Predicting Armageddon: The Case for 2087?

A Disclaimer

Let's get the disclaimer out of the way from the get-go: no, this is not a hard-and-fast prediction, and yes, I am aware of several of the failed previous attempts at predicting Armageddon, the Second Coming of Jesus, and so on. 1988 came and went, so did 2012, and so on.

Nevertheless, I would like to lay out the case for 2087 specifically, and more broadly, the late 21st century. Seeing as this blog post is being written in 2018, there's obviously no book that I'm trying to sell a few years before so that I can live high on the hog waiting for a disaster that will never come. However, seeing as it is quite a while until the year 2087 itself, there's also quite a bit of uncertainty, especially in light of the fact that a substantial portion of the case for 2087 that I am about to lay out is based on projections.

A substantial portion of this case for 2087 will also be rooted in interpretations of various Scripture passages. Now, a lot of pre-tribulation rapture pre-millennialist evangelical Christians would like to have you think that Jesus Christ could come back at any moment or at least, that the "rapture" could happen at any moment. However, such a viewpoint does not take into consideration the most accurate interpretation of even some of the passages that they say that they affirm as Canon, such as the Book of Daniel. So if you were thinking that this prediction somehow coincides with the mainstream of contemporary Christian thought---that the case for 2087 is not bucking the contemporary 2018 theological system of a theological establishment---then you are mistaken.

Starting the Case: A Look at Daniel 7

Let's get into the case then. Let us first start with the Book of Daniel. Chapter 2 of the book is generally recognized as referring to ancient empires (i.e., Neo-Babylon, Medio-Persia, Macedonian Greek, and Roman). There is even the mention that the first empire refers to Neo-Babylon with the phrase, "Thou art the head of gold," in reference to Nebuchadnezzar.

The traditional viewpoint concerning Daniel 7 is that it is more or less a rehash of Daniel 2 with a lot of additional detail. However, as Bullinger and Serralta and others have noted, the ancient empires of Daniel 2 (particularly Neo-Babylon) do not fit into a proper interpretation of Daniel 7. According to Daniel 7, the empires are all present at the same time toward the end that are symbolized by the lion, the bear, the leopard/tiger, and (arguably) the eagle. This was historically not true of those ancient empires, as Medio-Persia definitely replaced Neo-Babylon, and the Roman Empire definitely replaced a large portion of the Macedonian Greek empire which eventually died off. Furthermore, Daniel 2 portrays a succession of empires that is much more in concert with what actually happened to the ancient empires.

To top all of this off, serious doubts ought to abound concerning the animals said to symbolize the empires. Sure, a winged lion (griffon) would represent Neo-Babylon well, and sure, a four-headed leopard/tiger does match the historical four-country split that happened to the Macedonian Greek empire, but why think that a leopard or a tiger would symbolize Macedonian Greece? We have plenty of artifacts suggesting the lion as a symbol for Macedonian Greece instead, and the Book of Daniel's own use of the goat elsewhere to represent Macedonian Greece still fits better, as the goat has symbolic ties to Greek religion. And if Daniel 7 really does refer to those same ancient empires as Daniel 2 did, then why is Medio-Persia (the empire of the Medes and the Persians) symbolized by a bear? The Book of Daniel elsewhere symbolizes it by a ram, which is fairly accurate if he had the Medes in mind. But why would anyone think of a bear as a symbol of either the Medes or the Persians? And why would the same Book of Daniel use different animals as symbols of the same empires if it were really referring to the same empires?

So no equivalence can rationally be made between Daniel 7 and Daniel 2. But if there is no such equivalence, then what does Daniel 7 refer to? When looking at the progression of hegemony on the global stage, it does not appear that any sort of medieval picture matches, and it bewilders the mind to search in vain for such a progression prior to the Neo-Babylonian empire. So then, what about modern empires?

Well, if we try to look at Daniel 7 in context of modern empires, we see a rather different picture. We see the wings of an eagle coming out of a lion, the eagle then transforming into a standing human being. We see a bear put into the same time period as the country symbolized by the eagle and the human. We notice that the lion occupies the era just before the bear's era, and that the leopard/tiger's era comes after that of the bear. At this point, keeping in mind that all of these empires are all present toward the finale, the imagery begins to ring a bell.

