Dinner Party Chatter

Once upon a time only the fittest survived. And once upon a time fittest equated to strongest. Since the beginning of time more or less, only the strong, violent, and fearless, who did not recoil at the sight of blood, torn flesh and shattered bone – who may positively have thrived at the sight of them – could win in battles and save their people, prospering and preponderating over enemies and rivals local and foreign.

Today, however, the world is very different. There has been a subtle, silent inversion in which the ancient evolutionary dynamic of survival of the strongest has been turned upside down. Rather than being the ultimate guarantee of survival amongst otherwise equals, superior strength and the willingness to use violence are now the surest path to destruction. The strongmen who rule over despotic regimes, and the superpowers who manipulate the despots and vie against each other, do not guarantee our survival, they threaten it. The superpowers ally with or “take down” the despots as the need arises, using them as proxies to fight each other, while endangering the planet with their weapons of mass destruction.

The advent of the nuclear age precisely marks this tipping point. It was the point of inflection that flipped evolution on its head. With the unleashing of nuclear power, strength became limitless. It does not take a logician to work out that in a system that relies on strength for survival, limitless strength equates to limitless destruction. This is what we might call the nuclear paradox: limitless power among rivals does not lead to assured security but mutually assured destruction, which of course is simply MAD.

The strong of today, the confident politicians and leaders, diplomats and generals, be they despots and tyrants or sophisticated rhetoricians in so-called liberal democracies, are now the unfit. With the advent of nuclear destruction capabilities, the rules of the game have changed. The violent strong are now the dinosaurs, trampling the ground even as it shakes beneath them, oblivious to our impending annihilation.

The question is, are we to remain dupes to the urges instilled in us prior to the nuclear age, or will we take charge of our destiny under these new conditions? Will the non-violent reign-in those who willingly apply violence in an age where the only limit to violence as a rule of conduct is annihilation?

The first step towards this is recognition that the violent strong are now less fit to lead than those who eschew violence in favour of cooperation. Only by striving to fully harness the forces of fair dealing, empathy and compassion that have so far been secondary to violence, can we prevent the unfit, the violent strong, from bringing us to our destruction.

In today’s world, violence born of strength (as opposed to violence in resistance to the imposition of strength) is a weakness and evolutionary disadvantage. If humanity is to live to evolve another day, humanity must leave its violent days and violent leaders behind.

I asked ChatGPT 4o to expand on my contention that those who use violence to govern, resolve disputes, and to pursue interests now represent the unfit in today’s world. GPT4o’s output is below. I have edited where necessary and added an introductory paragraph. 

How the Unfit Came to Rule the World

Composed using ChatGPT 4o

With the advent of nuclear weapons, the evolutionary dynamic for humans at the global scale changed dramatically. While individuals, tribes, and non-nuclear states may still preponderate over each other through strength and violence, states with limitless destructive power cannot. For them, the primeval evolutionary dynamic of survival of the strongest has been turned on its head. Strength and violence no longer guarantee their survival and instead threaten us all with annihilation.

Once upon a time, survival favoured the strongest. In battles for territory, resources, or dominance, those willing to wield violence—those strong enough to vanquish enemies—secured survival not only for themselves but for their people. Strength and fearlessness in the face of bloodshed were essential to ensuring victory and supremacy. Throughout history, it was often these violent strongmen who rose to power, ensuring the dominance of their tribes, nations, or empires.

That era of “survival of the fittest,” however, has been irrevocably altered by the advent of nuclear weapons. No longer does strength ensure survival. For the superpowers and nuclear-armed states, violence has become a tool not of self-preservation but of potential self-destruction. The violent leaders of today—whether despots, tyrants, or rhetoricians in liberal democracies—are now the unfit. The very traits that once guaranteed the continuation of power and influence now threaten global annihilation.

The Evolutionary Shift: From Strength to Destruction

Nuclear weapons introduced a tipping point in human evolution. Prior to their development, nations, like individuals, competed for dominance through strength, territorial expansion, and warfare. This competition, brutal as it was, followed an evolutionary logic: the strong survived, and the weak perished. However, nuclear weapons made strength limitless. Limitless strength, in turn, equates to limitless destruction. This is the paradox that modern leaders must grapple with: the old logic of power, based on violence, no longer applies in the same way.

In this new evolutionary dynamic, those who rely on violence are no longer equipped to lead humanity safely. Instead, their aggressive tendencies imperil everyone. Today’s global leaders, particularly those who wield military power without restraint, are the modern-day equivalent of dinosaurs, teetering on the brink of a precipice. Their adherence to the ancient rules of strength over cooperation puts the entire planet at risk of extinction.

