The world is close to facing a decline that can lead to the collapse of the system that governs its life and environment. The Western system of life and thought, which is the system that governs a large part of the world today, is a material-based system. (We differentiate between a system of life and thought, and a civilization. The West apart, the rest of the world is still not bowled clean over by the modern Western civilization).

In any case, our point is that a system and civilization based on material resources can, by their very nature, have only a limited lifespan. Since the planet's resources are finite, however abundant they may appear, they will one day be exhausted. The lifespan of a material-based civilization can therefore be measured by the stocks held in reserve. Yet, instead of reducing consumption, governments plan ever-greater exploitation with each new year. This is likely to produce severe shortages of essential materials in the not-too-distant future.

As material resources dwindle, the greed to possess the remaining deposits will intensify and, consequently, a general scramble for them will break out. (In keeping with the spirit of modern civilization, the pretext for military intervention will be staged with civilized decorum: circumstances created, media hype generated, the culprit's crime established, resolutions passed... and the rest of the drama performed.)

Today, many maps are no longer merely political maps; they are resource maps. (Politicians are not difficult to buy in the self-same sweet Eastern world, the cradle of wisdom. Political maps therefore matter less today. After all, as Peter Mansfield said, the heart may be Eastern, but the pocket is Western.) The first commodity to be plundered, in any event, will be the lifeblood of modern Western civilisation.

To be sure, oil is not the whole problem. Every resource has its limits, and none will outlast human greed. Yet oil may become the first cause of violence and serious disruption to human life on Earth. This is not necessarily because there is too little oil. There may be enough for many decades at present-day consumption rates, in addition to unknown reserves in wells sealed and kept for a rainy day.

We learn that, in 1998 alone, the United States capped some 130,000 oil wells. And if the East believes that Western Europe contains no deposits that were sealed soon after discovery, that should come as no surprise. Easterners never seem ready to abandon their simplicity, however clever they may be in other respects. In any case, substantial reserves remain.

But today's consumption rates continue to rise. A decline in consumption appears both impossible and, to many, unthinkable. The very governments that could ask the public to consume less are committed to continuing economic growth. Annual growth of 5%-7% is considered reasonable in the West, while the East often aspires to double-digit figures. Growth is essential. Growth is promised. Votes are won. Grants are awarded to scientists. Yet all of this requires energy. At the same time, oil consumption must decline. Do we not face a contradiction?

We might also point out, in passing, that natural forces ultimately prevail in any conflict between nature and human ambition. Human will may win in the short term, but often at a heavy human cost. That is how the forces of nature work: ultimately, they prevail. Yet present-day human ambition remains devoted to increasing wealth and material production and accumulating ever more goods.

Unlimited greed has become a mainstay of the modern human soul. In the face of this determination, and the growth it produces, is there a crisis in the making?

Moreover, when it comes to oil - or any other natural resource - the problem is not as simple as supply and demand. There are further complications. As demand for oil grows, prices must rise for several reasons. First, increasing demand drives prices upward. Second, supply cannot expand endlessly to keep pace with consumption and hold prices down; there is a limit to how much can be produced. If large numbers of technocrats are devoted solely to extracting oil, requiring substantial investment in wells, who will work on farms and in factories to meet ever-growing demand? (We are not referring here to the labouring class.)

Furthermore, where will investment for other areas of growth and development come from if a large share is absorbed by the oil sector? Third, as time passes, growth accelerates and scientists are rewarded, more systems of production, distribution and consumption will become dependent on energy. Rising demand is therefore inescapable, even if some restraint can be imposed on consumption.

This applies not only to oil but also to consumer goods. It is another matter that consumption cannot be successfully controlled while greed remains the foundation on which modern Western civilisation is built. Political parties come to power by promising a greater supply of consumer goods. Without that appetite, the civilisation may collapse anyway.

Furthermore, any restraint on fuel consumption can translate into rolling back development programmes. What would that mean? A return to the supposedly inglorious days of the past - a retreat towards the Middle Ages? If, for instance, more railway lines were laid to reduce the number of oil-consuming motorists, what message would that send? (The automobile is the pride of modern man who, robbed of many things, has little else of which to be proud. So do not touch his prized possession.) And what of faith in modern-day magic and its magicians: science and scientists? What, in turn, would be the effect of cutting funds for scientific research? The equation does not work.

It is obvious, then, that every effort will be made to maintain the present pace of development, if not accelerate it. There will, of course, be attempts to reduce fuel consumption: to prevent costs from rising; to avoid protests that could bring down governments; and to avert the chaos, anarchy, revolutions and feared return to the past that might follow. Yet a material-based civilisation is linear. It can travel in only one direction: forward or backward. Raise your hands for a backward march. A foolish suggestion.

Greed, moreover, is not the only force shaping human action. What about pride? Will the United States, for instance - the qiblah of the world's greedy - overcome the pride of standing at the summit and initiate a worldwide reduction in growth, planned and monitored by the United Nations, while accepting even the smallest risk that another country might quietly reach the top first? Better to speak of something else.

The absolute optimist will easily laugh this off. What about alternative forms of energy? Yes, there are several. But which of them can substantially reduce the number of automobiles on the roads while transporting farm products to urban centres faster and at lower cost?

The locking of horns among nations seeking control of essential raw materials is therefore increasingly likely. How long it will take, we cannot say; any precise prediction risks being disproved by time. But why bury our heads in the sand when a storm is gathering on the horizon? A deliberately engineered crisis cannot be ruled out. Simply allowing protests over high prices to continue might provide a sufficient pretext for accusing the supposedly greedy producers of being indifferent to human suffering... and the rest of the familiar story. Human beings are intriguing creatures; among other things, they are capable of considerable intrigue. Remember 1990?

Already, some powers have positioned their forces near major deposits. Others are unhappy with these moves, fearing that they may be denied their share. Some, though concerned, can do little immediately and are buying time. Still others are building massive power bases that could play a significant role in future politics, war and peace. The creation of the European Union is one such effort. But will events move faster than expected? Ask them.

Another factor may reinforce the age-old conviction that, at least for the victor, violence ultimately pays. After its recent spectacular successes, the kind of science that brought immediate and tangible benefits to humanity now appears to be confronting its limits. This applies particularly to the search for materials that can replace conventional fuels in internal-combustion engines. Nor does a search in outer space appear especially promising.

A growing number of people are beginning to realise that humanity may never be able to travel to other planets - much less other planetary systems - and return with useful materials and minerals. Humanity appears bound to Earth. With that realisation, more vigorous struggles may take place within the human family on this planet, rather than through expanded efforts to establish supply lines from distant celestial bodies.

And any conflict that escalates to the scale of the two world wars could well be the last. Nuclear proliferation across the globe continues at full, though largely quiet, pace. After Israel, India and Pakistan - the third-phase developers - other countries may join as fourth-phase developers. They are unlikely to announce their achievements. Those unable to produce such weapons may seek to buy products 'ready for delivery'. In war, they may be used according to the central principle of so much modern human action: when you do something, do it thoroughly. Or, more ominously: 'If we are not going to survive, let no one survive.'

Apart from military installations and supply depots, an enemy's nuclear facilities would become targets. Sparing cities would be no act of generosity: clouds of radiation would pass over them and drift into neighbouring countries. The resulting chain reaction could bring down the edifice of Western civilisation, carrying mighty nations with it and pushing humanity back towards a pre-industrial age.

Even if violent destruction is ruled out, a peaceful dissolution of Western civilisation remains possible for the reasons stated at the outset. To repeat: a civilisation based on material consumption cannot outlast human aspirations, greed and adventurism. It will collapse as essential reserves are depleted. If humanity cannot - and almost certainly will not - make steep cuts in industrial production, a slow decline could begin within decades.

What must be understood is that collapse will not wait for the complete exhaustion of essential raw materials. Once a significant proportion of resources has disappeared, prices will rise sharply, forcing nations - hawks turned doves, you tell me - to adopt simpler ways of life. This would have a chain effect on the world economy, producing rapid decline even while some deposits remained. High commodity prices, for instance, could make oil refining or coal mining so expensive that operations would be abandoned, triggering a broader contraction in industrial production.

Add other factors: an increasing number of automobiles and industries emitting carbon dioxide and toxic substances at a relentless pace and on a vast scale. The scenario then becomes easier to explain, even as the atmosphere becomes murkier. The emergence of unknown viruses, disrupted weather patterns, melting ice caps and related shocks could complete the process we are describing. 'Heads' you lose; 'tails' I win. Nor would present-day stockpiling offer lasting protection.

If the economy of the rest of the world crashes, the United States, for instance, will not be able to build a Great Wall around its borders and insulate itself from the consequences. Unless it possesses sufficient reserves to supply the rest of the world's economies with cheap energy until the end of time, the biggest supplier could become the biggest sufferer.

There is more to say on this subject, including the vulnerability of modern civilisation. But enough offence to the ears for now. We shall return to the topic another time. For the moment, we must ask whether the Muslim intelligentsia has ever seriously considered the role it should play, rather than remaining a baggage carrier for a caravan blindly hurtling towards its destiny.