March 22, 2014 | David F. Coppedge

Communist Explanation for Societal Collapse Offered by Science Site

“Scientists” say society is doomed, according to a “research study,” but the explanation is right out of the Marx playbook.

Economic determinism, inequality, class struggle – it’s all there in a Live Science article, “Society Is Doomed, Scientists Claim.”  The scientists, we learn, are from NASA-Goddard and the University of Maryland.  While both institutions thrive in a free-market capitalist system, they have no need for that hypothesis, even after watching floods of poor people flee communist dictatorships for the freedom in America.  Societal collapse, you see, is a Darwinian thing.  It’s like the balance of nature: too many predators (bourgeousie), and the prey (proletariat) drops off.  (The “researchers” avoided those terms, for obvious reasons).

Informed by this paradigm,” the article says, “the researchers developed a relatively simple formula with four factors influencing social collapse: nature and natural resources, the accumulation of wealth, the elite and the commoners.”  Unless a revolution of the proletariat presumably occurs in time, economics will drive the rich richer and the poor poorer until society collapses.  There’s no role for sin (e.g., corruption and dishonesty of leaders, or ignorance and apathy of voters) in this equation.  Not even intelligent design (technology, planning) can stave off this law of nature, they believe.  They do, however, have a solution to provide hope:

Not all is lost, however: Societies can moderate the two factors that contribute most to social meltdown: the exploitation of natural resources and the uneven distribution of wealth, the researchers said.

“Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per-capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion,” they wrote.

Ah, yes: redistribution of wealth.  Marx would be honored to have “scientific researchers” confirm his theory.  His utopian visions worked out so well in the 20th century (e.g., 11/30/05)

The article led to some emotional interchanges in the comments.  A subsequent statement by NASA posted on said that the paper was “not solicited, directed or reviewed” by the space agency, and “NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions.”

Favorite cheer of Big Science academia: “Lean to the left!  Lean to the left!  Stand up, sit down, fight the right!”



  • rockyway says:

    “Collapse can be avoided… if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion,” they wrote.

    Reasonably? What’s that? If all were merely matter in motion nothing could be reasonable or equitable. Materialism renders these [and similar] concepts meaningless, as it insists that matter is all that exists.

    – We need to ask these people some questions; ”do you really believe in materialism or do you just say you do? If all is merely matter in motion why do you care what happens? If you are sincerely a materialist, why are you giving us these sermons? i.e. if there is no free will why do you say some things are wrong? Why are you speaking of all these immaterial [and illusory] concepts? Who or what is supposedly doing this caring? (Sub-atomic particles?)

    It’s my opinion people like this aren’t materialists at all… but rather atheists; i.e. they realize materialism renders human experience absurd, but since they don’t like the idea of a creator God they deny that He exists. [This is a projection of the fact few things hurt us more than to be treated as if we don’t exist.] In other words, their materialism is a front… and we can tell this from the way they speak.

Leave a Reply