Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Complexity, creeping normalcy and conceit: sexy and unsexy catastrophic risks

Complexity, creeping normalcy and conceit: sexy and unsexy catastrophic risks This paper aims to consider few cognitive and conceptual obstacles to engagement with global catastrophic risks (GCRs).Design/methodology/approachThe paper starts by considering cognitive biases that affect general thinking about GCRs, before questioning whether existential risks really are dramatically more pressing than other GCRs. It then sets out a novel typology of GCRs – sexy vs unsexy risks – before considering a particularly unsexy risk, overpopulation.FindingsIt is proposed that many risks commonly regarded as existential are “sexy” risks, while certain other GCRs are comparatively “unsexy.” In addition, it is suggested that a combination of complexity, cognitive biases and a hubris-laden failure of imagination leads us to neglect the most unsexy and pervasive of all GCRs: human overpopulation. The paper concludes with a tentative conceptualisation of overpopulation as a pattern of risking.Originality/valueThe paper proposes and conceptualises two new concepts, sexy and unsexy catastrophic risks, as well as a new conceptualisation of overpopulation as a pattern of risking. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png foresight Emerald Publishing

Complexity, creeping normalcy and conceit: sexy and unsexy catastrophic risks

foresight , Volume 21 (1): 18 – Mar 11, 2019

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/complexity-creeping-normalcy-and-conceit-sexy-and-unsexy-catastrophic-zRSEWfW7HC
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1463-6689
DOI
10.1108/fs-05-2018-0047
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper aims to consider few cognitive and conceptual obstacles to engagement with global catastrophic risks (GCRs).Design/methodology/approachThe paper starts by considering cognitive biases that affect general thinking about GCRs, before questioning whether existential risks really are dramatically more pressing than other GCRs. It then sets out a novel typology of GCRs – sexy vs unsexy risks – before considering a particularly unsexy risk, overpopulation.FindingsIt is proposed that many risks commonly regarded as existential are “sexy” risks, while certain other GCRs are comparatively “unsexy.” In addition, it is suggested that a combination of complexity, cognitive biases and a hubris-laden failure of imagination leads us to neglect the most unsexy and pervasive of all GCRs: human overpopulation. The paper concludes with a tentative conceptualisation of overpopulation as a pattern of risking.Originality/valueThe paper proposes and conceptualises two new concepts, sexy and unsexy catastrophic risks, as well as a new conceptualisation of overpopulation as a pattern of risking.

Journal

foresightEmerald Publishing

Published: Mar 11, 2019

Keywords: Environmental politics; Risk assessment; Cognitive biases; Existential risk; Global catastrophic risks; Overpopulation

References