HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018415.jpg

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 a risk 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