In the first era, we have the lion. It is a traditional symbol of Britain. Historically speaking, Britain had global hegemonic power in between the rise of Spain and World War II. The British Empire was predominant during the American Revolution and eventually became an empire upon which the Sun never set. It held the world order together for over two centuries. So we see the first era encompasses roughly, the 17th century C.E. until 1945 C.E. After World War II, Britain increasingly became a shadow of its former self even though it is still in existence these many years later.

In the second era, we have the bear and the eagle that turns into the human. The eagle that came out of the lion is none other than the United States. The United States came out of the British Empire, separating from it when it transitioned from being "colonies of the Crown (etc.)" to being its own independent country. The American Empire is symbolized by the eagle and by the human. Uncle Sam (and arguably Lady Liberty) would be human symbol(s) well-associated with the United States, especially in the 19th century C.E. and onward. The American Empire spread its influence worldwide, leading NATO, sponsoring coups, and spreading the use of the dollar.

By now, this should be obvious. The bear that rules alongside the American Empire represents the Russian Empire. The bear is a traditional symbol of Russia, and that empire during the Cold War Era took the form of the Soviet Union, spreading its influence across the globe, from Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis, anyone?) to China to Ukraine to East Berlin.

So the competition between Russia and the United States comprises the second era of Daniel 7, which is primarily the Cold War Era but likely extends into the 2030s C.E. Historians speak of the "American Century" as being the 20th century. In reality, the world order from World War II until around 2030 C.E. is held together by Russia and the United States. That is the real almost century of American world hegemony. In the 2010s C.E., though, we are already slowly seeing the transition away from this era, as the dollar is being used by less and less, Russia's economy and influence has been eclipsed by several other world powers, confidence in American leadership is waning, and some countries are considering China as an equal or greater ally than the United States.

In the third era, we have the leopard or tiger that has four heads. The wording as used in the Old Testament leaves open both possibilities for the meaning of the word--tiger or (Arabian or snow-)leopard. The word "heads" by metonymy refer to "commanders." Hence, we are talking about four different countries that comprise a single empire of sorts.

Now, if we are thinking along economic lines, we would remember the Four Asian Tigers. These were Hong Kong (i.e., China), Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. Now, if we were being really strict here, we would note that while China, Singapore, and Taiwan are heavily Chinese, that South Korea is not. So to say that the leopard or tiger in Daniel 7 represents a Chinese Empire is, even on the Four Asian Tigers model, a bit misleading. Nevertheless, the symbolism of both a snow-leopard and a tiger are symbols associated the most with Asian countries, from the Stans eastward and southeastward to Indochina, India, and Korea.

In the very least, the tendency to call rapidly economically rising Asian powers as "Asian tigers" must be noted, as economic ties increasingly become important for global hegemony, and India, which is known by the tiger symbol itself, has been rising rapidly (especially in comparison to Pakistan), even though perhaps not as rapidly as China did. Arguably, China has already been starting to engage in a containment plan against India like the United States did with Russia and China during the Cold War era. The South China Sea, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Djibouti, and other East African countries are all places where China has substantial influence and military installations or else easy possibilities for them if countries default on Chinese-given loans.

So perhaps we should be a bit more hesitant in jumping to label particular countries. India is not traditionally a part of the "Four Asian Tigers" but may in fact be a major player. So, tentatively, we will say that the leopard or tiger constitutes the Four Asian Powers with the most clout, most economic influence, whichever those will be. Maybe it will be China (symbols: tiger, dragon, and panda), South Korea (symbol: Siberian tiger), India (symbol: tiger), and Bangladesh (symbol: Royal Bengal Tiger). Maybe. Or maybe Japan and Indonesia will be in the mix instead of Bangladesh and South Korea. Too soon to tell just yet. In any case, though the third era is marked by four dominating Asian powers that hold the world order together.

The unipolar world of the British Empire gave way to the bi-polar world of the American and Russian Empires. That bi-polar world then gives way to a multi-polar world centered in Asia. But what happens after that multi-polar world starts to lose its grip?

In the fourth era, we have the monstrosity, with its horns, teeth, and eyes. It is hard to recognize this creature as any particular designation, but one gets the sense from reading Daniel 7 that this conglomerate of countries is a pariah on the global stage. But whatever it will be, we see a progression from the multi-polar world centered in Asia to a world in crisis, with the leadership of the world order being in the hands of even more countries than it had been in the past at least few hundred years or so.

