Harmonizing Humanity: A Unifying Worldview is the Only Lasting Solution to Peace in the Middle East

The Competitive Exclusion Principle predicts a dark outcome for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that future can be averted if the world adopts a view of human civilization as a "superorganism."

It is rational to be deeply concerned at this moment in history. The divisive conflict between Israelis and Palestinians ultimately represents a battle between two of the world’s major religions. This war could pit the Judeo-Christian world against the Islamic world, bringing about a kind of global spiritual war. In fact, we are already seeing signs of that — now the militant Islamic group Hezbollah in Lebanon is launching airstrikes at Israel’s border, while U.S. and Iranian forces are attacking each other inside Syria and Iraq. These events are quickly dividing the public, with most feeling like they have to choose one side or the other.

The highly interconnected nature of human civilization means that regional disputes are not contained but are instead amplified through the global network of communications and alliances. This interconnectivity can transform localized strife into a series of international incidents, creating a domino effect that risks drawing multiple superpowers into a broader conflict. It is unnerving to acknowledge, but War III is now a very real possibility.

However, our fate is not set in stone, thanks to our intelligence and ability to engage in reflective thinking. To prevent this nightmarish outcome, we must understand the biological, psychological, and sociological forces at play, and we must use this knowledge to discover a solution. If we can see where we are headed as a system, then in theory we should be able to use our collective agency to steer civilization toward a different outcome. Let’s begin our ambitious task by getting an understanding of why such conflicts emerge in the first place, from an evolutionary perspective.

The Principle of Competitive Exclusion

The Principle of Competitive Exclusion is a well-established concept in ecology which says that two distinct species occupying the same niche and competing for the same resources cannot stably coexist. The ongoing conflict will eventually lead to one group’s extinction or removal from the niche. This principle is an expression of the harsh reality of natural selection, and if the agents involved in such a conflict don’t have the ability to understand this dynamic, they will not be able to avoid falling into it.

The Principle of Competitive Exclusion can also be applied to hominids, the family of primates that includes modern humans, our ancestors, and other species such as Neanderthals. Evidence from paleoanthropology suggests that this dynamic played a significant role in our own evolutionary history; the competition for niches is believed to have been a contributing factor to the extinction of other hominid species as Homo sapiens became more dominant.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as a contemporary reflection of the Competitive Exclusion Principle, with two groups competing for resources and self-determination in a shared geographical space. The main difference between this example and the ones given in ecology is that the two groups are members of the same species. So why are these agents at war when they could be integrating into a diverse yet harmonious whole?

In his 2002 book The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex, complexity theorist Harold Morowitz explained the reason for the conflict:

“In spite of the close biological affinity of all humans — according to mitochondrial DNA studies we all have a common ancestor within the last 200,000 years — humans constantly erect cultural barriers to interbreeding, where no biological barriers exist…In a number of contemporary societies two or more groups live in the same country and exist in almost complete reproductive isolation because of religion, race, language, ideology, or other nonbiological barriers. As a result an analog to sympatric species is artificially produced. We designate these noninterbreeding groups as pseudospecies.”

The concept of pseudospecies — socially and culturally defined groups that act as though separated by biological differences — allows us to understand the Principle of Competitive Exclusion within the human domain. When two groups of humans possess different worldviews, and those worldviews create a clear distinction between in-group and out-group members, those groups become akin to two distinct organisms locked in a competitive struggle.

Worldviews Simultaneously Unite and Divide

Examples of worldviews include religions, political ideologies, and national identities. These belief systems give us a sense of purpose and meaning, and attempt to make sense of a confusing and often chaotic reality. In evolutionary terms, a worldview is a strategy for collective survival. That is, it provides a blueprint for a stable society, in much the same way that a genome encodes a blueprint for a stable organism, and a strategy for individual survival.

Worldviews are an important part of the evolutionary process because they facilitate the emergence of a society by aligning the interests of interacting agents and harmonizing their activities. Religions brought humans together under a collective purpose and gave them an ethical system that produced social order from behavioral chaos. In this way, worldviews entrain groups of humans into a unified whole, bringing about the creation of a social organism — an intelligent organism made of many intelligent organisms. When a social organism forms, the members of that larger adaptive network gain an enhanced layer of defense against the unforgiving elements of the natural world.

