From Ancient Collapse to Modern Crisis: How Climate Change, Borders, and Political Models Shape Our Future
Throughout history, civilisations that failed to adapt to environmental change have faced devastating consequences. From the Akkadian Empire to the Mayans, many societies have collapsed under the pressures of climate events such as prolonged droughts or floods. Today, modern societies face similar challenges as the impacts of climate change become ever more apparent, threatening the stability of nations around the globe. Whilst migration and resource redistribution were once natural strategies for survival, the rise of the modern nation-state has restricted these adaptive responses. Rigid borders and geopolitical tensions limit the movement of people, leaving vulnerable populations trapped in regions most affected by climate change. As the world grapples with this crisis, it becomes clear that our current systems are ill-equipped to respond. At the heart of this challenge lies a fundamental question: can neoliberal capitalism, with its focus on markets and profit, truly address the scale of the crisis, or is a more centralised approach, as seen in China, better suited to navigate the impending catastrophe? The choices we make now will determine whether we heed the lessons of history or are doomed to repeat its failures.
Vulnerability of Ancient Civilisations to Climate Change
The collapse of ancient civilizations such as the Akkadian Empire, the Mayan civilisation, Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and the Khmer Empire provides a powerful reminder of the vulnerability of human societies to climate change and environmental degradation. The Akkadians, once a dominant force in Mesopotamia, fell victim to a prolonged drought around 2200 BCE, which crippled their agricultural system and led to their downfall. Similarly, the Mayan civilisation faced repeated droughts, contributing to the abandonment of their cities and the collapse of their political structures. Both civilizations relied heavily on geographically fixed monocultures—agricultural systems dependent on specific environmental conditions, which made them particularly vulnerable to climatic shifts. Today’s industrial agriculture, reliant on single crops and intensive water use, shares these same vulnerabilities, putting modern societies at similar risk.
The case of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) further illustrates how the over-exploitation of natural resources can exacerbate a society’s vulnerability to environmental changes. The inhabitants of Rapa Nui relied heavily on deforestation to support their agriculture and monumental construction, leading to widespread soil erosion and a collapse in food production. With their ecosystem damaged beyond repair, the islanders were unable to adapt to changing conditions, leading to a significant population decline and societal collapse. In a similar vein, the Khmer Empire, which centred around the city of Angkor, was heavily reliant on a complex water management system to support its agricultural production. However, a combination of prolonged droughts and extreme monsoon floods in the 14th and 15th centuries overwhelmed the empire’s ability to manage water, contributing to its eventual decline.
These ancient societies often attempted to adapt through migration or resource redistribution, seeking more hospitable regions or adjusting their agricultural practices. Yet, these strategies were not always effective, particularly when the environmental crises were too widespread or severe. Rapa Nui’s isolation, for example, made migration impossible, while the scale of droughts in Mayan and Khmer regions outstripped their capacity to relocate or innovate.
The lessons of the past resonate strongly with the challenges we face today. Our modern systems, dependent on monocultures, finite water resources, and vulnerable infrastructure, are equally exposed in a warming world. As climate change accelerates, we risk repeating the same patterns: over-reliance on fragile systems, a failure to adapt quickly enough, and the limitations of migration in an increasingly closed and nationalistic world. Without learning from these historical examples, we face the real possibility of following a similar path toward societal collapse.
The Nation-State and the End of Natural Migration
The rise of the nation-state in the modern era has fundamentally transformed how societies respond to environmental pressures. Historically, when regions became uninhabitable due to climate shifts, natural migration allowed populations to seek out more hospitable areas. This movement of people was an adaptive mechanism, vital for survival. However, with the establishment of rigid borders and a growing emphasis on sovereignty, modern nation-states have placed significant restrictions on migration. Borders are now closely guarded, and immigration policies are often designed to limit the free movement of people, even in the face of climate-induced displacement.
In today’s world, these barriers to migration are becoming increasingly problematic as the climate crisis accelerates. Case studies such as the Syrian climate refugees, who fled the devastating drought that played a role in triggering the Syrian civil war, demonstrate how environmental stressors can lead to mass displacement and conflict. Pacific Islanders, whose homes are being swallowed by rising sea levels, face a future where entire nations could be submerged, leaving them with no choice but to seek refuge elsewhere. Similarly, sub-Saharan African migrants are fleeing worsening droughts and desertification, which are making traditional agricultural livelihoods untenable.
Despite the clear and growing need for migration as an adaptive response to climate change, neoliberal countries are ill-equipped to manage the influx of climate refugees. These economies, with their focus on short-term profits and ‘market-driven policies,’ often view migrants as a source of cheap labour rather than human beings in need of safety and opportunity. This commodification of migration leads to the downplaying of the climate crisis, as some sectors stand to profit from the availability of low-cost labour. In this context, climate-induced migration is not seen as a crisis to be addressed, but rather as a potential boon for industries reliant on exploitative labour practices.
