Interaction Simulator

The in-class simulation today produced one way in which multiple groups may interact given a limited number of resources, variation in comfortable amenities, and dissimilar means of force.  Though on a classroom level, the interaction between these groups reflected that of international centers of power, demonstrating how self interest and inequality can dictate foreign policy. 

Group one’s selection came as no surprise. But the question of whether the additional chairs were given away was an act of generosity or political savvy is nevertheless valid. I agree that the appearance of exuding generosity can have useful political benefits. In certain cases it can decrease resentment and serve to promote diplomacy. 

The fusion of two groups into one also was a noteworthy development. Suddenly their status as a power center increased. Having twice as many people as the other groups, as well as a monopoly on military force, they were undoubtedly the most powerful group. In a global context, such a radical shift would be improbable, as a complete geographical shift, spontaneous agreement, and instant induction have never occurred simultaneously. 

The greatest aspect of our simulation was that it proved that nations, at their very basis, are no different than individual human beings. A large part of how we interact is reflected on the global scale. This comparison of national governments to human relations proved that governments, at their fundamental core, are defined by their human components. Our successes, failures, and developments are all an indirect product of our collective morality, confirming the notion that the world is shaped by those who inhabit it.