Theoretical essay on complex systems and US‑China cooperation

system; it fuses cooperation with brutal competition as it aims for a kind of equilibrium. After all, if we were constantly tearing into one another, we'd be extinct, not evolved. Why did cities form? Nations? The key is a moment when shared, possibly devastating risk of collective failure becomes apparent - those moments when the whole system threatens to collapse right on top of all the participants. The greater the shared danger, Mezza-Garcia and her colleagues explain, the better the chance for real cooperation. It’s a forumula that fits what we face now: “An increased risk of collective failure facilitates large-scale cooperation, especially when the large scale system is composed of smaller, nested groups,” They explain. ““Complex systems theory reveals an alternative to constant conflict.” This is our world now: Linked clusters of markets, nations, machines - all exposed to arisk of shared and instant collective failure. Such a structure upends an axiom of politics that has run for centuries: Man is purely Darwinian and that survival is determined by constant competition alone. In a network, survival is determined by sociability, by cooperation. Linked systems drive people to agree on rules in order to participate, which accelerates change and co-evolution. Smart cancer databases, linked traffic systems, video platforms like YouTube - each are Gatelands that press users together on a single platform, one that can be instantly updated and constantly studied for adjustment. “Rich get richer” arrangements are an ideal place for co-evolution, shaped as they are by easy linkage, exchange and connection to outside events. As more people follow the logic inside the gates, the system co- evolves. It becomes still more fit. It’s this loop that makes Hard Gatekeeping so well suited to an age of connection. We’re not merely putting up walls; gatelands are like markets or public squares. They are loci for cooperation. In diplomatic history it’s not hard to calls for cooperation. “We must get along or this war will devastate us all!” But they don't work. Mostly you find hand-wringing about how terrible war would be followed by, well, war. The logic of networks offers an escape from this sad habit. Co-evolving relations between the US and China can begin at the most obvious of starting points: Both sides need to change. New pressures are already tearing at each. Both nations need a new gatekept system. Our aim isn’t to “balance” China into some sort of frozen checkmate. It’s not to tip her unwisely into chaotic and impoverished domestic order - we are, like it or not, all connected. It is to co-evolve together. And China? She won’t survive if she does not connect to a system that is congenial to her needs. Fortunately, the networks are infinitely flexible in their design. A Chinese model and an American model pose no problem of interoperability. This is the best co-evolutionary strategy for each side. The dangers we confront now are everywhere. The habitual American temptation is to break all these risks into pieces, to find out where the problem is, and to flatten each of them: “Let’s hit the terrorists, then the Chinese navy, then the Russians, then the drug lords.” This will kill us if we keep it up. In a complex system, piecemeal attack simply shocks the system to still greater complexity. The world, rather wonderfully, is too flexible for brute force applied at one place. A dynamic defense, is a precursor 183 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018415