However, this approach has significant social and political consequences. The strain of large-scale migration, coupled with a lack of coordinated policies, has fueled xenophobia and the rise of far-right movements across many neoliberal countries. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has become a common feature of political discourse, making it increasingly difficult to implement humane migration policies. As climate change continues to displace millions, the global failure to address both the root causes of migration and the crisis of closed borders will only deepen the challenges we face. In a world defined by rigid national boundaries, the adaptive strategies that once ensured human survival are now severely constrained, threatening not just displaced populations, but the stability of nations themselves.
Competing Political Models: Neoliberal Capitalism vs. Centralised Planning
In the face of the growing climate crisis, two major political and economic systems are competing for dominance: neoliberal capitalism and centralised planning. Neoliberal capitalism, championed by much of the Global North, is defined by ‘market-driven solutions’ that prioritise short-term profits over long-term sustainability. The markets in these economies are often driven by the profit-seeking motives of a small number of oligarchs and powerful corporations, which leads to an emphasis on immediate financial gain rather than addressing systemic risks like climate change. This profit-first approach tends to focus on deregulation, minimal state intervention, and an over-reliance on the private sector to solve pressing societal challenges. However, this model has consistently failed to grapple with the long-term threats posed by environmental degradation, as corporations and financial markets often downplay the severity of these risks if it threatens their bottom line.
On the other hand, centralised planning, as exemplified by China’s state-led development model, takes a very different approach. Instead of leaving critical decisions to ‘the market,’ the state plays a dominant role in guiding the economy, especially in long-term infrastructure development and resource management. China’s model allows for large-scale projects like the expansion of renewable energy sources, the construction of vast high-speed rail networks, and ambitious water management systems like the South-to-North Water Transfer Project. This kind of long-term planning enables China to build resilience against future climate shocks and ensure that essential infrastructure is in place for decades to come.
Whilst China’s model demonstrates the advantages of centralised planning, particularly in responding to the complex and long-term nature of climate change, it is not without its flaws. State control can lead to significant inequalities, with certain regions or populations benefiting more than others. Additionally, China’s rapid industrialisation has come with environmental costs, particularly pollution, which remains a major issue despite recent green initiatives. Furthermore, centralised models risk leaning toward authoritarianism, where state control can suppress dissent and reduce individual freedoms under the guise of national development.
Both systems—neoliberal capitalism and centralised planning—have their own strengths and weaknesses, but it is clear that the short-termism of profit-driven markets is ill-suited to addressing the global climate crisis. Whilst centralised planning offers the potential for large-scale, coordinated responses, it too must balance sustainability with equity and accountability to truly be effective in confronting the challenges that lie ahead.
Economic Shifts and the Challenge to the Petrodollar
The global financial system, long dominated by the U.S. dollar and its role as the primary currency for oil trading—known as the petrodollar—is facing a significant challenge from the BRICS nations (Brasil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). These countries are actively working to reduce their reliance on the dollar, seeking alternatives that would shift the balance of power in global trade and finance. This “de-dollarisation” movement, coupled with the creation of alternative financial systems such as new bilateral trade agreements and multilateral development banks, threatens the very foundations of the U.S.-led financial order.
As the BRICS nations push forward, shifts away from the petrodollar could lead to significant economic and geopolitical instability, potentially mirroring the wars and conflicts that accompanied past transitions of global reserve currencies. Historically, the transition from one dominant currency to another has often been marked by tension, conflict, and even war, as established powers resist the erosion of their influence. Today, similar risks exist, as the U.S. continues to leverage the dollar’s dominance to maintain control over global markets, using its financial systems to enforce neocolonial relationships that benefit a small elite in the Global North.
This resistance to change is compounded by the financialisation of the Global North, where the economy is increasingly driven by speculative markets and the profits of a few oligarchs, rather than investments in innovation or sustainability. Lobbying and corruption play a key role in this dynamic, with powerful interests ensuring that climate-friendly technologies, alternative energy solutions, and innovative economic reforms are kept out of the market for fear of disrupting the existing financial structure. The entrenched profit motives that dominate the markets in the Global North are incompatible with the large-scale changes needed to combat climate change.
In contrast, the rise of alternative financial systems in the Global South opens new pathways for global cooperation on climate change. By reducing dependence on fossil fuels and U.S.-led financial structures, nations may find greater freedom to pursue renewable energy projects and climate-resilient infrastructure. These shifts could facilitate more equitable global trade practices and reduce the environmental impact of the fossil fuel economy, creating opportunities for more collaborative approaches to the climate crisis.
Migration as a Historical Survival Strategy
Throughout history, migration has been humanity’s most effective strategy for adapting to climate change and resource scarcity. When environmental conditions became untenable—whether due to droughts, floods, or the exhaustion of local resources—people moved to more hospitable regions in search of survival. This natural response has allowed societies to endure through various periods of environmental stress, using mobility as a means to find new opportunities and rebuild in less vulnerable areas.
