The end of conflict? Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? 

But maybe it is more plausible than we imagine.

The evolutionary perspective on conflict 

One reason it seems such an unlikely claim is that conflict is so embedded in our nature. And it’s true, we’ve evolved to fight, we’re wired for it: our amygdala senses danger and triggers a fight (or flight) response. 

But there’s a counter-argument to this: it is equally true that our pre-frontal cortex can override the amygdala and choose to talk things through over a nice cup of tea.¹ Yes, conflict is in our DNA but so, too, is collaboration.

In fact, ethologists will tell you that collaboration is our evolutionary superpower. It’s how our species has taken over the planet. No other species comes close to our ability to work with others across the world and put a TV in every lounge and a toaster in every kitchen.

What about the maths?

Another argument may come from game theory, a branch of maths that was born in the Cold War, trying to understand the best strategies in conflict situations. If economics is known as the dismal science, game theory could easily be called the miserable maths, because at first glance, it doesn’t look hopeful for humans. 

The Prisoner’s Dilemma, one of its core constructs, seems to favour the defector, the cheater. And Garret Hardin, author of the influential “Tragedy of the Commons” paper, took a very gloomy of our ability to manage common resources.²

But, ultimately, the maths is more optimistic than this. In real life scenarios, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is best solved by working together.³ In hawk and dove scenarios, doves can win through collaboration.4 

1 + 1 can equal 3.

Trade is better than war. Who knew?

For all the maths and the theories, what about the facts?

So, it’s apparent that we have both conflict and cooperation within us and which one dominates is often decided by the circumstances. But the interesting thing is that we can shape those circumstances. It’s called culture and collaboration culture has a high correlation with economic success.

If you look at Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory and the Globe Project, two of the most famous methods of measuring culture, they both have countries like Singapore and the Northern Europeans as the most collaborative.^{5, 6}  Guess what, they are also the richest.⁷

Interestingly, they tend to be the happiest, too.⁸

There’s a positive historical trend, too

And the fact is that, despite it feeling like we’re on the edge of World War Three at times, there is less and less conflict than ever before. 

Sure, there is an upwards blip in the last five years, this goes to show that the trend is not a simple straight line, nor can we take it for granted it will continue downwards. 

But that aside, there are less wars than ever before, less homicides, acts of terrorism, rape, domestic violence, indeed any measure of violence you wish to choose.^9,10

Just to give one example, the 2024 Office for National Statistics report, “Crime in England and Wales”, showed that violent crime was down in the UK compared to 1995, 30 years previous.¹¹

That might surprise some of you, it might not others. 

But it was down by 75%. That will probably surprise all of you. And this was not a blip, it is a trend.

Forget the facts, just read the news

If what I’m saying is correct, how comes everyone thinks it’s worse than ever?

Because the reporting and the twitter feeds are optimised for our attention and our amygdala makes sure that danger is the best way to catch our attention. So, read the news and you would legitimately think it’s unsafe to step outside the front door. But, in actual fact, it is safer than ever before.

And herein lies a large part of our problem; this is the reason there is the threat, to the extent it exists. Because everyone feels threatened, their responses are likely to be fight (or flight) responses, in turn creating more threat for others. The perceived threat leads to a real threat. 

If people understood the world is, largely, safer than reported, their amygdala would be able to rest easier and they would behave more collaboratively. We would get a positive cycle spinning: less perceived threat => more pro-social behaviour => less perceived threat => more pro-social behaviour…

AI can help solve conflict

So, the end of conflict, if it were to happen, would only be a continuation of an existing trend, one that has been continuing for several centuries already.

And there’s reason to think that AI could give it the impetus necessary to finish the job.

Whether we are talking about analysing huge datasets, building digital twins, modelling multiple scenarios or finding creative solutions beyond human capability, AI has many superpowers and it can bring those to bear to help resolve many of the toughest conflicts we face in the world. If we take one of the most intractable situations we currently face, the Ukraine-Russia war, even here AI can help and future, more capable, AI platforms will be more helpful still.

