Dan, this is marvellous and right on the money. I have spent the last few years thinking about Future-Readiness (aka being prepared for whatever unfolds). In an era where mass disruptions seem to come with increasing frequency and prediction has been shown to be not only flawed but dangerous, what you call a risk mindset is a huge part of the armoury we need. I will absorb this some more and try to offer feedback you can use as feedstock. Thank you.
I have been thinking about this piece ever since you published it. I'm particularly seized with how we can evoke people's recent experiences - while still fresh - to influence their thinking about future risks, and in this case, about security. This is critical, because without public support or at least acquiescence, politicians in most countries will not push for expensive new spending, especially not when the range of possible risks and outcomes is so wide.
Some of this depends on skillful narrative - what stories can we tell about how we could have been better equipped for the moments in time we are facing now? Here, we must be credible. Our back-casting to a time when we could have gotten ourselves better prepared for today must be plausible. But that kind of truth can also generate defensiveness. More likely, we could tell the public what we need to do now to prepare for high-risk scenarios that seem increasingly plausible about the near and likely future. This means, e.g., connecting their current distress about Ukraine, to what this should teach us about wider preparedness and for what.
Here, I am challenged by your accurate observation: "Human foresight is extremely limited. If you prepare only for foreseeable dangers, you will be caught unprepared. Guaranteed." If we take this view seriously, we cannot win the public over by precise forecasts that we do not have high confidence in ourselves. We have to shape their understanding of a range of risks to get ready for.
So what do they do in other domains where investing in risk prevention is critical? In the field of public health, scientists may not be able to forecast which virus will be visited upon us next or when, but they have made clear that we should build up a whole inventory of related medical supplies; we can build up our hospitals to create surge capacity; best of all, we can do preparatory work on all the known viruses so that creating a vaccine for any that erupts would only take a few months. We did not do so, pre-Covid. Will we do so now? Jury is still out, but it will be tough.
So the greatest challenge we have is building a risk mindset across our societies and our public and private organizations that helps render the complex understandable, provides a framework to assess, compare and justify risk-prevention spending projects, and helps us increase the public's willingness to get on board.
It is easier (not easy) to see how to achieve this within companies or non-profit organizations. I will keep looking for opportunities for knowledge transfer to countries or governments.
Insightful with a nice move for war to pandemic. Two thoughts First, In both cases preparedness must be a collective exercise, both within and between countries. Almost inevitably people and their governments will disagree on the nature and size of the threat. For some it may really be free-riding. But in other cases it will be real disagreement. We have some ability to counter this but it often means giving more authority to government, national government, if not global institutions like the World Health Organization. Not necessarily a bad thing, but controversial to say the least. Second, public health officials are, of necessity, VERY interested in knowing what the future will bring. They are now going to make major investments in foresight studies and capacity, forecasting of various kinds, and lots of modelling. You will be kept busy reminding us about just how difficult it is to do all that well.
Dan, this is marvellous and right on the money. I have spent the last few years thinking about Future-Readiness (aka being prepared for whatever unfolds). In an era where mass disruptions seem to come with increasing frequency and prediction has been shown to be not only flawed but dangerous, what you call a risk mindset is a huge part of the armoury we need. I will absorb this some more and try to offer feedback you can use as feedstock. Thank you.
I have been thinking about this piece ever since you published it. I'm particularly seized with how we can evoke people's recent experiences - while still fresh - to influence their thinking about future risks, and in this case, about security. This is critical, because without public support or at least acquiescence, politicians in most countries will not push for expensive new spending, especially not when the range of possible risks and outcomes is so wide.
Some of this depends on skillful narrative - what stories can we tell about how we could have been better equipped for the moments in time we are facing now? Here, we must be credible. Our back-casting to a time when we could have gotten ourselves better prepared for today must be plausible. But that kind of truth can also generate defensiveness. More likely, we could tell the public what we need to do now to prepare for high-risk scenarios that seem increasingly plausible about the near and likely future. This means, e.g., connecting their current distress about Ukraine, to what this should teach us about wider preparedness and for what.
Here, I am challenged by your accurate observation: "Human foresight is extremely limited. If you prepare only for foreseeable dangers, you will be caught unprepared. Guaranteed." If we take this view seriously, we cannot win the public over by precise forecasts that we do not have high confidence in ourselves. We have to shape their understanding of a range of risks to get ready for.
So what do they do in other domains where investing in risk prevention is critical? In the field of public health, scientists may not be able to forecast which virus will be visited upon us next or when, but they have made clear that we should build up a whole inventory of related medical supplies; we can build up our hospitals to create surge capacity; best of all, we can do preparatory work on all the known viruses so that creating a vaccine for any that erupts would only take a few months. We did not do so, pre-Covid. Will we do so now? Jury is still out, but it will be tough.
So the greatest challenge we have is building a risk mindset across our societies and our public and private organizations that helps render the complex understandable, provides a framework to assess, compare and justify risk-prevention spending projects, and helps us increase the public's willingness to get on board.
It is easier (not easy) to see how to achieve this within companies or non-profit organizations. I will keep looking for opportunities for knowledge transfer to countries or governments.
Thanks again, Dan
Insightful with a nice move for war to pandemic. Two thoughts First, In both cases preparedness must be a collective exercise, both within and between countries. Almost inevitably people and their governments will disagree on the nature and size of the threat. For some it may really be free-riding. But in other cases it will be real disagreement. We have some ability to counter this but it often means giving more authority to government, national government, if not global institutions like the World Health Organization. Not necessarily a bad thing, but controversial to say the least. Second, public health officials are, of necessity, VERY interested in knowing what the future will bring. They are now going to make major investments in foresight studies and capacity, forecasting of various kinds, and lots of modelling. You will be kept busy reminding us about just how difficult it is to do all that well.