However, in the modern era, the rise of rigid borders and restrictive immigration policies, particularly in the Global North, have made migration increasingly difficult. Vulnerable populations in regions of high climate risk, such as the Global South, are often trapped in areas where climate change is most severe. These populations face dwindling access to water, arable land, and food, yet are met with closed borders and hostile policies when they attempt to relocate. This has turned migration, which was once a fundamental survival strategy, into a politicized crisis.
Instead of viewing migration through the lens of fear and control, it must be reframed as a key adaptation strategy in the face of the climate crisis. Governments and global institutions need to recognise that more open and humane migration policies are essential for enabling vulnerable populations to adapt to the environmental challenges they face. By promoting migration as a form of climate resilience rather than a threat, nations can foster a more just and collaborative global response to the impending impacts of climate change.
Which Model is Better Suited to Help Humanity Survive?
When comparing neoliberal capitalism and centralised planning in addressing the climate crisis, it’s clear that each system has distinct strengths and weaknesses. Neoliberal capitalism excels at fostering innovation through its ‘market-driven approach,’ but its short-term profit focus ultimately hinders its ability to address long-term collective survival needs. The profit-seeking motives of a few powerful oligarchs drive decision-making, often resulting in underinvestment in critical infrastructure and environmental resilience. For example, in the last decade, the expansion of rail networks in the United States has been minimal, despite having more kilometres of rail than China. The U.S. rail system is mostly privately owned, lacks coherence, and is severely under-resourced (there’s little profit in maintenance, after all). High-speed passenger transport is virtually non-existent, and a ticket from Los Angeles to Chicago can cost many times more than a comparable trip in China. Meanwhile, U.S. rail infrastructure continues to deteriorate.
In contrast, China’s centralised planning model has allowed for the rapid expansion of an extensive high-speed rail network, prioritising long-term infrastructure investments and resource management. By focusing on long-term goals rather than immediate profits, China has built a more resilient and efficient transportation system, which is better suited to meet the needs of a warming world where mobility and sustainability are paramount.
Whilst centralised planning offers clear advantages in addressing systemic risks like climate change, criticisms of it—particularly claims of inequality and authoritarianism—often come from neocolonial powers and their intelligence and propaganda agencies, seeking to undermine countries in the Global South. These critiques conveniently ignore the failures of neoliberal capitalism, which prioritises the wealth of a few oligarchs over the collective well-being of humanity. Neoliberal models, driven by short-term profit and market volatility, have consistently failed to respond to long-term crises like climate change, as evidenced by the crumbling infrastructure in many Western nations. In the U.S., for instance, the decaying rail system exemplifies the pitfalls of privatisation and the refusal to invest in public goods, leaving critical infrastructure inefficient and inaccessible.
In contrast, centralised planning, as seen in China, has delivered large-scale, long-term investments in renewable energy, transportation, and water management—essential in a world facing escalating climate risks. Whilst private sector innovation can play a supporting role, the reality is that market-driven models are inadequate when left to their own devices. The climate crisis demands ‘decisive, state-led action,’ not the patchwork, profit-seeking solutions offered by neoliberal systems. Attempts to demonise centralised planning are part of a broader effort to discredit alternative models that threaten Western dominance and control.
The way forward must be grounded in ‘state-led initiatives’ that prioritise the needs of people and the planet over profit. A hybrid approach can incorporate innovation from the private sector, but the state must take the lead in building infrastructure, ensuring resource management, and creating long-term sustainability. Neoliberal capitalism has shown itself to be fundamentally unsuited to the challenges of our time. Only a system that puts collective survival and resilience at its core can help humanity adapt and thrive in the face of the climate catastrophe ahead.
Final thoughts …
The lessons from ancient civilisations are unmistakable: climate change can devastate societies, especially those bound by rigid systems that prevent adaptation. Civilisations like the Akkadians and Mayans collapsed when they failed to adjust to environmental shifts, and today, we face the same risk. The hyper-individualised and hyper-financialised system in the U.S. mirrors the fate of Rapa Nui—a society that stripped its land of resources and isolated itself politically. Just as Rapa Nui’s overexploitation led to collapse, the U.S.’s short-sighted focus on profit and individual gain, combined with its resistance to global cooperation, points to impending doom.
To avoid repeating these historical failures, humanity must urgently rethink its economic and political priorities. We need models that emphasise long-term planning, global solidarity, and flexible migration policies. The climate crisis demands collective, coordinated action—not the narrow, profit-driven focus that dominates neoliberal systems. If we are to survive the immense challenges ahead, we must embrace solutions that prioritise the planet and humanity as a whole, rather than the interests of the few.
End autistic rant.