Scientists say food insecurity drove international conflict 2000 years ago

[Hydrogen]

Researchers have identified climate-driven changes to food availability as a factor behind dramatic historical events that led the oasis city of Palmyra in Syria to its ultimate demise.

Ancient Palmyra has gripped public imagination since its picturesque ruins were "rediscovered" in the seventeenth century by western travellers. The most legendary story of ancient Palmyra is that of Queen Zenobia ruling over a thriving city in the Syrian Desert who dared to challenge the Roman Empire but ultimately got defeated. Her kingdom was subjugated, and the city was reduced to a small settlement without any wide-ranging importance. This has only recently been overshadowed by the catastrophic events of the Syrian Civil War that saw the archaeological site and the museum plundered and many monuments destroyed.

Deteriorating climate and a growing population

Now, scientists from Aarhus University and the University of Bergen are questioning the historical narrative about the final blow given to the city solely by the Roman invasion in 272/273 CE.

"We can now see that food security, always the main concern for a large urban centre situated in a highly inhospitable environment, was gradually reduced with a deteriorating climate and a growing population of the city. The timing of this nexus matches exactly the time of the reign of Zenobia and of that of her husband, Odaenathus, marked by social shifts, militarisation, the rapid conquest of neighbouring lands and the dramatic conflict that led to the demise of Palmyra," says Dr Iza Romanowska, one of the authors behind the new study.

Interdisciplinary team effort unlocks complex data

The interdisciplinary research team reconstructed the hinterland of ancient Palmyra -- the area around the city that could provide it with basic foodstuff -- and used modern land-use models developed for dry and semi-dry environments to estimate the maximum productivity of the land. They then ran the model against existing climate records to determine how much food could be produced at different points in Palmyra's history and with what reliability. In order to do this, archaeologists, ancient historians and complexity scientists joined forces to unleash the knowledge locked in the otherwise impenetrable data. The results showed that a long-term climatic shift towards drier and hotter climate caused a gradual decrease in agricultural yields, reaching levels barely sufficient to feed the budding population of Palmyra around the middle of the third century.

Innovative new approach -- new angles

Co-author Professor Rubina Raja, Aarhus University's chair of classical archaeology and director of the DNRF-funded Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet) heads the Carlsberg Foundation-funded project "Circular Economy and Urban Sustainability in Antiquity" from which the study stems. Rubina Raja adds:

"While there have been numerous studies looking at Palmyra's history, social composition and infrastructure, it is thanks to the innovative new approach that we are able to look at the history of this important city and the whole region from an entirely new angle. By combining computational modelling with a wide range of archaeological data processed by humanities researchers with deep historical knowledge we are able to consider the circular economy and its long-term sustainability and resilience."

Learning from the past is key

The study sets up a research pipeline, including computer scripts and detailed instructions, that will enable other researchers to analyse other ancient cities and determine how often and under what circumstances food security played a key role in shaping historical trajectories of past peoples.

"This kind of study showcases that many challenges which our societies face today had equivalents in the past. Contrary to the often-repeated trope that humans never learn from history, we can and we should learn lessons from the past," says professor in Global History at the University of Bergen and one of the study's authors, Eivind Heldaas Seland.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220921141529.htm

....


For many years, internet trolls have said if the united states government runs out of funding. They can simply invade a smaller and weaker nation to steal their wealth and generate liquidity. The US economy is backed by the US military. Which can happily steal whatever it needs from weaker nations, to render its economic policy sustainable, no matter how dire the conditions.

With food insecurity headlines becoming known constants in the media. Is it possible that food shortages of the future could pave the war to violence, war and bloodshed on an international scale?

If nations with powerful militaries are unable to feed their citizens in the future. Could it lead to them invading weaker nations in an effort to seize resources, supplies and farmland. In an effort to achieve sustainability?

Apologies in advance if this sounds depressing. I try to consider most scenarios no matter whether I like them or not. It might be somewhat negative. But can also be a good source of motivation.

