Life on Earth is full of unexpected crises: natural disasters, political upheaval, economic collapse, and even pandemics. These events can leave us wondering how we can survive when the world seems to crumble. What strategies should we employ when food supplies fail, resources dwindle, and external threats seem insurmountable? Should we store food, evacuate, or seek help from others? Such questions are at the heart of the concept of resilience, a term that is often discussed in the context of societal and individual survival. But what does it truly mean, and how can we learn from the past to better prepare for the future?
The Concept of Resilience
Resilience is frequently presented as a key to surviving crises, whether on an individual, community, or societal level. It’s often described in abstract terms, as an inherent ability of certain groups or individuals to endure and recover from hardship. But resilience is not a single trait or solution. It is a dynamic process that involves adapting to challenges, minimizing harm, and finding ways to continue functioning under stress. In crises, this can take various forms—storing food, seeking shelter, relocating, or strengthening social bonds to share resources.
A resilient community might be one that can bounce back quickly from disruptions like food shortages, extreme weather, or a breakdown of essential services. For individuals, resilience might mean emotional endurance, adaptability, or the ability to think critically in the face of danger. But what makes these strategies effective, and how can we increase our resilience in the face of future global crises?
Learning from the Past: A New Study on Crisis Management
A study recently published in Science Advances explores resilience in the context of past societies. Researchers from Aarhus University and the University of Colorado used computer simulations to understand how ancient societies coped with crises, such as food shortages and resource depletion. By applying these insights to modern-day scenarios, they hope to improve our understanding of resilience and how to prepare for future challenges.
The researchers tested various crisis management strategies, such as economic adjustment, mobility, and exchange (social networks), to see how well they performed in different crisis conditions. The results were insightful, revealing that some strategies are more effective than others in the face of overwhelming adversity.
1. Economic Adjustment: Working Harder to Obtain Resources
One of the strategies explored in the study was economic adjustment—the idea that when resources are scarce, people should work harder to secure what they can. This might involve finding new sources of income, increasing production, or reallocating resources within a community. However, the study found that this approach was ineffective when resources were already stretched thin.
Lead author Colin Wren explains, “Economic adjustment performed significantly worse than other strategies across a wide range of crisis conditions. In short, if a crisis hits, it will not be enough to work harder to obtain the necessary resources if there are not enough resources available in the first place.”
This insight is crucial for modern crisis management. Simply trying to work harder to “make do” is often a futile effort when resources are fundamentally lacking. During times of extreme resource scarcity, no amount of hard work can create what isn’t there. This emphasizes the importance of preparedness and not relying solely on individual effort to solve widespread problems.
2. Mobility: Moving to a Safer Location
Another strategy the study tested was mobility, or the ability to relocate to a safer area in times of crisis. Historically, people have moved to escape environmental threats, economic instability, or social unrest. The simulation found that mobility is a moderately effective strategy for surviving crises, though its success depends heavily on the availability of better options elsewhere.
Mobility has both advantages and costs. On one hand, relocating to a more resource-rich or secure area can provide immediate relief and increase survival chances. On the other hand, the process of migration itself—whether short or long-term—can be costly, physically demanding, and uncertain, especially if the new location does not offer a significantly better environment.
In the past, groups that were able to move in search of more fertile land, access to water, or political stability had a higher chance of surviving crises. However, not all crises are geographically limited; some, like pandemics or economic recessions, affect entire regions. Thus, mobility might be less practical in situations where no better places exist.
3. Exchange: Sharing Resources Through Social Networks
The third strategy explored in the study was exchange, where resources are shared through social networks. This strategy combines mobility and social investment: when individuals or communities face scarcity, they reach out to others, pooling resources for mutual benefit. This form of social cooperation, which includes bartering and mutual aid, is seen in both ancient and modern communities.
Social networks are invaluable in times of crisis. The study found that communities with strong ties—whether familial, tribal, or communal—were often better able to withstand external shocks because they could rely on one another for support. By exchanging resources, knowledge, and labor, groups could spread risk and ensure that no one was left entirely vulnerable.
Exchange can be seen as a hybrid approach that combines the flexibility of mobility with the stability of strong social connections. People who share their resources with others can mitigate the negative effects of scarcity, and at the same time, build social bonds that may help them rebuild after a crisis subsides.
The Importance of Historical Context
The findings from the study align with ethnographic and archaeological research, which has shown that various groups throughout history have relied on these same strategies to cope with crises. In fact, many societies engaged in a mix of mobility, economic adjustment, and resource exchange, depending on their specific circumstances. The combination of these strategies often led to more successful outcomes than relying on any one of them in isolation.
Iza Romanowska, one of the study’s authors, points out that these results offer valuable lessons for the present. “What this study also shows is that we can and should look into the past to better understand what resilience strategies worked for our ancestors, so that we can choose the best ones for the kind of crisis we expect to see more of in the future.”
However, Romanowska adds an important caveat: “Our results are thought-provoking, even though they come from a fairly simplistic computer simulation and therefore probably can’t be applied directly to today’s world in a one-to-one way.” While the simulations offer valuable insights, real-world crises are often more complex, with variables that may not be fully captured by computer models.
Resilience in the Modern World
So, what can we learn from the past to prepare for future crises? First, the study highlights the importance of diversifying our strategies. In times of crisis, we can’t rely on a single solution. Resilience lies in the ability to adapt—whether through mobility, sharing resources, or working together to strengthen our communities.
In a world of growing uncertainty—marked by climate change, geopolitical instability, and potential resource shortages—resilience will require strong social networks, flexible infrastructure, and the ability to share resources effectively. We must not only prepare to endure crises but also ensure that we are able to recover quickly by fostering cooperation, building community ties, and ensuring access to essential resources.
Moreover, as the study suggests, resilience strategies should not be seen as one-size-fits-all solutions. Different crises require different responses, and an effective crisis management strategy might look very different depending on the nature of the threat. For example, a pandemic might require stronger medical systems and more reliance on digital communication, while a natural disaster could necessitate physical mobility and resource redistribution.
Conclusion
In the face of global challenges, resilience is not a static characteristic but a dynamic, multifaceted approach that evolves with the nature of the crisis. History shows us that mobility, economic adjustment, and social exchange are all viable strategies—but the most successful approach often involves a mix of these strategies, tailored to the specific circumstances at hand. By studying past societies and using modern simulations, we can refine our understanding of resilience and improve our ability to cope with the crises of tomorrow. The key lies in preparing early, building strong communities, and maintaining the flexibility to adapt when the world strikes again.
Reference: Colin D. Wren et al, Bad year econometrics: Agent-based modeling of risk management strategies under varying regimes of environmental change, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adr0314