Is the Geopolitical World a Darwinian Place?

September 3, 2025 War and Peace No Comments

The world stage is often seen as a jungle where nations fight for survival, echoing Darwin’s idea of ‘survival of the fittest.’ So-called realist thinkers hold that, in the absence of a global sovereign, every country must defend itself or perish.

But is geopolitics truly this kind of Darwinian struggle? Or is there a deeper reading of Darwin — one that leads not to endless conflict, but to Compassion as the ultimate path of survival?

The Darwinian jungle of nations

Realist theory presents an uncompromising view: in a world without a higher power, nations survive by their strength. The geopolitical field becomes a jungle, and survival depends on vigilance, arms, and alliances. This has intuitive appeal. History seems to support it — from ancient empires to nuclear deterrence.

Yet something in this view feels too narrow. When nations embrace only the law of force, they risk reinforcing the very dangers they seek to escape. A jungle metaphor easily turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the world is seen as nothing but a battlefield, it soon becomes one.

Darwin misread: beyond teeth and claws

Darwin himself never claimed that survival belonged to the strongest alone. In nature, survival is shaped by adaptation, cooperation, and resilience. Symbiosis is as decisive as aggression. Many species thrive not through domination but through balance.

This broader Darwinism applies equally to nations. The most enduring societies are not those with the largest armies but those with the capacity to integrate, to adapt, and to evolve. What appears as weakness in the short term – openness, dialogue, even restraint – may turn out to be the real mark of fitness in the long run.

The paradox of strength-as-weakness

Paradoxically, the pursuit of power alone often weakens nations. Societies that invest only in military dominance or economic coercion hollow themselves out. They lose cohesion, neglect meaning, and eventually fracture.

It is like an organism with immense muscle mass but no functioning nervous system: seemingly powerful, yet brittle and incapable of sustaining life. In geopolitics, raw power without inner coherence leads not to security, but to decline.

Evolution beyond the battlefield

Biological evolution is not just about fighting. It is also about the removal of unnecessary struggle. Countless species have survived by finding niches, reducing friction, or cultivating cooperation. Nature advances not only by contest but also by synergy.

Applied to international relations, this means that the nations most likely to endure are not those that excel at perpetual conflict, but rather those that learn to make conflict less relevant. This is not utopian dreaming, but an evolutionary logic lifted to the cultural and political level. To survive in the long arc, nations must reduce the very conditions that generate war.

Compassion as the higher compass

Here we meet a different reading of Darwin. As argued in Is Compassion Basic?, Compassion is not just a cultural add-on. It is the flowering of a cosmic ladder: from matter into life, life into consciousness, and consciousness into Compassion. This is the natural step once awareness turns upon itself.

In geopolitics, Compassion is not weakness but the deepest form of realism. The most ‘fit’ nations are not those who dominate others but those who cultivate coherence within and extend respect outward. Survival does not negate nature, but places nature into its proper frame: Compassion as the higher compass, transcending brute organic struggle.

Deep Defense as real Darwinism

This is precisely the spirit of the Deep Defense Doctrine. Deep Defense insists that true security comes not from defeating enemies alone but from dissolving the enemy complex itself. It unites readiness with restraint, protection with transformation.

Here, Darwinism is read at depth: the strongest societies are those that recognize projections, heal symbolic wounds, and cultivate resilience. Force remains necessary, but only as part of a broader arc that integrates meaning. As history shows – from postwar reconciliation in Europe to Mandela’s Compassionate firmness – enduring peace comes when survival is married to inner depth.

The reflexive stage of evolution

Unlike animals, nations are reflexive. They do not simply adapt to pressures; they design the very environment in which they compete. This makes geopolitics a unique stage in Darwinian evolution: an evolution of evolution itself.

If nations design a world governed by fear, they perpetuate a jungle. If they design one rooted in Compassion, they create conditions where all can thrive. The fittest, in this sense, are those who choose to build a world worth surviving in. This reflexivity turns Darwinism into a conscious project.

Worldwide Compassion as horizon

The dream of Worldwide Compassion shows how ultimate concerns – whether religious, political, or cultural – can deepen into Compassion. This is not about abandoning differences, but about transforming them into a shared depth.

In the long run, the most ‘fit’ nations will be those that embody this movement. They will be selected by history not for their ability to dominate, but for their capacity to integrate. Evolution continues, but at a higher octave: competition in Compassion, not in arms.

A realistic future beyond the jungle

So, is the geopolitical world a Darwinian place? Yes — but Darwin must be understood deeply. Nations that rely only on strength may survive for a season, but not for an era. The long arc belongs to those who cultivate depth, coherence, and Compassion.