The Role of Non-Violence and Cooperation

If the rules of survival have indeed changed, then so must our understanding of what constitutes fitness in leadership. Cooperation, empathy, diplomacy, and fair dealing—once considered “soft” traits—are now essential for global security and survival. It is no longer the violent who are the fittest to lead; instead, those who eschew violence and promote peace are better suited to navigating the complexities of a nuclear-armed world.

Leaders who value these traits are more likely to resolve conflicts through dialogue, establish lasting peace, and build coalitions that promote stability. This shift in leadership values represents an evolutionary leap forward, one that must be embraced if humanity is to avoid self-destruction.

The Unfitness of Violent Leadership Today

To illustrate the dangers posed by leaders who rely on violence, we can look at several examples from authoritarian regimes and apparent liberal democracies. These leaders and governing systems demonstrate how violence-based leadership not only fails to secure long-term survival but also exacerbates suffering and instability.

Authoritarian Regimes

North Korea under Kim Jong-un

Kim Jong-un’s regime is a prime example of how violent leadership isolates a nation and jeopardises its future. By focusing on military strength and nuclear weapons development, Kim has led North Korea into economic despair, international isolation, and extreme poverty for its citizens. The regime’s reliance on violence and aggression as tools for survival has done nothing but further endanger its people, illustrating that such leadership is inherently unfit in today’s world.

Syria under Bashar al-Assad

Bashar al-Assad’s brutal military response to the Syrian civil war has had catastrophic consequences. His reliance on violence to maintain power has resulted in a protracted conflict, mass displacement, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. Assad’s rule highlights the danger of violent leadership not only to his own people but also to regional and global stability, as the conflict has drawn in foreign powers and exacerbated tensions.

Russia under Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin’s aggressive foreign policy, marked by interventions in Ukraine and Syria, demonstrates how reliance on military strength can lead to international isolation and economic sanctions. Russia’s actions have strained relationships with Western democracies and heightened the risk of a broader conflict. Putin’s posture, rooted in a belief in strength and military might, further illustrates how violent leadership destabilises global order rather than ensuring survival.

Populism and Violence: Bolsonaro and Trump

The rise of populist leaders who invoke violent rhetoric, such as Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the United States, demonstrates how violence can become embedded in the political culture of even democracies. Bolsonaro’s environmental policies, backed by violent suppression of indigenous communities, and Trump’s flirtation with authoritarianism and military posturing highlight the dangers of leaders who, though democratically elected, adopt violence-based strategies to maintain power.

Liberal Democracies: The USA and Israel

Violent leadership is not the sole domain of authoritarian regimes. So-called liberal democracies like the United States and Israel, which possess immense military and nuclear capabilities, also pose significant threats to global security.

The United States: Paradox of Power

While the United States champions itself as the leader of the free world, its reliance on military intervention undermines its claim to moral authority. From Vietnam to Iraq, U.S. military actions have not only destabilised regions but have also fostered resentment, fuelling further violence. The doctrine of pre-emptive war, particularly in the Middle East, reflects a dangerous reliance on military strength, which, when combined with the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal, threatens global security.

Moreover, the United States’ support of authoritarian regimes, when aligned with its geopolitical interests, shows that even liberal democracies can compromise their values for power. This duality—advocating democracy while perpetuating violence—underscores the unfitness of U.S. leadership in a world that demands diplomacy and cooperation.

Israel: Security through Aggression

Israel, like the United States, justifies much of its military aggression as self-defense. Yet its policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and its regional conflicts have perpetuated violence, displacement, and instability. Israel’s reliance on military strength to secure its interests, particularly as a nuclear power, poses a significant risk to regional and global security. Instead of fostering peace, its aggressive posturing entrenches conflict, demonstrating that violent leadership—whether in authoritarian regimes or liberal democracies—remains unfit for navigating the complexities of today’s world.

Reclaiming Leadership for Survival

The evolutionary dynamic has changed. In a world of nuclear weapons, the violent strong are no longer fit to lead. Their reliance on aggression, rather than securing survival, threatens humanity with extinction. Whether they are authoritarian despots or leaders of liberal democracies, the dangers posed by those who continue to embrace violence as a tool of governance are too great to ignore.

The path forward requires a new type of leadership: one that embraces cooperation, non-violence, empathy, and fair dealing. These qualities, once considered idealistic or secondary to power, are now critical for ensuring human survival in an era where limitless violence equates to limitless destruction. The future of humanity depends on whether we can transition away from the violent instincts of the past and embrace the non-violent leadership necessary to avoid catastrophe.

