Unity or degradation?

As early as in 1960, the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson has suggested that every civilization would once face overcrowding and lack of resources. And, as a consequence, it would need to expand the living space and try to find the better use of its solar power.

By the way, the resource hunger is not a myth. The fact that a barrel of oil costs 30-40 dollars today in no way implies that petrol would be sold for pennies tomorrow. The theory of overpopulation does not look unrealistic as well. The local wars for water and food had never been something out of the ordinary; however, they do threaten to spread over the entire planet now.
I understand that it could be somewhat amusing to read these lines from the monitor screen, being comfortably ensconced in your favourite chair. But try to take a look beyond your comfortable world: can you see the burning shelters for refugees in Europe? And I'm afraid this is not the end of the problems of the Old World.
The search of an exit from civilization impasse would inevitably lead humanity to the fact that we would have to develop some global project like exploration of Mars and other eco-planets in different galaxies.
The separation of people by the well-fed and prosperous - and all the others - could serve as an alternative. However, it would come with its typical price (remember that Rome went down before the barbarians attracted by its wealth) and without any guarantees for the comfortable life of the ‘golden billion’.

The Dyson’s views were inspired by Olaf Stapleton’s science fiction novel "Star Maker" published in the 30s of the last century. The need for unification, as a prerequisite for saving civilization, is one of the key ideas of this book. In addition, the author insisted on the need for the harmonious development of spirituality, as a second prerequisite.
Today, it is quite difficult to imagine the mankind rejecting its differences and start solving the common problems taken together. Unfortunately, there are much more reasons for strife and we conduct them more readily. There are some politicians who are ready to turn the world into chaotic dust to materialise their ideas about the correct world.
History shows how easily we lose the chance to hurl all efforts into something sensible and useful for everyone. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many billions of dollars were freed in the world. They could be used to find cures for cancer and AIDS, the development of human intelligence and improve the quality of life in the backward countries.
As a result, the lion's share of funds was used to build the unipolar world; the imposition of "democracy" in those states that had not even come out of the realities of the feudal society. This practice has put the world on the brink of global political and economic disaster in just 30 years.
However, the hope that it still could be corrected remains. The meeting of Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church and Pope Francis inspires optimism. Even 10 years ago it was impossible because of the differences. But now the threats to Christian values, Christians and Christianity are so great that the hierarchs have tried to overcome the millennial alienation.
It would be gratifying, though unlikely, that the leaders of nations took advantage of this good example. In my opinion, the construction of a new world without harsh confrontation and violence and based on the principles of harmony with nature would be ideally to start in Syria. Let us not forget that this is the biblical country along with Palestine, Egypt and Israel.
In addition, the East is the stronghold of Islam and the Christian leaders could very well join the Muslim religious authorities in Damascus. Besides, one of the oldest Buddhist temples is in Syria and therefore the participation of the Dalai Lama would be justified. In this setup, it would be possible to talk about the revival of spirituality not only of the Christian part of the world but of all mankind.
Not so long ago I was in Damascus - this is fairly a quiet town. The organizing of the meeting of the spiritual leaders, of course, would require some additional steps, but generally, its security could be guaranteed. The Nobel Peace Prize Winners like Mikhail Gorbachev, Barack Obama and others could support the religious leaders.
I discussed this idea in the Secretariat of the Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates in Chicago and, in my opinion; they have found it quite interesting. And if the meeting were attended by several world leaders, it would be possible to count on serious changes in human consolidation and the establishment of peace and understanding.
Patriarch Kirill, who during his journey visited not only the Latin America countries but Antarctica as well, drew attention to the fact that cooperation without confrontation is achievable: "This is really a physical image of an ideal society where people, being different, live in peace; where the natural environment is protected as strictly as anywhere else on the globe; and where the complete harmony exists with these wonderful animals - penguins, which is impossible to watch without tender emotions."
Patriarch Kirill's visit to Antarctica would be remembered by the touching moment: when the leader of the local flocks of penguins came out to meet the people, the hierarch fell to his knees speaking the words: "Do not worry, kid, we will not touch you, you are safe." Earlier, at the service in the local church, the Patriarch recalled the words of St. Sergius of Radonezh, "Looking at the Holy Trinity, we are able to overcome the division of this world."
However, for how long would Antarctica remain the island of an ideal society? The history tells about attempts to bring the typical human strives there: New Swabia was to be a military and political bastion of Nazi Germany in the Southern Hemisphere.
In any case, if we would not be able to unite to solve the common problems, we inevitably would have to choose another path - the path of separation and degradation. This, in turn, would lead to the degeneration of mankind.
It is possible that the similar process once took place in the history of Homo sapiens. Kyoto University researchers recently concluded that a man could have not evolved from apes but exactly the opposite: some species of apes are the human species that had been degraded into animals.
One must agree that it is not a very pleasant alternative. However, monkeys seem to be quite happy. They do not realize that life could have different purposes than the daily search of bananas and the struggle for survival. For example, they definitely could not care less about the cosmos.