Cultural worldviews serve as powerful social adhesives that bond the members of each group internally, fostering a strong collective identity. However, these same worldviews also act as dividers, erecting psychological and emotional barriers that separate us from those who do not share our perspective. Because the religions of the world are all different, they have the effect of dividing us into tribes with conflicting visions about how the world is, and how it should be.

Just as organisms with sufficiently different genomes will typically be in conflict, social organisms with different worldviews will be at war until they find a way to align interests. The "us versus them" mentality perpetuates a cycle of bias and conflict, mirroring the competition for survival seen in the animal world.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we see two pseudospecies at odds, each vying for the same niche, with no desire to co-exist peacefully. The famous Hamas chant “from the river to the sea” makes their genocidal intent crystal clear, and Israel’s government has been trying to systematically push Palestinians out of the territory for nearly a century, in accordance with a hardline Zionist philosophy. The Principle of Competitive Exclusion is clearly at work in the human world thanks to rigid worldviews that create pseudospecies. Though maybe it’s more accurate to place the blame on the bureaucrats than the religions themselves, because it is the leaders and military bodies who choose to not come to a peaceful and fair solution, not the Israeli and Palestinian civilians, who are trapped in a game they never agreed to play.

Fortunately, humanity's unique cognitive abilities offer a pathway beyond the seemingly inevitable conclusion of competitive exclusion. Humans possess a profound capacity for reflection, for conscious deliberation, and for transcendence beyond instinctual reactions. This higher level of consciousness, a product of a more developed prefrontal cortex, allows us to recognize the artificial nature of these pseudospecies barriers and the shared lineage that unites us. It is this cognitive trait that offers a path beyond the zero-sum game of competitive exclusion, because it gives us the ability to alter our worldview when it becomes clear that it needs updating.

A Unifying Worldview: Human Civilization as a ‘Superorganism’

To move forward as a single species, the relevant science suggests that we must consciously embrace a new universal worldview. This worldview, inspired by evolutionary theory and an approach to problem solving called “systems thinking,” would recognize the interconnectedness of all human beings, not merely as a moral ideal, but as a practical reality. It would be rooted in the understanding that we are all part of an emerging global superorganism, an integrated network of lives and destinies that are inextricably linked.

We know that our civilization is now an interdependent system because if there is a crisis in one crucial region then the whole global network suffers. We saw how a local problem can quickly wreak global havoc with the 2008 financial collapse, and in a more extreme form with the 2020 pandemic. This tells us that coming together to create a new level of global coordination despite our ideological differences is not a luxury, but a necessity. Our common existential challenges will require the full computational power of the “global brain” that is human civilization. That means we must cooperate and collaborate to prevent WWIII, weaponized A.I., the spread of authoritarianism, income inequality, pandemics, and climate change. These are things that threaten the entire human race, and in that way, they bind us together.

When we adopt this universal perspective, which is at once scientific and spiritual (in the sense that it unifies us under a larger purpose), we begin to see how the wellbeing of one is tied to the wellbeing of all. Envisioning humanity as a global superorganism allows for a reimagining of individual and collective identity. The suffering of any one part is a wound to the collective whole. The deaths of civilians in conflict zones becomes not just a local tragedy but a global one, necessitating a response from the collective human superorganism.

In this light, the Principle of Competitive Exclusion is transformed from a rule of conflict to a challenge of integration. It urges us to find ways to coexist not by eliminating the other but by expanding our sense of self to include the other. This is the essence of the superorganism worldview — one that sees not a battleground of competing tribes but a tapestry of human endeavor, rich with the potential for synthesis and harmony while preserving its unique variety of cultures and customs. It calls for a new kind of global cooperation, one that transcends tribalistic divisions and unites us in the common pursuit of a world that is sustainable, just, and flourishing.

Under the cosmic perspective illuminated by the paradigm of emergence from which the superorganism perspective was born, there is no “us versus them,” there is only “we.” Rather than seeing the world as a disconnected and random collection of events, we can view it as an interconnected and purposeful whole, with each part contributing to the overall evolution and development of greater cosmic complexity, integration, and awareness. The three major religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, should be reinterpreted through this lens, and doing so will reveal their universal truths and shared ethical principles.

While the articulation of a unifying worldview is the first step, it is only through actionable solutions that such a vision can materialize.

A New Global Ethos

An ethos is the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations. The establishment of a new global ethos based on the human superorganism perspective requires a fundamental shift in how we envision international cooperation. Systems thinking is an analytical approach that views complex problems through the lens of the whole system rather than isolated parts. It focuses on designing resilient and adaptive systems capable of withstanding and evolving through challenges, with an understanding that changes in one part of a system can significantly impact the entire system.

Systems thinking naturally leads to thinking on a global scale. To build a global ethos of unity and peace, we need a more inclusive and participatory approach that values the contribution of all the individuals working to maintain a stable whole. Current global governance structures, like the United Nations, often rely on top-down mechanisms that may not fully represent or address grassroots concerns. The new approach should leverage local initiatives and voices, integrating them into the fabric of international policymaking and conflict resolution. The transformation of international organizations to reflect a more bottom-up approach would empower individuals and communities to participate in the global decision-making process.

In his 2022 book The Network State, Balaji Srinivasan offers a vision for connecting people around the globe by proposing a decentralized, internet-based state that leverages digital platforms to unite individuals with shared goals across borders. This model of a network state reimagines governance and community, where decentralized systems enable direct, global participation in decision-making, challenging the conventional boundaries of geopolitical entities. This is just one blueprint for global coordination without centralized powers calling all the shots.

The systems-thinking approach would encourage educational reform to instill a mindset of global citizenship, economic policies that promote equitable resource distribution, and diplomatic efforts that prioritize peace and mutual reciprocity.

Of course, these are long-term solutions for a global restructuring of human civilization to be more robust and democratic. What solutions does this new paradigm propose for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

A Systems-Based Solution for Peace in the Middle East

In light of the insights gleaned from systems thinking and the unifying concept of humanity as a global superorganism, it's time to reexamine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with fresh eyes. Of course, for decades world leaders have tried to bring peace to the Middle East and failed. Hope for lasting harmony is not something in abundance. Although the road to peace is fraught with challenges and a history of deep-rooted resistance to compromise, applying a systems-oriented perspective illuminates potential paths to resolution that, while complex, are indeed attainable. First, it instantly eliminates solutions that would involve a competitive exclusion-style outcome, where one ethnic group pushes the other out of the region entirely. After these options are eliminated, we reconsider the remaining solutions that have been proposed, which would be updated with adaptive design principles and more evolved ethical considerations.

A “two-State solution” is the most widely supported international framework, and it envisions an independent State of Israel and an independent State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Some propose a confederation between Israel and Palestine, where two sovereign states are linked together with shared economic and security structures but retain their separate governments. The more economic interdependence the better, because then war becomes even more costly to both parties, incentivizing peace. Areas of significant contention, particularly Jerusalem, could be placed under international administration to guarantee equal access to holy sites and shared resources.

Even more integrative would be a “one-state solution” that doesn’t entail the dark consequences of the Competitive Exclusion Principle. This resolution would create a single state that includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, where all inhabitants have equal rights. It could be a “bi-national state,” a single democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians have equal representation and protections under the law, maintaining their distinct national identities. Or, it could be a one-state solution where the state is secular, with no official religion or national identity, ensuring equal rights for all citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Either option would be a giant step up from the current situation. While the two-state solution is more realistic, it could serve as a potential transition state to the more integrated single state in the not-too-distant future. Of course, the success of any plan would depend on the willingness of the populations to reconcile and live together in peace. For this, the unifying worldview of human civilization as a coherent superorganism is needed. Ideally, this worldview — outlined in the form of a precise scientific framework that offers systems-based solutions — would be presented alongside peace negotiations, and communicated to the global public by scientists, journalists, ethicists, and educators. The spiritual quality of this framework, in particular its recognition of purpose in nature and its message of unity, make this science-based approach palatable for the religious world. Just as the Catholic Church accepted the Big Bang Theory and interpreted it as in accordance with Christian doctrine, religious organizations must similarly embrace the paradigm of emergence, integrating its insights into their spiritual understanding of reality to bridge the gap between science and faith.

In conclusion, while the Principle of Competitive Exclusion explains much of the biological world and our ancestral history, it need not dictate our future. By recognizing our shared identity and common goals, we can override the primitive instincts that drive us apart. We can choose to foster a world where cultural and ideological diversity enriches rather than divides, where cooperation and mutual understanding prevail. It is through this enlightened approach that humanity can move past the archaic boundaries of pseudospecies and towards a unified, peaceful coexistence.