The spotlight of this week's issue of The Economist shines on a troubling trend: governments persistently downplaying the potential dangers of catastrophes. The two highlighted articles, accessible through the provided links above, shed light on several looming catastrophes, including coronal mass ejections akin to the significant event of 1959, or potentially even more severe. These events could plunge significant parts of the globe into months or even years of instability, deprived of reliable grid electricity.
An event whose likelihood of occurring within this century is estimated by some to be greater than 50:50. Conversely, the second article provided in the link discusses, among other topics, the research of Nick Bostrom, previously referenced in this blog several months ago. Nick Bostrom's hypothesis has recently undergone analysis in an open-access article published by David Manheim in the Elsevier journal Futures.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328720300604
The most peculiar irony, however, lies in the fact that governments cannot bear sole responsibility, as evidenced by a search in the Scopus database. Using the term 'catastrophe' in the title yields 6,733 documents, whereas a search for 'fashion' returns a staggering 11,955 documents. This suggests a significant disparity in attention and resources allocated between critical issues and more trivial matters. Does this finding suggest that academia is more focused on fashion than on catastrophes, or has the influence of industries like fashion (and others such as luxury, which Scopus indicates is also extensively discussed in academic publications) skewed academic priorities?
