The Butterfly Effect: Redux

"More than 90 percent of major armed conflicts — those resulting in more than 1,000 deaths — occurred in countries that contain one of the 34 biodiversity hotspots, while 81 percent took place within specific hotspots. A total of 23 hotspots experienced warfare over the half-century studied."

"...the hotspots are home to a majority of the world's 1.2 billion poorest people who rely on the resources and services provided by natural ecosystems for their daily survival."

- Livescience.

Sounds logical.

1. Biodiversity due to climate and geological conditions attract more living things
2. Living things attract predators
3. More predators mean less food
4. Less food means more potential conflict
5. More potential conflict means more real wars
6. War in dense population centers mean more casualties

Since predatory behavior plays a significant role in the scenario, I must distinguish between a human and wild predator. A lion, as ferocious as it is, stops eating when its full. Humans on the other hand have no circuit breakers. When they are full, they hoard. When they've hoarded too much, they trade. When they trade, the natural supply and demand system is forced to change and so on.

But doesn't the same cycle of life happen, say, in the ancient frozen Viking lands?

Sure it does, but freezing Scandinavia isn't exactly a mecca of biodiversity. The human population is sparse and a war that breaks out won't see millions dead, unlike in the heavily populated Indus Valley or coastal areas of China.

So it does seem logical that your chances of becoming a casualty of war would be much higher if you were born in a biologically lush place like China, Cambodia or India than a desert or an ice-locked nation, for the simple reason that when a place is teeming with life, a swing of the blade kills a lot more.