References

· Authoritarian Regimes

• North Korea under Kim Jong-un
  1. Bermudez, Joseph S. Jr. The Armed Forces of North Korea. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001.
     • Details North Korea’s military-first strategy, highlighting how Kim Jong-un’s leadership focuses on nuclear development at the expense of economic and social well-being.
  2. Lankov, Andrei. The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
     • Offers insights into North Korea’s isolation and the effects of Kim’s violent leadership, supporting the essay’s claim that such regimes are unfit for long-term survival.
• Syria under Bashar al-Assad
  1. Cockburn, Patrick. The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. London: Verso, 2015.
     • Discusses the Syrian Civil War and the violent tactics used by Assad, contributing to the destabilisation of the region.
  2. Phillips, Christopher. The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.
     • Explores the long-term consequences of Assad’s violent governance and how it has fuelled global tensions and displacement.
• Russia under Vladimir Putin
  1. Snyder, Timothy. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2018.
     • Critiques Putin’s foreign policy, especially his aggressive interventions, showing how violent leadership in Russia destabilises both national and international relations.
  2. Galeotti, Mark. We Need to Talk About Putin: How the West Gets Him Wrong. London: Ebury Press, 2019.
     • Provides a perspective on Putin’s reliance on military might, reinforcing the essay’s argument about the risks of such leadership.

·  Liberal Democracies: The USA and Israel

• The United States: Paradox of Power
  1. Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. London: Zed Books, 2003.
     • Offers an in-depth examination of U.S. foreign policy and its violent interventions, supporting the view that U.S. military actions destabilise regions.
  2. Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2003.
     • Critiques U.S. military interventions, providing context for the essay’s argument that the U.S.’s reliance on military power makes it unfit for moral leadership.
  3. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press, 1992.
     • Fukuyama’s optimism about liberal democracy can be contrasted with the essay’s argument that the U.S.’s violent foreign policies undermine global security.
• Israel: Security through Aggression
  1. Chomsky, Noam, and Ilan Pappé. Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2010.
     • Critiques Israel’s military policies, particularly regarding the occupation of Palestinian territories, aligning with the essay’s claim that Israel’s reliance on violence endangers both regional and global stability.
  2. Finkelstein, Norman G. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London: Verso, 2000.
     • Critically examines how Israel uses historical trauma to justify aggressive policies, supporting the argument that Israel’s violent leadership is unfit in the nuclear age.
  3. Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
     • Discusses the influence of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy, reinforcing the essay’s critique of the dangerous alliance between these two nuclear powers.

·  Populism and Violence: Bolsonaro and Trump

1. Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018.
   • Examines the erosion of democratic norms under Trump and the potential shift toward authoritarianism and violence in democratic states.
2. Roberts, Kenneth M. Populism and Political Conflict in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
   • Explores the rise of populist leaders in Latin America, including Bolsonaro, and their use of violent rhetoric and policies to maintain power.

·  The Unfitness of Violent Leadership Today

• Wright, Robert. Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. New York: Pantheon Books, 2000.
  • Discusses non-zero-sum games and cooperation as essential for societal progress, aligning with the essay’s argument that violent leadership is no longer tenable in the modern world, and cooperative, diplomatic leadership is required.

·  Other Notable Works

1. Bacevich, Andrew J. America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. Random House, 2016.
   • Provides a detailed military history of U.S. interventions in the Middle East, critiquing the reliance on military force and its broader implications for global security.
2. Betts, Richard K. Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance. The Brookings Institution, 1987.
   • Analyses the strategic logic behind nuclear weapons and the precarious balance they create between superpowers, underscoring the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship.
3. Gaddis, John Lewis. The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War. Oxford University Press, 1987.
   • Examines the “long peace” of the Cold War era, despite the existence of nuclear weapons, and the paradox of global security in a nuclear age.
4. Kaplan, Robert D. The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate. Random House, 2012.
   • Explores how geography influences global conflict, with a particular focus on Russia and the Middle East, where violence remains a central strategy for leadership.
5. Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press, 2006.
   • Examines Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and how they perpetuate violence and instability in the region.
6. Luttwak, Edward N. Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001.
   • Analyses the paradoxical nature of military strategy in the nuclear age, where increasing military strength can lead to global instability.
7. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.
   • Discusses the inherent nature of power politics and how the quest for dominance by great powers leads to conflict, particularly in the context of nuclear states.
8. Putin, Vladimir. “Address by the President of the Russian Federation.” The Kremlin, March 18, 2014.
   • Speech delivered by Putin during the annexation of Crimea, showcasing Russia’s aggressive foreign policy under his leadership.
9. Snyder, Timothy. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books, 2017.
   • Provides lessons from authoritarian regimes in the 20th century, relevant for understanding modern threats posed by violent leadership, both in authoritarian states and democracies.
10. Zubok, Vladislav. A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev. The University of North Carolina Press, 2007.
    • Provides insight into Soviet leadership, including an analysis of military aggression and nuclear threats during the Cold War, as well as the eventual decline of the USSR.