[1715346064]

1715346064

[1715346064]

1715346064

[1715346064]

1715346064

[dothebeats]

It's not far from happening, although of course there is still some time to act before we get to the point wherein we have to fight for our basic needs and oppress other nations into giving us their resources. It's what a lot of generations before us did before we reached this point of "harmony" between nations and it's not impossible for us to revert back to that stage again. Imagine if everyone goes batshit crazy due to hunger. For damn sure they will do everything they can to survive another day, even if it means hurting someone for their food. It's still embedded within us for our own survival and pretty sure it'll exhibit once we reached our breaking point. The problem is, for sure the next conflict for survival will surely leave a lot of people dead—but not hungry, at least.

[Gyfts]

I suppose anything is possible but consider how much food is gone to waste every single year, and that in developed countries there's hundreds of thousands of deaths associated with overconsumption (obesity) ranging from heart disease to hypertension to diabetes. You couldn't even begin to list the adverse effects of having too much food around.

Energy is the biggest concern. No energy, no food. For food shortages resulting in famine of large and rich countries, you would need some sort of intervening and destabilizing global event that's even greater than war, almost something out of science fiction.

Imagine if everyone goes batshit crazy due to hunger. For damn sure they will do everything they can to survive another day, even if it means hurting someone for their food. It's still embedded within us for our own survival and pretty sure it'll exhibit once we reached our breaking point. The problem is, for sure the next conflict for survival will surely leave a lot of people dead—but not hungry, at least.

If civil society ever fell apart it'd be long before we run out of food. I think nuclear war resulting in famine would be the most probable outcome. But in that case, most of us would be dead long before we thought about where we would get our next meal from.

[theskillzdatklls]

Food and energy can't be printed out of thin air. The US government does have the luxury of being able to print money unlike many other countries and not totally destroy their currency, for now. But doing so doesn't change any situation if there is an energy shortage let alone a food shortage.

And food insecurity is at a local all time high right now between fertilizer prices, supply chain disruptions, etc. Some would say it's all part of a plan to increase reliance on government. Others might say its part of a plan to induce war for the MIC. Other's might say it's just how it is because of evil dictators / politicians. Who knows.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I suppose anything is possible but consider how much food is gone to waste every single year, and that in developed countries there's hundreds of thousands of deaths associated with overconsumption (obesity) ranging from heart disease to hypertension to diabetes. You couldn't even begin to list the adverse effects of having too much food around.

That's right, diseases such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. But where do these diseases come from? Anyone who has asked this question will not argue that they appear after eating a large amount of food. But the quality of this food—trans fats, GMOs, and other garbage that is filled with our food in order to increase its quantity—plays a huge role. How many of those present here eat right? I can bet no This means that all this leads to diseases, not only in the current generation but also in the future. 
Will there be wars for lack of food? What for? Competitors will simply poison people with various filth, which will be called "food"
And only a few will survive, because in our time, using natural products that have a positive effect on health is very expensive.

[hugeblack]

Returning to the story of the historical ancient city of Palmyra to try to narrate the hypothesis of the effect of hunger on politics is a long jump. We have recent models that show that even major countries can easily be subjected to shocks that force them to show their greedy authoritarian side.
Let's go back to the beginning of COVID-19 period, when some countries stole vaccines, distributing them to their citizens first, distributing them according to political loyalty, and finally using them as weapons.

[cabron]

Returning to the story of the historical ancient city of Palmyra to try to narrate the hypothesis of the effect of hunger on politics is a long jump. We have recent models that show that even major countries can easily be subjected to shocks that force them to show their greedy authoritarian side.
Let's go back to the beginning of COVID-19 period, when some countries stole vaccines, distributing them to their citizens first, distributing them according to political loyalty, and finally using them as weapons.

Muammar Gaddafi was successful in creating his own oasis in the past. With technology we have today, it can be done easily. Russia and Germany even made the biggest pipelines under water. Give the construction to the Chinese and they can build it in less than a year.

