From perspective of governor James Wright explain to the colonies why opposing Great Britain might bring ruin on Georgia.

The first thing to take into account is that republicanism (the belief that government should be a public matter, aka as elected) was not as strong in the south as it was in the north. Therefore, many loyalists from Georgia believed that supporting the king was the right thing in principle, not only because of vested interests.

Secondly, Georgia was a very rural colony sorrounded by the "backcountry" and almost all sides, that the loyalists from Georgia felt that the british soldiers did a good job in keeping them safe from the indians, and also from thiefs, and so on.

Finally, your average georgia loyalist was probably a conservative, and thus, feared any radical changes that may occur after a revolution takes place (a revolution being a radical change in itself).

Explanation:

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )