Oh my! Mariner has been challenged to define his vague threat of Armageddon. That would be like describing life in Hell – not fun, not positive, not provable. A short list of variations is provided without comment. He adds an Apocalypse at the end. The difference between Armageddon and Apocalypse is that Armageddon is a violent end with no survivors whereas an Apocalypse has survivors.

֎ Most imminent would be nuclear war, given the activities of Russia, North Korea and Iran, not to mention the backers of war, China and the US.

֎ Government would yield to oligarchical economies reminiscent of the early Persian Empire or the frequent beheading by the Mayan culture. Several African nations already deal with this issue.

֎ Worldwide collapse of economics due to global warming – both the restorative cost and the great reduction of natural resources. This Armageddon already has begun and will be much more expensive as weather and sinking cities trash government budgets and natural resources drop to unsustainable levels.

֎ Most distant would be the usurpation of the human species by electronic intelligence.

֎ An Apocalypse would be the aforementioned economic collapse and associated violence of nation-based economies but a resurrection to a global economy that assured participation in cooperative supply chains that bind countries to a common economy. Nationalism would be minimized.

One must not forget that the planet is the biggest player. At the end, one wonders how many humans will be around.

Ancient Mariner