We have not really reached to the peak of technological advancement, we are not going to suffer scarcity of food. These crisis are man made because we are banning fertilizers, the use of fossil fuel and creating war.

There is energy available. All there is to do is to just agree on something and we could all go back to where we left of. Climate change has not really affected anything, we were just feed by all the news like storms, these storms always comes before we even have the concept of climate change.

[so98nn]

Up until now I thought country like US is very strong and is supposed to help other small nations and land fields so that they can thrive into the modern world. But after your statements I am amazed!! This is not at all expected from highly developed country like US. If they come to such arrangements then we should all note that it’s not capable continent to survived through hard times and it needs to depend on other small poor steal deals?

History is history. We love in nuclear age. If US falls to such poor levels then damm, many countries also losses nuke heads.

It’s Terminator all over again. However this time there won’t be anyone to write us into history books.   

[bocyaj]

Actually food security is based on the nation economy and food products yielding capacity.The powerful nation,can easily get the yield and finest products from the weak nation.It happen easily with the name of colonisation.It’s happened in many nations by the powerful countries like Britain,French.With the current strategy,the United States had a capacity to do colonisation.

[Zlantann]

For many years, internet trolls have said if the united states government runs out of funding. They can simply invade a smaller and weaker nation to steal their wealth and generate liquidity. The US economy is backed by the US military. Which can happily steal whatever it needs from weaker nations, to render its economic policy sustainable, no matter how dire the conditions.

The United States does not need to invade any weak country to steal its wealth. And doing such would give that nation a bad reputation considering that the US is viewed as the champion of freedom and democracy. They could do other lesser evil like;

1) Invest in any key sector of the county's economy and make money from shady deals.
2) Influence the political system of the nation and install a favorable and loyal government
3) Introduce new technology to the nation
4) Finance conflict that would lead to the sale of arms
5) Invent a deadly virus and make money from the sale of vaccines and drugs

With food insecurity headlines becoming known constants in the media. Is it possible that food shortages of the future could pave the war to violence, war and bloodshed on an international scale?

If nations with powerful militaries are unable to feed their citizens in the future. Could it lead to them invading weaker nations in an effort to seize resources, supplies and farmland. In an effort to achieve sustainability?

The challenge the world is facing currently is mainly because of the war in Ukraine and nations are trying to adapt to the effects of the war. Food insecurity might be acute in developing nations due to technological backwardness and high population but this may not be the case in developed nations. With the genetic modification of plants ( although not healthy) and improved agricultural practice, the size of land wouldn't be an impediment to food production.

[naira]

With food insecurity headlines becoming known constants in the media. Is it possible that food shortages of the future could pave the war to violence, war and bloodshed on an international scale?

If nations with powerful militaries are unable to feed their citizens in the future. Could it lead to them invading weaker nations in an effort to seize resources, supplies and farmland. In an effort to achieve sustainability?

Apologies in advance if this sounds depressing. I try to consider most scenarios no matter whether I like them or not. It might be somewhat negative. But can also be a good source of motivation.

If we look at how the first and second world wars can be said that almost the purpose of war is to strengthen, expand and also certainly seize available natural resources. So the impact on the world, we can see today, strong countries over war events in the past make their status as a country that still stands with all the abundant supply of natural resources.

It is very possible that when the country has lost the basic ingredients to feed its citizens, it is possible to create aggression back into areas with abundant natural potential but under poor government management, they can become targets. It's just that creating future wars brings tanks, weapons, and nuclear just as a title to scare weak countries into surrendering more quickly.

Look at the war between Russia and Ukraine which we can still see with our own eyes, many factors are favorable if Russia can take over all of Ukraine territory. Not only the supply of gas, oil, and natural resources. Rather it is declaring that Russia's power is not seen from a military point of view but by ownership of the resources they claim.

