[Download Full Document (PDF)]
Deep Dive | Arbitrating Life Versus Life Collisions
Debate | Arbitrating Between Refugees and Ancient Forests
Critique | Practical Field Tools for Life Coherence Arbitration
Explainer | Life-Coherent Peace
Cinematic | Arbitrating the Unthinkable: The Life-Coherence Protocol in Tragic Choice
Click on infographic to enlarge
Executive Summary
The original Life-Coherent Peace paper argues that peace should not be defined merely as the absence of war, direct injury, or disorder. A society may be free of open armed conflict while still reproducing hunger, ecological destruction, preventable disease, loneliness, humiliation, dispossession, and despair. Peace becomes life-coherent only when social, ecological, economic, cultural, and political arrangements conserve and expand the capacities of living beings to think, feel, act, relate, and flourish without destroying the life-ground of others (Sahely, 2026).
The present paper accepts that conceptual foundation but moves to the next developmental task: methodological stress testing. The question is not whether the framework can diagnose obvious life-disablement. The water privatization case already does that. The harder question is whether the Life-Coherence Arbitration Protocol can guide judgment when life-claims collide: when one community’s urgent survival appears to threaten another community’s ecological and cultural life-ground.
The paper therefore develops a tragic-choice case involving a displaced population and an ancient forest that is also Indigenous territory, watershed regulator, habitat, carbon sink, and sacred cultural ground. The case is deliberately difficult. The displaced population needs immediate shelter, water, sanitation, food, medical care, safety, and social stabilization. The Indigenous community needs the forest intact for cultural continuity, ceremonial practice, ecological livelihood, language, memory, and self-determination. The forest itself sustains species, soil, watershed function, and future habitability. No side can be dismissed as merely greedy, irrational, or life-blind.
The paper’s central claim is that life-coherent arbitration does not eliminate tragedy. It prevents premature, hidden, one-sided, or money-sequence sacrifice. Where loss remains unavoidable, it requires that the loss be named, minimized, justified, monitored, repaired where possible, and never converted into a silent externality.
Steps and Components of the Life-Coherence Arbitration Protocol
Please scroll to the right to see the right columns| Step Number | Step Title | Core Question | Key Evidence/Indicators | Primary Risk/Danger | Methodological Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify living unities | Who or what is affected? | Community mapping, ecological mapping, future-generation implications | Invisible victims | Life-field map |
| 2 | Map life-capacities | What capacities are enabled or disabled? | Health data, testimony, cultural impacts, ecological indicators | Reducing harm to money loss | Life-capacity profile |
| 3 | Distinguish needs from wants | What is necessary, and what is substitutable? | Shelter, water, safety, culture, ecology, profit claims | Treating profit as life-need | Ranked needs matrix |
| 4 | Identify thresholds | What damage cannot be undone? | Extinction risk, trauma risk, sacred sites, watershed collapse | Pricing the priceless | Red-line matrix |
| 5 | Seek compossibility | What protects multiple life-needs together? | Alternative sites, regenerative design, public investment | Premature sacrifice | Compossibility portfolio |
| 6 | Use minimum sufficient force | What is the least dominating intervention? | Legal options, emergency supports, rights protections | Coercive life-value | Least-harm pathway |
| 7 | Require participatory languaging | Who gets to define the problem? | Community forums, Indigenous governance, public reasoning | Epistemic violence | Co-authored problem statement |
| 8 | Monitor, repair, revise | What harms emerge, and how are they corrected? | Audits, grievance systems, ecological and social monitoring | Institutional self-protection | Repair cycle |