So, in the end, we do see a sort of parallel between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. In Daniel 2, the quality and density of the substances that symbolized the empires decreased as one progressed in time. In Daniel 7, however, the centralization and longevity of the actual instantiations of world order decreases over time. The British Empire's global hegemony lasted for more than two centuries. Sole superpower held together the world order. The American and Russian's global hegemony lasts for just less than one century. Two superpowers hold together the world order. Going by this take, we might expect that the third era in which the Four Asian Powers take the helm will last for less than a century---maybe even just a generation.

Now we begin to get a picture.

17th century - 1945 C.E. -- British Empire

1945 C.E. to 2030s C.E. -- American and Russian Empires

2040s C.E. to perhaps 2070s C.E. -- Four Asian Powers

2080s C.E.??? -- Monstrosity: world in crisis

Daniel 12:4 Prophecy

But let's put together more pieces of the puzzle on the Scriptural avenue. Daniel 12:4 is known for its reference to knowledge being greatly increased during the eschatological era, during the lead up to the finale. The ancient world had its own kingly courts with books, as well as its own libraries. So neither of those things can be what Daniel 12 refers to. When we look at history, we see that there are a few "revolutions" and technologies that have facilitated the broad expansion of knowledge that we enjoy today. Those start with the prevalent use of the movable-type printing press. They include the scientific revolution of Newton, Boyle, and so on. They include the satellite communications network and the internet. What this means also is that, if we take Daniel 12 to be prophetic, then it could neither have been referring to the ancient world nor to the medieval world. It must be referring to the modern world. The same verse refers to many as being "to and fro." Whether or not that means traveling physically or searching for information to and fro, it matches the modern world as we now know it.

Such a Generation Shall Not Pass?

Now, for a dive into the New Testament. In the Gospels, we recall the "generation shall not pass" statement of Jesus. Many commentators think that Jesus was referring to simply the generation of his own original audience and that, therefore, it was a failed prophecy because Jesus didn't come back during the 1st or 2nd centuries C.E. But what if, instead of reading it as "That generation shall not pass" (looking backward), we read the Greek as saying "such a generation shall not pass" (looking forward)? We have to recall here that even the Gospels are not exhaustive in how they portray what Jesus said, what hand gestures and tone Jesus used, and so on.

In that situation, we have a rather different conclusion. The generation in which the fig-tree gets its leaves is the generation of the finale. But when did the fig-tree get its leaves? The fig-tree, some may suggest, represents Israel. When did it get its leaves? Some might say it was when Israel became a country again. If so, then the answer would be 1948. But what if a better interpretation is that it was when it came back to something like its former territorial glory? In that case, we may conclude that the Six Day War (1967 C.E.) is a better fit.

So we have a year--1967 C.E. But how long is a "generation"? In the Bible itself, there are three different spans of time that are called a "generation." One is as small as 40 years. Another is between 70 to 80. Still a third is 120 years.

Immediately coming to mind, however, are additional words of Jesus in the New Testament. "As in the days of Noah," so also those of "the Son of Man," the term "Son of Man" being a reference back to Jesus. Now, the statement in context refers to the continual functioning of society at large. People still getting married and what not. (But wait, why would someone think that wouldn't happen? Was there going to be some sort of decline in marriage and fertility rates prior to the finale? Oh wait...) But why pick the days of Noah? Why not the days of Lot (cf., the Sodom and Gomorrah story)? Why not the days of Moses (cf., the cataclysms against Egypt)? The choice of Noah in particular gets the mind to wonder if there isn't something more intended here. As it so happens, when we do turn the pages back to the story of Noah, we find that the generation decreed for man is 120 years, wherein God also states, "My spirit shall not always strive with man."

Now, obviously, the 40 year mark after 1967 C.E. has already passed us. The year 2007 C.E. has already come and gone. But what if a "generation" here were 120 years? Such a generation shall not pass until it is fulfilled? 120 years shall not pass? If that is true, then the year in question is 2087 C.E. That would be 120 years after the 1967 expansion of the country of Israel.

Now, in all fairness, there are other options. Maybe we should take the Syriac instead and say that "generation" really means "race" (i.e., that the Jews will still be around when the Second Coming happens). Maybe we should assume that there's been some sort of textual corruption (but where in the manuscript transmission process?) or that it really is a failed prophecy (in which case, why follow Jesus?) or that a weird form of partial-Preterism is true. But let us make the rest of the case for 2087 C.E. (or thereabouts).

