Cooperation or Competition (Understanding Conflict)
I have proposed that it is urgent that the countries of the world cooperate more in the presence of our unfolding technologies. Can they work toward policies of cooperation, versus competing, over their economic interests and belief systems? Can an argument really be made that supports whether the best approach for humanity is cooperation versus continuing with our traditional competitive nature? Life seems to survive either through competition, cooperation, or a combination of the two. What is the difference between cooperation and competition though? In the following, I attempt to answer this question, and make it clear that it is time for countries to work more toward cooperation.
The idea of competition suggests that life forms compete, then the one that endures displays the condition of "survival of the fittest". On the other hand, the idea of cooperation suggests that life forms work together to survive. We are often faced with the dilemma of whether to cooperate or compete, so I feel it is important to understand how they are different, and why they BOTH work.
The following is an analogy that attempts to show that the best approach between competition or cooperation depends on the situation. In addition, it illustrates that cooperation and competition are not just choices that we have created, exclusive to human beings. They are inherent conditions, that occur due to the flow of matter and energy, in the so-called reality that we move around in. In other words, they are conditions that exist as a part of the universe. We can only choose which one works best for our survival. Just as the planets go around the sun, or a ball falls to the ground because of gravity, competition and cooperation are just different options of how matter moves, how we move, and how other life moves, in order to meet the objective of survival. If all that sounds a little confusing, let's get on with the analogy to make it clearer.
Assume that the objective in life is to cross a wall, or barrier, in order to survive. In addition, assume the world is composed of 100 bowling balls of which you and I are two of them. All the balls are on one side of the barrier. I have used inanimate objects like bowling balls instead of human beings so the human component does not complicate understanding the difference between cooperation and competition. Our objective is to roll down a slightly inclined surface from the same starting point. At the bottom, we make contact with the barrier, then we must get to the other side of the barrier in order to survive. The barrier is symbolic of any obstacles that we may face in order to survive. It might be a natural disaster like an earthquake, climate change, or a volcano. It could also represent our struggles against other life forms, or even struggles we may have between ourselves. Now let us draw out a few scenarios.
Scenario 1
First let us assume that the barrier is just a thin piece of glass, like a window. In such case, it would not matter how we act. All 100 bowling balls, including you and I, simply roll randomly down the incline into the barrier and break through it, when and however we please. In such case, we all have total freedom, and we can achieve the objective and break through to the other side. Success is imminent simply because the challenge we face is not much of a challenge. It is too bad that life and survival could not be so easy, but this is not always the case.
Scenario 2
Now let us assume the barrier is a sheet of wood about 1/2-inch thick. In all cases, the 100 bowling balls, including you and I, roll into the barrier randomly and none can penetrate the barrier no matter how much we try. Is there another way? Yes. Instead, using our "intelligence", we all get together and cooperate. We magically combine together as one large "cooperative ball", 100 times the size of a single ball, and concentrate all our momentum and energy together. Hence we are able to crash through the 1/2-inch thick barrier no matter where we make contact with it. We find that in this scenario we are only able to break through the barrier by combining forces. Simple physics make cooperation the only solution.
Scenario 3
Scenario 3 is a bit different. Let us say that the barrier is now a 12-inch thick steel wall. We do not know how thick the wall is so we decide that our best bet is to combine our forces as we did in Scenario 2. We fail repeatedly and are never able to penetrate the wall, even with all our combined energy.
We are aware though, that on the bottom of the wall, there may be a small hole that we cannot see, just wide enough to fit one single ball. Our "cooperative ball" is 100 times as big as a single ball, hence it can never get through the hole. The cooperative approach is futile. Instead though, we go back to the competitive approach, where each of the 100 bowling balls takes a different route and attempts to get through the hole. Most bowling balls miss the hole, but two are able to get through it. The two bowling balls that succeeded are like two organisms that have lived through one of the obstacles in life (e.g. an earthquake) - they survive. They reproduce and carry on the species thereby allowing it to endure. While the cooperative approach could not succeed, variation, diversity, and remaining competitive did succeed, by allowing two of the balls to slip through one of the cracks. Competition, and the variation that followed with it, was the only solution to Scenario 3.
The preceding examples simplify the concepts of cooperation and competition. It becomes obvious that cooperation sometimes has its place in life, while the approach of competition also can, in some circumstances, be the most efficient way to succeed. Hence, we find that both approaches are found in the dynamics of survival for life in Nature. Very often we will hear someone suggest that we should work together or cooperate, then at other times someone will suggest that competing and going our own way is the best approach. It is not so different from a parent telling a child that they should "cooperate" and follow the norms in order to be a success in life, yet at the same time another parent might suggest to their child that they should go their own way, and be different. Both can work.
It appears that success through cooperation or competition may be dependent on the situation. The question is therefore, "Which situations warrant either cooperation or competition?" Possibly, we can apply the above analogies to understanding why it might be better for countries to cooperate when dealing with risks that may come from side effects of our technologies.
Scenario 4
Scenario 4 is the wild card. We add to the environment repercussions that might be related to making a mistake if we hit the barrier. Let us assume that, in the bowling ball example above, there is one spot on the barrier that, if any object touches it, then everything will be destroyed. We could call this area the "danger zone" resulting from the side effects of our technologies. This new wild card gives everything a new twist because our technologies now affect the entire environment. They affect the barrier, the incline we roll upon, and all of us. Basically, the struggle is no longer just to cross the barrier in which case we simply just choose to cooperate or compete. Instead, we now have to be even more careful. It would appear that, including some elements of cooperation, might be a good idea, in order to avoid the "danger zone". We need to take the cooperative ball approach as noted in "Scenario 2" so that we all can agree never to go into the danger zone, and reduce the chance of us destroying the entire game.
