Based
upon a simple model of interactions between two groups, the people in
those groups will choose among six options depending on their
relative populations, resources, and how much they value people,
happiness, longevity (how long the population can survive), and the
carrying capacity of their environment (the maximum number of people
that can consume a given amount of resources per person).
The
first option (isolation) has each group and its resources
effectively isolated from the other group and its resources, and the
other five involve one or both groups having access to all of the
resources. Both groups can share their resources (sharing),
which averages their consumption patterns (amount per person and how
fast it grows). Group 1 can kill off Group 2, keeping all resources
for itself (extermination 1), or Group 2 can do the same to
Group 1 (extermination 2). The last two options involve the
groups living together, with one dominating the other by imposing its
consumption pattern on the other (dominance 1 or dominance
2).
If
the two groups and their resources are roughly the same size and at
or near their carrying capacity, then extermination 1 and
extermination 2 each have roughly a 50% chance of being chosen, with
practically no chance of any other option. If they each have more
resources than people to consume them, then isolation, sharing,
extermination 1, and extermination 2 will each have a 20% chance of
being chosen; and dominance 1 and dominance 2 will each have a 10%
chance of being chosen.
Where
one group is much larger than the other group, isolation has the same
chance (25%) of being chosen as sharing, extermination of the smaller
group by the larger group, and dominance of the smaller group by the
larger group. This is mostly due to the larger group having
overwhelming power compared to the smaller group, and is independent
of how close each group is to its carrying capacity.
The
probabilities I've quoted are approximate averages of simulated
groups, with each group "member" and each simulation
varying from the average such that at any given time one option may
dominate the others. In reality, I expect that all options will be
attempted, perhaps simultaneously. I introduced this model in part 3
of my BIOME
novel, and will explore its implications in the remaining books
as a critical aspect of the plot. Here and in my other writing, I
intend to use it as a tool for exploring real-world events, and to
test it in the process.
Two
predictions of the model are particularly relevant to current events,
particularly those involving conflict and the potential for conflict
between a large group and a small group, such as we've seen recently
in terrorist attacks. Viewed from the perspective of the smaller
group, there is a 25% chance of being physically destroyed by the
larger group, and a 75% chance of losing cultural purity (total
control over happiness and longevity as determined by consumption).
To eliminate these threats, isolation can be re-established
(accompanied by adequate resources), or full control over the larger
group can be achieved by domination or by killing its members. Each
alternative requires a huge increase in power, ideally in excess of
the power available to the larger group, and we can realistically
expect the acquisition of such power to be an early step in the
process of pursuing one or more of these courses of action.
Interestingly, the same actions that deal with these threats from the
larger group may also be used to pose a threat to the larger
group (and would be perceived as such by that group, regardless of
the smaller group's motivation, thus making more likely the
extermination option being taken by the larger group).
Of
the two threats perceived by the smaller group, loss of cultural
purity is the largest (by a factor of three). If this wasn't an
issue, then the extermination threat might be addressed by improving
the chances of sharing or domination. Where it is non-negotiable,
then isolation is the most humane option. Isolation has been crudely
implemented in the past through establishment of penal colonies; but,
since the world is currently close to its resource limits, it is
practically impossible. Note that space travel would be an option for
isolation if habitable planets were already available and reachable,
but any settlements in the foreseeable future would be operating
dangerously close to their carrying capacities with additional risks
to life that would require new consumption patterns and associated
cultural adjustments. Incarceration, an extreme form of domination,
is commonly used as an alternative to extermination, but of course it
is the embodiment of cultural loss for a group that is markedly
different from the dominant group.
As
our planet changes its requirements for survival with the ecological
disruptions of climate change, raw resource depletion, and species
extinctions, I expect we will all perceive ourselves as parts of
small groups struggling to adapt while avoiding extermination. We
will also need to see other species as something other than other
groups that can be exterminated, since they and the services they
provide embody the "resources" that we need to survive. Our
consumption patterns, which are major components of our cultures,
will need to be more flexible than ever in light of these conditions;
and above all else, we must adjust our values so that our preferred
options are more aligned with extending longevity and minimizing
death.