Seen from a distant perspective, what is happening globally under human domination amounts to capital soon finding no more developing countries to develop. One can ask what will actually happen when all so-called nations have been developed and have the same technical standards and the struggle for resources becomes irrelevant when the acquisition of these resources no longer justifies the effort. It is conceivable that this will then stop.

Since - as one might think - land is no longer suitable as a never-ending source of energy production, one can come to the idea that human beings themselves can be seen as a resource for capital and what we see is the exploitation of human beings per se. This is probably where the most can be tapped at the moment in order to provide capital with its usual income.

Depopulation would be rather counterproductive from this point of view, since the masses are needed for the exploitation. Presumably, however, some think that a few billion less would do the trick.

However, modern man, accustomed to luxury or habitual comfort, is doing away with himself through reduced birth rates everywhere where raising children is considered a burden and too expensive, just as the meaning of procreation is not clear to one. A sexless life is the consequence, just like the disappearance of families and heterosexual relationships. Father and mother have long since had their day as role models, and it is not really they who bring up their children, but the state and its institutions.

The mixing of cultures worldwide also contributes to the fact that no traditional and national identities are formed in unity among the people, because the cultural mix is so great that these many people can be easily governed because they lack a sense of commonality.
Talk of "integration" is therefore idle, for what are the mutual strangers supposed to integrate into if there is nothing there for them to orient themselves to? Religion is dead, just like the small communities.

Since culture does not exist in the sense that spiritual meaning can arise from it, because there is a globally uniform of technical standard, people fall into the void.

Dance, song, reverence for the living, these are only superficial events that are good for a show, but not as nourishing acts that were once performed by hunters and gatherers who could cope well with the contradiction that taking life also means giving life and united both being a prey and being a hunter in themselves. To get out of this dilemma would be to enter into it.

In the broadest sense, this means that humans feel like nature and understand dying as a natural and welcome act in which they serve as food and nourishment for other species, just as vice versa. However, being sedentary and living in cities is not very suitable for this, and probably the only way we humans can exist peacefully is as nomads who, like their animal relatives, move through the world according to the seasons, leaving it largely to chance whether they live or die on the move.

There is a theory that it was this way of life of hunter-gatherers alone that first produced the intelligence to make land arable. Based on this, it is said that it was the sedentarisation that destroyed the hunter-gatherer cultures and forced them to cultivate land. With cultivation, however, comes the huge burden of crop failure, since now, tied to one place, one was at the mercy of the weal and woe of the weather and also had to control crop yields and justify poor harvests. An essentially impossible task to manage, since distribution can never be equitable. To cover up this weakness, the crop and its successful harvest was lifted up to something divine.

The spiritual aspect of recognising one's own wildness in the wild animal and understanding strangeness and otherness as an integral part of being human has largely died out with the settling down and the occupation and later ownership of land. Killing animals is today seen as wrong and as "cruel", which is only logical when you think of factory farming, a logical consequence of staying in one place. If one no longer wants to keep animals in masses, one would at the same time have to stop tying oneself to place and land.

The city itself is the place where maturity is impossible to gain, for city-life lacks the opportunity to provide for the necessary dangers of wildlife in which young people have a way to prove that they are ripe for becoming an adult. Safety is therefor the biggest obstacle to develop into a man or woman who is trained in having a sense of 360 degree awareness. Which means to let coincidence happen but at the same time being able to see chances and opportunities within this uncertainty.

I think what people can't bear in reality and mourn very much is the face of dying in undignity. So it is hardly bearable that the homeless and the neglected vegetate and die at the roadside, because they did not die in a fight with a wild animal or by hunting misfortune, but "senselessly". It seems to me that the only meaningful death is actually the one within which the human being has placed himself in immediate danger and thereby gives up his life. But if he had hunting skill and luck, it is nonsensical to triumph over the death of a hunted animal as an "enemy", but only as a friend, since the foreign is at the same time the known.

Paul Shepard, whose theory I take up here, formulated this in his title "The Tender Carnivore". What the vegetarians or vegans misunderstand in their missionary zeal is what I have described here. It is not that people stop eating meat, it is rather that they no longer need to make a separation in their conception of human and animal.
As you mentioned at the beginning, the Maya advanced civilisation has gone down, their urban life has done them in.

It looks like we are experiencing this again. I'm not sure of course, what do I know. It seems to me that the only way to save is to refrain from any intention to save.

Greetings to you.

P.S. Here, the source I derived my thoughts from:
https://archive.org/details/ShepardNatureAndMadness