As an example of a technological side effect best handled through cooperation, consider global warming, a potential danger zone. If the countries conclude that our creation of global warming is a danger zone, it would seem that the best approach is that the countries (the 100 bowling balls) cooperate. They should set rules to avoid the associated risks of global warming, so that they can cross the barrier, without damage to Life and the planet.
Consider the global warming "danger zone" example above, but instead of cooperating, the countries remain as the 100 competitive bowling balls all going in different directions. This parallels to 100 countries on the planet competing with each other while also using technology that creates side effects that may cause global warming. Even if we are all aware of the danger zone, the increased probability of one, or many of the 100 balls straying into the danger zone intentionally or by accident, could be very costly. The risk exceeds the cost of the cooperative effort whereby we all agree to avoid the danger zone. In the example of global warming, if global warming is indeed caused by the side effects of our burning of fossil fuels, it would seem that countries are not recognizing it as a danger zone. This is because they all have their own economic interests as a priority. This lack of cooperation makes everyone more vulnerable to the impact of the danger zone. The countries of the world need to understand the probabilities of problems related to the side effects from technologies such as climate change, so that they can react to them together.
Cooperation examples in life
The above example using bowling balls and the cooperation ball to explain cooperation may seem a bit simplistic, but it does make the point that cooperation is really just the combination of forces to resolve a problem. A similar example to the bowling balls would be raindrops falling down on an awning on the street. Each drop simply drips, or bounces off the awning, but if a pool of raindrops collects on the awning, their combined, or cooperative pressure, might actually break the awning. Analogies like the raindrops on an awning can simplify complex ideas like competition and cooperation.
The choice between cooperation and competition to resolve a problem is just physics - the flow of matter and energy - but making the correct choice between competition and cooperation may mean our survival. It is clear that sometimes cooperation can be the only way to resolve a problem and it seems that, if the problem is big enough such that it affects everyone, and we can isolate it to either stop it or avoid it, then cooperation is preferred. This would seem the nature of many of the side effects of our technologies because their impact can be relatively significant on a global scale.
A very good example of cooperation in Nature is that of Emperor penguins. They are known to huddle together in order to keep warm in the Antarctic. On the right you can see a single Emperor penguin. Huddling closely enables them to contend with Antarctic temperatures of -60 F and heavy gusts of wind. You can imagine the penguins when they are huddled closely as if they are like the black bowling balls in Scenario 2, combining together as the cooperation ball. The benefit of huddling together is that they create and preserve their heat, thereby contending with the "barrier", which in this case is the cold Antarctic temperatures. This type of cooperation is an efficient way to resolve a problem found in Nature.
Cooperation is found all around us in Nature. Many creatures cooperate by hunting as a group. This is easily seen in wolf packs and in orcas that will herd their prey, often seals, into the shallow waters of a beach where they become less able to defend themselves. Of course human beings cooperate as well. This can be seen from the simple fact that we create libraries to collect all our knowledge in the form of books and digital records. This allows us to cooperatively pass on the knowledge that has been accumulated through previous generations. We also have schools to help distribute our past knowledge. Libraries and schools prevent us from having to re-learn the knowledge that has been amassed over the centuries.
Cooperation is something we do every day in order to survive. The big question is, "Why do we need to wait for a problem to be large enough before countries decide to combine their resources and cooperate?" Countries must acknowledge the risks of the side effects of various technologies and combine their efforts to neutralize these risks even if there is a cost involved. Given the underlying risks that may come from the impact of our growing technologies that affect all of us, it might be wise for countries to cooperate and redirect more of the resources that they use to maintain their own economic interests and belief systems, toward global concerns.
Summary - The benefit of cooperation
Ultimately, if there are side effects from our technologies that affect Life and Earth dramatically, there really is no way to avoid the risks with a 100% probability. Even cooperative efforts are no sure way of avoiding the danger zones. We can still have accidents or simply misjudge the danger zone under consideration. Something can always go wrong. One might suggest that our best option is to simply not explore technologies that might create side effects that represent major risks to Life and Earth. The problem with this approach is that if we do not continue to explore our technologies, we will not find the "good" technologies such as space travel or the ability to avoid the impact of another planetary body (e.g. asteroid) that might destroy the planet. It would seem that the only choice that humankind has is to accept the risks related to moving forward with our technologies, and try to take the route that offers the greatest probability of completing our objective, which is to survive.
Clearly, greater cooperation between countries regarding the use and development of new technologies is going to be essential as we move forward into the future. Countries will need to approach new technologies with greater consideration than they have in the past, and with global interests as the priority. Countries must agree that their objective is to preserve the welfare of life and the planet and they must gravitate toward a cooperative approach. Jointly, they must study the risks related to new technologies, then set specific global policies which will prevent any country from independently developing or using technologies that can potentially damage Life and Earth. They must combine their knowledge and science in order to create the best policies that will ensure our survival.
Maybe we have not yet created technologies with side effects that can threaten the planet or life on a grand scale, but given the rate at which we are moving forward with technology, the probability is only increasing that they will come to exist. We might as well learn to work cooperatively now, before we face such scenarios in the future.