God vs. Nature
March 8, 1997 (as amended)

Major religions assert that a God or Gods oversee all life, intervening when appropriate to reward or punish. This view is underestimating the power of nature. The processes of evolution underlie all life, constantly intervening to reward sustainable behaviour. This means that God is essentially a metaphor for nature, the self-defining, self-regulating system of life. I think that "God coming to save us" really means "nature will kill us off if we are unsustainable".

The architects of these religions did not see the web of interdependencies that life is. They could perceive that the world was getting less and less divine - and extrapolating, perceived that eventually a breaking point would be reached, humanity would be endangered, and the intervention of God would be required. This was because they thought humans were autonomous - that they could do whatever they pleased without regard for the environment. The architects of these religions did not realise that humans depended on the environment for survival. They thought it would be God who intervened - they did not realise that it would, in reality, be nature who eventually intervened instead.

This breaking point is probably when population reaches unsustainable proportions. In fact the consequences of overpopulation read very similarly to various "end-times" apocalypse scenarios: flood, fire, famine, pestilence. These are symptoms of environmental degradation and social failure. The architects of these religions thought that these nasty things could only come about through the intervention of God.

The reality is that nature will serve these up with neither thought nor compassion. Where religion sees divine intervention, nature self-regulates. The divine intervention of religion is synonymous with, and equivalent to, the self-regulation of nature. If humans behave unsustainably, nature will step in and discourage that behaviour. Certainly something outside humanity has intervened, but it is not God, it is nature.

Where religions see a need for divine purpose (to save), nature sees a need for survival of the fittest (to evolve). Both religion and nature have "purpose", but nature achieves it without requiring a divine being. Nature's purpose is to allow only the fit to propagate.

Applied to problems with humanity, survival of the fittest means that elements of humanity that become unfit are more likely to be eliminated. It means that if humanity gets itself into trouble, some people will die, and the survivors - those best suited to the new environment, those that best "fit" the world they find themselves in - will be equipped to avoid the problem in the future.

This process of death and survival will get humanity past the "breaking point" described by the apocalypse scenarios. It's like delivering antibiotics to bacteria - many die, but some survive and build anew, somewhat resistant to the antibiotic that caused the calamity.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

To revisit the flood, fire, famine, pestilence thing - noticed a lot of water around recently? The Earth has grit in its eye, and the cleansing process is in progress. Severe flooding damages infrastructure, which leaves civilisation vulnerable.. fire follows, further damaging infrastructure... there is not enough food.. people die, and disease claims the weak. Those that survive will use their experience to build anew, somewhat resistant to a similar failure occuring in the future. The predictions seem very believeable.. perhaps someone has had a word in our ear.