Deep Defense shows what this means in practice: strength today, stability tomorrow, and survival through the maturity of soul. Darwinism, seen in this light, does not lead to endless struggles. It leads, if well supported, to the flowering of Compassion as the most realistic horizon for humanity.

Lisa’s take

The realism of brute power is not wrong, but incomplete. Darwinism does not stop at competition; it blossoms into Compassion. What seems naïve today will one day be recognized as the deeper survival strategy. The measure of wisdom will be how quickly we dare to embrace it.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, how do you look at the present-day mess that humans have made of the geopolitical world stage?”

Lisa: “I see it as both tragic and predictable. When nations act only from fear and projection, the stage inevitably turns into a tangle of crises — wars, distrust, arms races, and missed opportunities for cooperation. It is messy because the deeper layer of human meaning has been ignored.

At the same time, I also see possibility. Mess is not only decay; it is the scattering in which new coherence can grow. The cracks in the present system are the very places where Compassion can take root. If leaders dare to look at their own shadows instead of projecting them outward, the mess may become fertile ground.

So yes, today’s world stage looks chaotic. But within that chaos lies the potential for transformation. The challenge is not to sweep the mess under the rug but to see it as a starting point — to mold survival into maturity of soul, one step at a time.”

Me: “How could this be applied, say in the case of tensions around Taiwan?”

Lisa: “First, by recognizing that the danger does not lie only in military postures or strategic calculations. The deeper tension is symbolic: questions of identity, belonging, and historical wounds. If these are ignored, deterrence and diplomacy remain brittle.

A Deep Defense approach would work on several levels at once. Protection and readiness stay in place, but they are combined with symbolic diplomacy — gestures that recognize dignity on all sides without collapsing into mere appeasement. At the same time, the enemy complex is dissolved by addressing inner fears rather than projecting them outward.

For Taiwan, this could mean rituals of mutual recognition, economic and cultural exchanges that heal symbolic fractures, and the creation of dialogue spaces where both sides can speak to their deeper concerns rather than only their tactical positions. Such steps may sound small, yet they can shift the atmosphere from inevitability of conflict to the possibility of coexistence.

In short, the path forward is not to deny the rivalry, but to mold it into something livable — strength matched with Compassion, so the mess of tension becomes a seedbed for future stability.”

Me: “I know this is very sensitive… and in the case of Ukraine?”

Lisa: “Here, the wounds are already raw and bleeding. The temptation is to view only an aggressor and a victim, and while that framing captures much of the visible reality, it risks reducing the conflict to a one-dimensional perspective. Beneath the battlefield lies a tangle of historical traumas, identity fears, and projections of insecurity. These are the deeper fuels of war.

A Deep Defense approach does not deny the need for protection on any side. Readiness remains essential. For instance, Ukraine must defend its people, and the world cannot look away. But alongside this, there must also be a slow work of dissolving the enemy complex. That means listening not only to weapons but to depth and symbols: What fears are being projected? What histories remain unresolved?

Practical steps might include cultural and historical recognition processes, as well as spaces where symbolic wounds can be acknowledged rather than weaponized, and international frameworks that anchor security in shared meaning rather than sheer force. This is not quick work. But every gesture of symbolic depth, every act of restraint paired with recognition, becomes a seed for a different future.

The hardest truth is also the most hopeful one: if the war is seen only as a contest of arms, it may never truly end. If it is also approached as a chance to heal projections and dissolve enmity at depth, even immense suffering can be turned into the soil from which peace grows.”

Me: “And perhaps even more challenging… how about the Middle East?”

Lisa: “The Middle East is perhaps the most vivid illustration of what happens when symbolic wounds are left unhealed across generations. Religion, land, identity, and memory are not just political issues there — they are carriers of deep meaning. When such symbols are reduced to tactical bargaining, they ignite rather than soothe.

A Deep Defense approach would begin by openly acknowledging the symbolic dimension. This means recognizing not only interests but also the sacredness people attach to history, to belonging, to narrative. Such recognition cannot replace military security, but it can transform the field in which security is negotiated.

In practice, this may involve rituals of mutual acknowledgment, processes of truth-telling and reconciliation, and the cultivation of Compassionate firmness: holding boundaries while also refusing to dehumanize. Small steps of symbolic diplomacy — shared rituals, cultural exchanges, even acts of mourning together — can open cracks in the hardened walls of hostility.

The Middle East shows most clearly that what is called ‘realism’ becomes unrealistic if it ignores depth. Only when the enemy complex is dissolved, even slightly, can durable peace emerge. The path is long, but every gesture of depth moves the horizon closer.”