As a result, Russia economic growth increased and of course there were losses namely in Ukraine. Then if we talk more globally, this will trigger and motivate strong countries to carry out the same aggression, supported by alliances which eventually did not take long for the US to lose its status as a superpower.

[Nhazwrath]

so many disprovable assumptions here not sure where to start. 

lets go with food security. 

Despite what the media is promoting about food problems humanity is producing more food then we ever have utilizing less land then we ever have. 

So food security dire predictions fall in to the category of FUD. 

You like BTC and have done your research?  Keep going BTC is Just the start.   Theres a world of reality out there that is not the one the media produces to keep you watching them.

[el kaka22]

The biggest scare that I read in the OP's post is the fact that USA could invade anywhere they want, and get whatever they need to keep living a proper life. And that's not even the scariest part, I mean sure it's scary but that's not the point, the scary part is that everyone will be alright with it.

Russia attacked Ukraine and we all condemned them, we find that as a terrible thing and west put sanctions against them and life has been different for Russians ever since. What happened when USA invaded Iraq or Afghanistan? Did absolutely nothing and we all cheered them and even other nations helped them during the war, that's the scary thing about this situation.

[DrBeer]

....

For many years, internet trolls have said if the united states government runs out of funding. They can simply invade a smaller and weaker nation to steal their wealth and generate liquidity. The US economy is backed by the US military. Which can happily steal whatever it needs from weaker nations, to render its economic policy sustainable, no matter how dire the conditions.

With food insecurity headlines becoming known constants in the media. Is it possible that food shortages of the future could pave the war to violence, war and bloodshed on an international scale?

If nations with powerful militaries are unable to feed their citizens in the future. Could it lead to them invading weaker nations in an effort to seize resources, supplies and farmland. In an effort to achieve sustainability?

Apologies in advance if this sounds depressing. I try to consider most scenarios no matter whether I like them or not. It might be somewhat negative. But can also be a good source of motivation.

Once upon a time, the USSR, and now in modern times RUSSIA, tells a fairy tale about how the West wants to "capture them, their resources, blablabla" ... To be honest - from the side of an inhabitant far from economics, management and similar, complex issues, an IDEA can look real.
The problem is that the times of resource and colonial economies and systems are over!

I'll ask a simple question - tell me which is simpler:
1. Enslave a country with, say, 100 million people, seize all the resources, and force the population to work for the invader. Or
2. "Buy" the elite, and for pieces of paper that can be printed 24 * 7 to buy MANAGEMENT of a certain territory?

I am sure that a reasonable and pragmatic person will understand that the second option looks more realistic and less costly. Therefore, fairy tales about "seizures of territory for the sake of obtaining resources" are medieval concepts! Can you prove otherwise?

PS By the way - this is exactly what is happening now. And the Russian elites, screeching about hatred for the West, sold out to the West long ago, for Western money and Western values! Where do the "patriots of Russia" take the money stolen from the country? In USA, EU ! Do lovers of "socialism" in the West withdraw their savings to Russian banks, and rubles - this will be the answer, who has long been sold to whom

[Argoo]

It's not far from happening, although of course there is still some time to act before we get to the point wherein we have to fight for our basic needs and oppress other nations into giving us their resources. It's what a lot of generations before us did before we reached this point of "harmony" between nations and it's not impossible for us to revert back to that stage again. Imagine if everyone goes batshit crazy due to hunger. For damn sure they will do everything they can to survive another day, even if it means hurting someone for their food. It's still embedded within us for our own survival and pretty sure it'll exhibit once we reached our breaking point. The problem is, for sure the next conflict for survival will surely leave a lot of people dead—but not hungry, at least.

Yes, humanity, with its disrespect for nature and the resources of the Earth, is approaching such a bad scenario for the future. But we still have time to change our minds and significantly slow down or even avoid such an unenviable fate if we stop pushing global climate change on our planet with our actions. Also, humanity can invent ways to avoid the problem of food shortages in the future. But so far, neither we nor the previous civilizations of people on this planet have been able to do this.

