system; it fuses cooperation with brutal competition as it aims for a kind of equilibrium. After all, if we were constantly tearing into one another, we'd be extinct, not evolved. Why did cities form? Nations? The key is a moment when shared, possibly devastating risk of collective failure becomes apparent - those moments when the whole system threatens to collapse right on top of all the participants. The greater the shared danger, Mezza-Garcia and her colleagues explain, the better the chance for real cooperation. It’s a forumula that fits what we face now: “An increased risk of collective failure facilitates large-scale cooperation, especially when the large scale system is composed of smaller, nested groups,” They explain. ““Complex systems theory reveals an alternative to constant conflict.” This is our world now: Linked clusters of markets, nations, machines - all exposed to arisk of shared and instant collective failure. Such a structure upends an axiom of politics that has run for centuries: Man is purely Darwinian and that survival is determined by constant competition alone. In a network, survival is determined by sociability, by cooperation. Linked systems drive people to agree on rules in order to participate, which accelerates change and co-evolution. Smart cancer databases, linked traffic systems, video platforms like YouTube - each are Gatelands that press users together on a single platform, one that can be instantly updated and constantly studied for adjustment. “Rich get richer” arrangements are an ideal place for co-evolution, shaped as they are by easy linkage, exchange and connection to outside events. As more people follow the logic inside the gates, the system co- evolves. It becomes still more fit. It’s this loop that makes Hard Gatekeeping so well suited to an age of connection. We're not merely putting up walls; gatelands are like markets or public squares. They are loci for cooperation. In diplomatic history it’s not hard to calls for coop