"The model runs census data through an assembly line of high-powered mathematical processes, but at its root is one basic assumption: that community-level violence is primarily a function of geography, modulated by the overlap of political, topographical and ethnic borders. (...) According to Bar-Yam’s team, between-group violence is unlikely when one of two conditions are met: Either diverse communities are so well-integrated as to prevent any one group from dominating, or — lacking such integration — when political or geographic boundaries match demographic borders. When there’s a mismatch, tendencies to persecution have opportunity to flourish. Majority groups have the power to define local rules, but minority groups are large enough for conflicts to arise. With the right borders, this wouldn’t happen. “Violence arises due to the structure of boundaries between groups rather than as a result of inherent conflicts between the groups themselves,” (...) Heightened risks of violence occasioned by religious differences were smoothed out by the inclusion of borders. “Switzerland could have been Northern Ireland, except they made cantons,” said Bar-Yam. For linguistic differences, heightened risks of violence persisted only in the northwest, where the Jura mountains form a porous boundary between historically French and German-speaking communities. (...)" - Amira