Risk | Eurozine

The new publication of wespenest Risk is discussed from every conceivable angle, including war, sports, theater, traffic accidents, and love. But editor Andrea Rodig warns that one topic is missing: financial markets. See our previous article on bankruptcy for more information on that.

As sociologist Emmanuel Deutschmann explains, any discussion of risk must start with Ulrich Beck, but it never ends. in risk society (1986), Beck famously argued that the 20th century marked a transition to a new form of modernity characterized by immense risks. Because it was impossible to accurately predict the effects of pollution, arms races, and nuclear energy, people continued to live in a state of fear and anxiety. Science was of no help. On the contrary, we have simply managed, if not exacerbated, this condition through arbitrary exposure limits and acceptance of the contamination of humanity and the planet.

Forty years later, Deutschmann argues, we no longer live in a risk society, but in an exponential society. The threats we face are far from incalculable. For example, there is hard data on the destruction of planetary ecosystems. This data shows exponential growth and allows us to calculate with some precision where the world will go if we continue down the path of fossil capitalism. The problem is that the government refuses to carry out these calculations and incorporate the results into policy.

instead of calculatingcan Risk, we are now faced with immense problemsate risk. This omission arises not only out of helplessness but also on purpose, following what the authors call “the rules of the game in a free market-based system.” This calculated non-calculation deliberately destroys the predictability that is readily available to us.

Manufacturing uncertainty

How can we identify objective threats in the face of escalating conflict? That’s the title of political scientist and disarmament activist Mary Kaldor’s forthcoming book. experimental turning pointtalks to Sarah Waring and Andrea Soederbauer about security strategy, war economies, commercial warfare, pacifism, neutrality, and the risks of nuclear war.

‘[Beck] Climate change, terrorism and new wars are described as globally created uncertainties. Meanwhile, Trump, Putin, and other right-wing leaders assume imagined risks of the past within a national framework. They make things worse because they don’t address the types of cross-border, technologically manufactured risks that we actually face. They are trying to control the perception of risk as coming from a combination of external threats, immigrants, and other ethnic groups. ”

Read the full interview in English and German on Eurozine.

leftist survivalism

Prophecies of the end of the world can be found in almost every culture, and many cultures are actually coming to an end as a result of colonialism and capitalist exploitation. What makes our historical moment unique is the scientific basis for predicting global climate collapse, writes Victor Kessl.

Most of us in developed democracies tacitly accept that the things we have taken for granted, such as a warm climate, reliable food supplies, health care, and the rule of law, are being put at risk for convenience and profit. Kostle identifies three different strategies underlying this acceptance. Hopers who think technology, markets, and government will introduce a solution in time to stop it. and naysayers who cannot find the time or energy in their daily lives to face what they know is going to happen.

And some people have turned their fear into action. If generations of political activists have failed to prevent collapse, the only rational response is to find a way to survive it in mutual solidarity. Unlike right-wing preppers, left-wing survivalists are not focused on hoarding or arming their clans, but on building structures of collective care and responsibility. This includes learning practical skills to grow food, build shelter, and create shelter for people who are unable to do it themselves.

Luxury or liberation?

Angela von Laden writes a fictional dialogue between the French philosopher and psychoanalyst Anne Dufourmantel and the German-Austrian philosopher Günter Anders in the afterlife. In philosophical and sometimes combative conversations, each tries to convince the other of his or her view of risk. Dufourmantel celebrates risk as a potential for individual liberation in an overprotective society where everything is guaranteed and nothing unexpected happens. Risk, she argues, causes unpredictable events that allow us to break out of our comfortable prisons.

For Anders, who had to flee from Hitler in 1933, this argument could only have come from a bored bourgeoisie who had never experienced real danger and therefore craved adventure. Migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea today will appreciate the reduced risk. For them, risk is not an opportunity, but the threat of annihilation.

Dufourmantel counters that one can only awaken from a state of passivity if one learns to accept everything in life, including the dangers. “When we dare to leave the well-trodden path, we … open ourselves to perversion.” Only as a result of such personal changes will people be liberated from the trajectory of consumerism and technological dependence that leads to extinction and which concerns Anders so much.

No risk, no love

Friederike Gesweiner introduces the existential risks of love through tightrope walker Philippe Petit. He had to overcome the physiological effects of fear: sweaty hands, goosebumps, and racing heart while balancing without a safety net, such as between the two towers of the World Trade Center. These are the same physiological effects that come from falling in love. Why is this so?

Love, especially sexual love, is equally dangerous to our sense of self. We seek love to overcome loneliness and feelings of incompleteness. Sexual intercourse with another person allows us to temporarily forget our separation and physically manifest our union with our beloved in a new human form.

Yet, we are constantly left alone, disappointed, and heartbroken. When we seek confirmation of our worth from others, their actions can always diminish our worth in the form of betrayal, abandonment, or neglect.

Historically, the most powerful strategy to protect against this risk has been marriage. The rejection of patriarchal oppression through marriage and the liberation of sex from procreation led to a competing model: polyamory. Here, the value of the individual does not derive from exclusivity. no more sex means Anything like in monogamy. Individuals are responsible for their own sense of integrity, which is often elusive in practice.

Gesweiner concludes that the risks of sexuality “cannot be prevented by concepts.” Love is still a balancing act over an abyss…anyone who loves will be hurt. ”

Review by Millay Hyatt