict is growing. Also, whereby climate degradation falls, the removal of fundamental resources falls, and therefore the conflict over their distribution inherently falls, something we may observe during the twenty first century. This is currently transpiring, as CO2 emissions increased by a mere 300 million tonnes in 2022, far exceeded by 2 billion tonnes in 2021 – an 85% fall (CO2 emissions..set to grow..by only a fraction, 2022), preserving natural resources jeopardised by global warming, such as crop yields. As well as this, international agreements exist, notably the Paris Agreement of 2015, which coerced 193 nations into limiting temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid irreversible environmental “bifurcation” – as such, water and crop yield losses are being swiftly counteracted, and therefore their predicted significance is partially nullified. This indicates that, regardless of history, upon which major opposition is based, contemporary changes may justify a systematic reassessment of the conclusion, as a “lack of resources” may not be so widespread as religious and ideological division this century. However, not only are religious communities invariably peaceful, but in order to prevent this “bifurcation,” we must reduce Carbon intensity of growth by 14%, almost 5 times higher than our species’ historic record of 3% during 1970s Oil Crises (Jackson, 2021); halting environmental degradation to truly minimise resource scarcity is empirically unviable.

To conclude, the comparison of conflict due to resources, and ideology, is not one to be vaguely oversimplified, requiring much scrutiny of history, evolutionary behaviour, climate degradation, and their respective interactions this century. Nevertheless, I unequivocally believe that a lack of resources will trigger more conflict this century than ideology or religion.

Theoretically, ideology generates active societal division; it subjectively differs by individual, with the final influence often dictated by the dominant; frequently, such “political warfare” can be belligerent, as evinced above. Similarly, religion has been correlated to various conflicts, with increasing potential also as theism rises, whilst the availability of the climate (and therefore resources) also rises. However, it seems logical that the contingent-upon aspect of conflict itself, the objective, the (frequently) cause, and the means by which victory is decided, must be truly superlative – resources. The majority of ideological warfare has been for (or catalysed by) land, labour, or capital, the three tangible economic resources, alongside all religious disagreements being for the pursuit of prevalence, or rather the pursuit of regions upon which to become prevalent or heard. Thus, it is seemingly apparent that these have in fact been the “timeless government of man,” as we operate to compete with each other, causally linked to resources, for resources, via the utilisation of resources; clearly, no quantity of good is ever sufficient, and thus, we are always suffering a “scarcity” (by our own estimation). Other forms of conflict are negligible as geopolitical upshots. Therefore, this century, as climate degradation ceases are not remotely close to 14% targets, I believe much dispute will be incontrovertibly dependent upon a “lack of resources.” This deems them to holistically and axiomatically generate more conflict, jeopardy to life, and exploitation.