“safer mutual interdependence”—I challenge the “safer” part. As we have observed throughout the pandemic, an interdependent system fails easily. Multiple single points of failure exist, and since reliability isn’t the goal—economy is—fixing them has proven near impossible.
Self-reliance is much less efficient, hence disappearing, but more robust. If major shocks happened more often, we’d see more of it.
I hold the opposing view. The pandemic showed the strength of the interdependent system compared to the alternative. A hypothetical global collection of self-reliant households would have suffered far more from the virus alone, and almost certainly still more from subsequent failures. Of their harvests, say.
Self-reliance may be more robust in the sense of being a default mode of existence, one to which we collapse back sometimes, but it is most definitely not safer for the people suffering it. Just look at the California gold fields in the late 19th century, or the modern-day suburbs of Lagos which are no-go areas for the police and army, and in which households must perforce rely on themselves, compared to your own existence.
I think the point is not that interdependence is inherently safer, but rather that, all things considered, industrial civilization is both safer and more interdependent than the pre-industrial world. The electric grid, for instance, makes us much more interdependent than tallow candles or kerosene lamps, but it’s also much safer than using flames for lighting inside the home. The added risk from interdependence is more than compensated for by other factors.
I don’t really know one way or the other, but I don’t think the pandemic proves that mutual interdependence is not safer than self-reliance. It’s not “perfectly safe mutual interdependence”.
f major shocks happened more often, we’d see more of it.
Isn’t that kind of the point? We don’t suffer major shocks often enough to make self-reliance the safer overall choice. (Or at least that is the claim one would make if one were convinced the mutual interdependence was safer than self-reliance)
“safer mutual interdependence”—I challenge the “safer” part. As we have observed throughout the pandemic, an interdependent system fails easily. Multiple single points of failure exist, and since reliability isn’t the goal—economy is—fixing them has proven near impossible.
Self-reliance is much less efficient, hence disappearing, but more robust. If major shocks happened more often, we’d see more of it.
I hold the opposing view. The pandemic showed the strength of the interdependent system compared to the alternative. A hypothetical global collection of self-reliant households would have suffered far more from the virus alone, and almost certainly still more from subsequent failures. Of their harvests, say.
Self-reliance may be more robust in the sense of being a default mode of existence, one to which we collapse back sometimes, but it is most definitely not safer for the people suffering it. Just look at the California gold fields in the late 19th century, or the modern-day suburbs of Lagos which are no-go areas for the police and army, and in which households must perforce rely on themselves, compared to your own existence.
I think the point is not that interdependence is inherently safer, but rather that, all things considered, industrial civilization is both safer and more interdependent than the pre-industrial world. The electric grid, for instance, makes us much more interdependent than tallow candles or kerosene lamps, but it’s also much safer than using flames for lighting inside the home. The added risk from interdependence is more than compensated for by other factors.
I don’t really know one way or the other, but I don’t think the pandemic proves that mutual interdependence is not safer than self-reliance. It’s not “perfectly safe mutual interdependence”.
Isn’t that kind of the point? We don’t suffer major shocks often enough to make self-reliance the safer overall choice. (Or at least that is the claim one would make if one were convinced the mutual interdependence was safer than self-reliance)