Political genius to know that so many Americans voted to destroy this system – just look at the amount of very confident post-election rhetoric over the past week. The appearance of rising status is not necessary. Donald Trump, at the very least, embodies the belief that the way America is run is fundamentally broken and needs to be overhauled from top to bottom.
That, more than the policy details of taxes, immigration, foreign policy, etc., is what I learned from November 5th. The (very small) majority of Americans want to use a wrecking ball for everything.
But these feelings, and the anger that drives them, run deeper than just those who voted for President Trump. One of the news stories that caught my attention this week was that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) asked her Instagram followers why some of her voters voted for both her and Trump. That's what I asked.
These responses show that dissatisfaction with the system is not unique to one political party, even if it is currently concentrated among Republicans. Self-proclaimed leftists like AOC and President-elect Trump are about two American politicians apart, but the majority of their supporters are united by anger at the status quo and a desire for some kind of fundamental change. I am doing it.
I understand their point. As a professional journalist for nearly 25 years, I watched the catastrophic overreaction to 9/11 lead to a 20-year war on terror. Thousands of American soldiers have died in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died. and the chaotic Middle East. I watched the Great Recession of 2008 and the economic misery of the years that followed.
I have seen many people unprepared for the massive pandemic they saw coming. And we've seen that we didn't learn from it to prepare for the next pandemic. I have seen political barriers strengthen against economic and technological advances that could meaningfully improve people's lives. And I rarely see those in power being held accountable for their failures.
Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum, you can definitely add your own opinion to this list. As I have written many times, I may believe that human life has improved immeasurably in the long run, and that ultimately better days are ahead of us. I'm sure there is. Still, it's still understandable why voters on both the right and left look at the wreckage of the past two decades and pull the lever for fundamental change, even if the results are abhorrent.
However, here are the fundamental changes: This is, as some of our more knowledgeable readers might say, a “high-volume strategy” in which the range of possible outcomes is far greater than what would be expected from more gradual changes within the system. means wide.
Perhaps we will hit the jackpot and manage to come up with a political choice that can actually produce something meaningful and better from a broken system. But it is just as likely – and perhaps even more likely, if we know anything about political revolutions in recent history – that fundamental changes will make our lives even worse, and that many It will turn out that the system we have come to despise is actually our last system. A line of defense against much, much worse.
The night is dark and full of fear
If you, like many voters, think things can't get any worse, I have some reading material for you.
Less than a week before the election, the pointy heads at the Rand Corporation released a 237-page report on a global catastrophic risk assessment. (I'm not saying it's going to be a light read.)
In response to the Global Catastrophe Risk Management Act of 2022, this report challenges the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assess truly significant risks to human survival and develop strategies to protect civilians. It is mandatory to formulate and verify the following. facing those risks. If the government's ultimate purpose is to keep us safe in a dangerous world, this law is intended to encourage the U.S. government to anticipate and prepare for the most dangerous risks.
The RAND report categorizes catastrophic risks into six major possibilities. Super volcano. Large-scale pandemics (both natural and man-made). Rapid and severe climate change. nuclear conflict. And of course artificial intelligence. (I'd like to call them the “Sinister Six,” but I doubt Marvel's trademark office will come calling.)
The report notes that what these six have in common is that they “have the potential to seriously damage or set back human civilization on a global scale, or even lead to human extinction.” There is.
It's important to stop and think about what that actually means. We just finished an election that showed the majority of Americans are very dissatisfied with the way things are. They're angry about high prices, they're angry at immigrants, they're angry at Joe Biden, or they're angry at Donald Trump.
But despite all this outrage, these are normal things to be angry about, and normal political and economic issues to suffer from. Thinking about catastrophic risks helps put them in some perspective. Nuclear war may be more likely now than it has been in recent decades, potentially killing hundreds of millions of people and leaving the Earth in such devastation that the living envy the dead. There is sex.
We already know the damage that a pandemic with a relatively low mortality rate can cause with the new coronavirus. Something more toxic, especially if it's man-made, could end up resembling dystopian fiction, unless that possibility is very real. . The risks of powerful artificial intelligence getting out of control are almost completely unknown, but it would be foolish to completely ignore the dire warnings of those on the ground.
And with the exception of asteroids and comets (actual intelligent space policy has allowed us to better understand the threat and even begin to develop countermeasures), the Randland report shows that all of these We determine that the risk threat is either static or increasing. (Supervolcanoes are one of those constant risks that are outside of human prediction or control, but thankfully we know enough to determine that their likelihood is very low.) )
So why are the risks from nuclear conflict, major pandemics, extreme climate change, artificial intelligence, etc. all increasing? Because of human decisions (also known as policies).
Because many of us believe that climate change is a catastrophic threat, we act as if climate change is a catastrophic threat and encourage society to mitigate and adapt to climate change. And design the economy? Can we reverse the collapse of global arms control treaties and inch back from the brink of nuclear conflict? Can we actually learn from COVID-19, empower our policies, and prevent the next pandemic? Can we unleash science for? Where did it come from? Can we do something about AI? And can we?
The answer is not simple, and no party or candidate has a monopoly on the best ways to address catastrophic risks. Reducing the risk of extreme climate change may mean getting serious about the effects of what we eat and drive, which is sure to anger Republicans, but too often It could also mean putting a brake on rapid energy development and housing construction. It has been defended by the Democratic Party. Minimizing the risk of future pandemics may require protecting global health systems, but also cutting through the bureaucracy that often strangles science. .
Above all, we require dedication and professionalism from those we choose to lead. In this country, it's still possible. Men and women with the skills and understanding to know when attention is needed and when action is unavoidable. And we will need the wisdom to recognize what we need to protect ourselves from.
This system has let us down. But there are far worse events than the failures we have experienced. As we continue to navigate what is shaping up to be the most existentially dangerous century humanity has ever faced in the 21st century, we realize what could be at stake if we dismantle everything we have built. and should temper the temptation of radical change.