But, for now, I’m going to focus on a much simpler skill it has that will help it work with smaller problems but ultimately leading to a much deeper cultural transformation.

We know how to solve conflict

Humans, as a species, know best practice when it comes to conflict resolution. You just need to look at Northern Ireland or South Africa to know we can solve the hardest of conflicts if we put our mind to it. The problem is not everyone knows this best practice and, even when we do, our amygdala or our ego can prevent us from operating by it.

AI can model human best practice and make it more widely available. Moreover, it doesn’t have an amygdala and it doesn’t have an ego. As it becomes deeper and deeper embedded in our digital infrastructure, best practice collaboration will become the invisible, unquestioned norm of our society. 

How do cultures change?

Cultures change as behaviours and beliefs spread through a society and they do this virally, from person to person.¹² If you have a nice, friendly conversation with someone, you’re more likely to have a nice, friendly conversation with the next one. They, in turn, will be more likely to have a nice, friendly conversation with the next person they meet.¹³ And so on.

This is a well-studied process: people are more likely to eat healthy diets if their circle of friends eat healthy diets, they are more likely to have tidy lawns if their neighbours have tidy lawns.¹⁴

What’s more, the behaviour travels fastest when it’s picked up by a hub.¹⁵ Interestingly, studies have shown that AI can be the exemplar that stimulates this progression of behaviour and, indeed, can be that hub.^{16, 17} 

So, as it goes about its business in our digital background, quietly resolving issues, big or small, removing threats and demonstrating best practice, we will be exposed to that and, consciously or subconsciously, will pick up on it ourselves.¹⁸ We will start doing these behaviours ourselves, naturally, more automatically. 

We will pick up on better methods of communication, of resolving issues, of mediating, of collaborating. We will see the benefits of this and we’ll do it more. Other people around us will also be doing it more which will just support this behaviour. It will become a collaborative culture and we will wonder why on earth did anyone ever behave differently. 

“Mum, were you alive when people used to argue?”

“Yes, but I can’t really remember it that well.”

“Mum, in the olden days, why did people go to war?”

“Don’t ask difficult questions!”

AI will have learnt best practice from us humans, but we humans will learn it back from AI and so best practice will spread and the culture will transform. 

At first glance, the end of conflict sounds completely implausible but it is not beyond the laws of physics, there is a roadmap to get there.

And that means it’s within our grasp and it’s up to us to make it happen. If we don’t achieve it, we can’t blame others. On the other hand, if we act accordingly, we, you and me, can make it happen.

 

1. Sapolsky, R (2018) “Behave: The Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst” ISBN 978-1594205071
2. Hardin, G (1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, Vol. 162, 13 December 1968
3. Schneier, B (2012) “Liars and Outliers: Enabling Trust that Society Needs to Survive” (Wiley) ISBN 978-1118143308
4. Nowak, M (2011) “Supercooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed” (The Free Press) ISBN 978-1439100189
5. https://www.geerthofstede.com
6. https://globeproject.com/results/clusters/nordic-europe%3Fmenu=list.html#list
7. https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
8. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/happiness-and-age-summary/
9. Pinker, S (2011) “Better Angels of our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity” (Viking) ISBN 978-0670022953
10. Pinker, S (2018) “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress” (Allen Lane) ISBN  978-0241004319
11. Office for National Statistics (ONS), released 24 July 2024, ONS website, statistical bulletin, Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2024
12. Singh J (2005) Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Manage Sci 51:756–770
13. Fowler, James H.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2010-03-23). "Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (12): 5334–5338
14. Christakis, N and Fowler, J (2010) “Connected” (HarperPress) ISBN 9780007347438
15. Milgram, Stanley (May 1967). "The Small World Problem". Psychology Today
16. Shirado, Hirokazu, and Nicholas A. Christakis. "Network engineering using autonomous agents increases cooperation in human groups." Iscience 23.9 (2020).
17. Traeger, Margaret L., et al. "Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.12 (2020)
18. Rahwan, Iyad, et al. "Machine behaviour." Nature 568.7753 (2019): 477-486