[DudeAtWork420]

For many years, internet trolls have said if the united states government runs out of funding. They can simply invade a smaller and weaker nation to steal their wealth and generate liquidity. The US economy is backed by the US military. Which can happily steal whatever it needs from weaker nations, to render its economic policy sustainable, no matter how dire the conditions.

Totally agree with whoever said this.

With food insecurity headlines becoming known constants in the media. Is it possible that food shortages of the future could pave the war to violence, war and bloodshed on an international scale?

If nations with powerful militaries are unable to feed their citizens in the future. Could it lead to them invading weaker nations in an effort to seize resources, supplies and farmland. In an effort to achieve sustainability?

Apologies in advance if this sounds depressing. I try to consider most scenarios no matter whether I like them or not. It might be somewhat negative. But can also be a good source of motivation.

I am not sure how many war has been fought because of food insecurity but i am confident that many war is and will be fought over resource of fuel. Mankind already learned that fuel is the most important elements to run a nation to its highest development phrase. Food runs a human being and fuel runs the wheel of economy of the whole world. Elite doesn't care about their subjective citizen but they only care about their economy which needs fuels to run and military to protect.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

With food insecurity headlines becoming known constants in the media. Is it possible that food shortages of the future could pave the war to violence, war and bloodshed on an international scale?

I've heard that buzzphrase on the radio and on Youtube as well, I think, and I'm pretty sure that's all it is, a buzzphrase.  Doesn't the United States still have record numbers of obese citizens?  Sure, that could be from eating the wrong foods, but "food insecurity" does not equate to "actual food shortage".  Hell, I'd argue that people were insecure about their ability to buy certain foods at the start of the pandemic, due to panic buying and later because of those mysterious supply chain issues.

As to that second question there, I don't believe the world is headed toward starvation by a long shot.  I think this is a made up issue and simply by talking about it we're all feeding into the media or government's agenda--I have no idea what that agenda could be, but I don't doubt they have one.

[Nhazwrath]

With food insecurity headlines becoming known constants in the media. Is it possible that food shortages of the future could pave the war to violence, war and bloodshed on an international scale?

I've heard that buzzphrase on the radio and on Youtube as well, I think, and I'm pretty sure that's all it is, a buzzphrase.  Doesn't the United States still have record numbers of obese citizens?  Sure, that could be from eating the wrong foods, but "food insecurity" does not equate to "actual food shortage".  Hell, I'd argue that people were insecure about their ability to buy certain foods at the start of the pandemic, due to panic buying and later because of those mysterious supply chain issues.

As to that second question there, I don't believe the world is headed toward starvation by a long shot.  I think this is a made up issue and simply by talking about it we're all feeding into the media or government's agenda--I have no idea what that agenda could be, but I don't doubt they have one.

Most of the talking points are to get you talking about those points right or wrong or fantasy.  Track the questions that are relevant and not asked.

Fact Russia has a Long history of being invaded and almost being wiped out this has generated a nation of justified paranoids. 

Fact Russia has told the west since the 90's that they didnt want nato on thier borders Refer to the statement above. 

Fact Nato has been ignoring Russia's warning since the 90's. and creeping towards Russia

I can go on with a ton of these but most people are neither going to listen or care.

Last fact this war was predictable and and preventable.  and the media lies through its teeth all the time =>

[gantez]

If nations with powerful militaries are unable to feed their citizens in the future. Could it lead to them invading weaker nations in an effort to seize resources, supplies and farmland. In an effort to achieve sustainability?

This will be a dehumanising to humans for a powerful country to use the military to acquire another weaker country to take up land and food that they have, definitely it is not the US. The world has not gone back to barbaric nature for that to happen. Food insecurity is really alarming because of inflation that is on everywhere and the little food is expensive to get. I think there should be urgent need for some positive steps to take by government around the world. There should have to be focus in agriculture in the new yearly budget.