Now to the projections. Oil, metals like copper and the rare earth metals, fertility rates, and automation, have substantially contributed to the GDP (gross domestic product) of modernized countries. While it is true that predicting the major peak in oil production is a difficult thing to do and many have failed in doing so, the later in the game we get, the more accurate we will be in projections, on the whole. Where we now are with oil production projections is somewhere between 2021 and 2040 as being the Big Peak Oil, and Peak Natural Gas Production and Peak Coal Production could come as early as 2036 C.E., maybe sooner.

Whether or not we will go electric enough before reaching disastrous consequences with ever diminishing oil production remains to be seen. If demand remains high, the further we are away from Peak Oil on the downside of oil production, the higher prices will tend towards, all other things remaining equal. But let us assume that some other things don't remain equal. Moreover, let us assume that we can and will manage to go electric with electric cars, electric semi-trucks, and so on. So in that scenario, it is not "too little too late" on the oil debate but rather, "we just made it with a little bit of low oil economic sluggishness or downturn."

This brings us to the question of fertility rates. Those rates have been declining globally. Iran's, Europe's, Japan's fertility rates are low. Bangladesh, which used to have a high fertility rate, is now much closer to replacement level. China's fertility rate is also low, Mexico's fertility rate has declined over the years.

The USA itself has slightly below replacement levels.

Portions of Africa still have high fertility rates, but most of the rest of the world is already in 2018 C.E. approximating or below replacement levels.

Estimates from the UN range from 2051 as Peak Population to after the 21st century. From the standpoint of current projections, taking into consideration also the issues with sources of energy like coal, oil, and natural gas, a peak close to 2087 C.E. or even before then seems plausible. And then there are concerns about urbanization leading to a transformation of the culture into low-fertility cultures like those of the Mouse Utopia Experiment, in which humanity never reaches its true maximum capacity on Earth that it's available land and resources could warrant.

Why is this important? Well, the fertility rate of year X helps to determine the economy size of year X + 25, for the babies born under year X will largely all be in the workforce by year X + 25. So then, by the early 2040s, we will start reaping what we have been sowing in the bedrooms in the current year, and we are now reaping what was sown in the early 1990s. The children of the Baby Boomers are now largely contributing to the economies of the United States and elsewhere. That second bulge in fertility rates, though much lower than the Baby Boom itself, is already reaping benefits to the United States. It is only downward from here, on that front, unless we get a lot of immigrants with higher sustained fertility rates.

Another important feature to note about the decline in fertility rates is that a two-generation or more lag in fertility rates accrues worse consequences than a one-generation lag. (I speak of "generations" here in demographic terms, as in, the direct offspring of a previous group of offspring.) In a one-generation-long-lag, the parents can simply pass on their estates to their children, and it is somewhat easy to maintain one's own social security-like programs for the elderly. But with a two-generation-long lag in fertility rates, things become more difficult. Housing crises or slumps may erupt in which there aren't enough 'grandchildren' to buy or keep the houses of the 'grandparents.'

Moreover, in that scenario, the rate of payees to beneficiaries in systems like social security declines substantially. In the USA, we see it decline from 8 to 1 in the late 1950s to 2 and 1/2 to 1 by 2020, and it is projected to reach 2 to 1 by the early 2040s (and that, without any reserves). The 2030s is the decade when the chickens are projected to come home to roost for the United States. Substantial problems with funding medicare and social security will leave Congress with only a few categories of options: cut benefits, raise taxes, or some equivalent of printing money. If benefits are cut, then the elderly move back in with their own children or grandchildren, putting a further slump into the housing market. But the general public of the USA loathes cuts in benefits and raising of taxes, so Congress will most likely put most if not all of the policy thrust towards some equivalent(s) of printing money. This will send monetary inflation into the double-digits year over year for the United States, even though the government could fraudulently manipulate the official data to appear otherwise. (As ShadowStats accurately approximates, the inflation rate in recent years has been closer to 6% year over year already.) In the very least, these problems and others that the USA will face by the 2030s will end its capability to lead the world order.

Russia will be in a similar state of affairs in comparison to the economies of other countries by the 2030s. We will not consider Russia to really be leading the world order by 2040 C.E.

But what about automation? Won't automation displace workers? Won't those displaced workers then find jobs elsewhere, thus counteracting the loss in productivity that countries will experience once the Baby Boomers and Gen X Oners are retired? Won't increases in automation re-inflate the economy, as it were?

