Solace in the numbers

The expansive nature of life is bound, as we have discussed before, to engender some kind of conflict: a thriving species might run out of living space or food; a predator might become interested in them; a bacterium might face a potentially toxic substance; a plant might hit a rock with its roots or fall in the shadow of another plant. This is inherent into the need of living organisms to expand in order to survive, both through sheer numbers and through diversity: on the one hand it would be harder to kill all the individuals in a numerous colony than in a small one; and a bigger diversity increases the chances that some individuals will develop capabilities that just were not there before. But of course this expansion will sooner or later lead to conflicts.

In general terms we could define a conflict as a situation where the previous course of action does not lead to the same results as before. For instance, walking on a path leads to moving forward, but if a rock blocks the read you will not be able to advance by simply walking: we are in a situation of conflict. The responses to this kind of situations can essentially be divided into two categories: trying to make your previous strategy work (usually at a higher expense than before, like trying to push the rock off the path) or looking for an alternative strategy (such as trying to walk around the rock or finding another path that is not blocked). Of course there is the third alternative of not doing anything and just wait to see if the situation resolves by itself (e.g. maybe the ground gives way a bit and the rock continues running down the hill), but this could actually be considered a rather inefficient way of persisting in your initial strategy. In summary, the options are, as is often described for instinctive responses, fight, flight or freeze.

Photo: Sam Javanrouh

Although this model was originally developed to describe animal behavior in stress situations, it easily lends itself to generalization if we just turn down the intensity. And it has the advantage of working really well even in the absence of will: both options are there even if the inner workings of the corresponding living being are programmed to systematically prefer on option to the other. When a root hits a stone on the ground, the plant might press on, trying to push it aside or even crack it, or just crawl its way around it and just take a little longer to reach the source of nutrients.

In the case of conflicts between humans or groups of humans we have the additional option of compromising, negotiating a solutions that might be satisfactory for both parties even if it means worse outcomes than originally intended. It is surprising a middle way between a fight (where both parties will devote a significant amount of resources to come ahead) and a full retreat (that would require the development a completely new strategy, with the subsequent costs in terms of time and effort). However, this avenue of solution is only possible when there is a negotiation partner on the other side: if the opposition is not willing to negotiate or if it is just unable to do so because they are non-human entities (the weather, the governmental bureaucracy, bad luck) we are back to the two default options of fighting or fleeing.

Unfortunately, Western culture, particularly in the areas of Protestant descent, is imbued with certain views of voluntarism that tend to prefer (and praise) almost unconditionally the option of fighting over a retreat. I do not know if it is linked to the heroic narrative or a certain righteousness that consider standing by your previous decision as a moral good even in the face of uncertain results, but the fact is that retreating frequently comes as a double defeat: first because your idea did not work; second because of the scorn of the society that will deem you a weakling. And the social networks, filled with success stories only make situation worse, because they fail to represent the huge majority of people who are forced to give up or reconsider their projects.

That is why I can only praise Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, who, after months of analyzing the data on COVID-19 and trying to make sense of it, has published a close-up note where he admits that, under the current (mis-)information situation, it is just impossible to make a credible independent assessment of the situation and that he would not try to explain it to the general public anymore. I can only sympathize with the good doctor, who not only seems sincere in his intentions but also honest in his admission of defeat. I know it well enough because I follow that same path already some months ago. The time difference only bear witness as to how much worse prepared I was for the task than he was. I have Karen to thank once more for the pointed recommendation of this article that has indeed provided some solace. Knowing that I am not the only one failing to make sense of the data does not help the outcome but it certainly alleviates the sense of defeat. Let us just hope that, at some point in the future, giving up will be seen as a normal part of life and not as a weakness anymore. Have a nice week!