To some extent, this is correct. The automation of the food industry historically led to a reduction in food industry workforce from over 50% to under 4% (some say, even to 2%). Such automation enabled the human workforce to diversify the economies of the countries. However, we have to keep in mind that, just like with oil exploration and extraction, we first obtain or establish the low-hanging fruit that costs us the least. It is harder to automate the several large sectors of the economy (i.e., government, financial, retail, manufacturing, healthcare, hospitality jobs, and business services) than it was to automate the food industry alone.

Of course, we are already doing that, but the process will be gradual, likely too gradual to counteract fully the productivity loss by the 2030s. Situation may improve after the Baby Boomers are off the scene in that avenue, though.

But now we have to get to the question of other metals. Copper production is projected to be past its peak at some point in the second half of the 21st century, perhaps even peaking in the 2030s. Questions of peak gold and peak silver have also surfaced, though they may be a bit premature. Some project that Peak Phosphorus will occur around 2075 C.E., and phosphorus is needed for a wide range of products, including agricultural fertilizer. Those are just a couple of examples, and ones which may pose serious economic problems by the 2080s if not sooner.

The projections of various sources currently point towards a sort of "Peak Humanity," though not necessarily a sharp one. The dramatic growth in production, consumption, debt, and so on (even environmental challenges from wildfires to plastics pollution) cannot go on forever, and the filling up to capacity might catch some by surprise. At some point, they must hit a peak. While inventions and innovations under capitalism will enable us to overcome the challenges at least to some extent, the question remains as to just how many more times we can dodge the bullet, how many more times we can escape rising waters by running uphill. We have done so many times before, but past history is no guarantee of future performance.

And so now we get to a somewhat more philosophical question. If someone were to try to return, whether to save humanity from itself or to transform the religious landscape of the Earth or to enact judgment upon humanity, under what conditions might that person do so? Would it not be at a point in humanity's history in which it has a substantially high population? Would it not be in a time when humanity was more connected by communication means than it ever had been before? Would it not be at a point in humanity's history in which the facts accessible to the typical man was rather high? After all, one cannot be held accountable for what knowledge is inaccessible, but if knowledge of the truth on religion, ethics, politics, management of the planet, and so on is widely accessible, then one can come under condemnation for failing to make good use of it. In the very least, condemnation can come for being too lazy to bother taking the time to search, read, and so on.

From a philosophical perspective, then, it would seem that, if there will be a Second Coming of Jesus, or even a coming of extra-terrestrial aliens to save humanity from itself, that it would be more likely to occur after connections in communication around the world had been greatly enhanced and after Daniel 12's prophecy had come true---after knowledge had been greatly increased in humanity. It would come after it became clear that humanity's institutions had failed it, and when humanity was put into a crisis situation or else, at least had hit or was close to hitting Peak Humanity, so to speak. After all, in the words of Jesus, "They who are whole need no physician, but they that are sick."

If humanity continues and tries to cope with environmental problems (including those causing mass animal deaths), oil production reductions, peak coal production, peak natural gas production, and eventually perhaps even a final peak silver and peak phosphorus production and so on, then one could be led to the conclusion that, on current projections, the world could reach a point of Peak Humanity or serious crisis by the 2080s. The rapid pace of change in tech and economies, moreover, may indeed lead to shifts in who leads the world order later in the 21st century. So perhaps even without the religious or Bible-based elements, a case could be made for a sort of Armageddon by 2087.

Quasi-Astrological Symbolic Piece of Data

Of course, there is also a quasi-astrological facet to this as well. Though not a point that carries very much weight, 2087 C.E. is a year in which Jupiter (the King planet) does come into Leo the Lion constellation, as it does at least every about 11 to 12 years, if memory serves.

The symbolism there would match that of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah coming as king, symbolism associated with a triumphant Jesus in the New Testament, one arguably ultimately looking toward the Second Coming.

But again, since this piece of data is quasi-astrological and since it occurs at least once every 11 years and how many ever months, it is only a very minor point, even though some have pointed to a similar imagery scheme underlying the birth of Jesus, with Jupiter the King Planet and the Planet Venus coming right by each other in the night sky, producing a very bright light therein.

Conclusion

Of course, the projections could be off. The systematic theology styled interpretation of the passages of the New Testament and Old Testament could be incorrect here. The proper interpretation of "generation" in the "generation shall not pass away" could really be a reference to the Jewish race rather than to a particular time period. Or, maybe the whole thing is just hogwash. Nevertheless, I find it an interesting hypothesis that the late 21st century--and perhaps even 2087--accords well with a particular perspective of modern projections and Bible interpretation. At any rate, as time moves forward, we will get a better idea of to what extent the projections are accurate.