Published in response to the recent GCRI commentary Statusquotastrophe: Interviews with US public reveal dark trend by Charlton Yingling and Marissa Yingling.
Charlton and Marissa Yingling’s finding of statusquotastrophe suggests a major shift in how we think about catastrophic risk and about contemporary society more generally. It also demonstrates the importance of social science research on how people think about global catastrophic risk.
The basic idea of statusquotastrophe is that, for many people across the current United States, there is a sense that the status quo is in some respects catastrophic. It stands in stark contrast with the standard idea of catastrophe as being some rare extreme event, instead suggesting that catastrophic conditions may be the rule, not the exception.
This dark finding comes from the Yinglings’ social science research. They spoke with people from across the US in carefully crafted conversations to learn their perspectives on global catastrophic risk and related topics. These conversations gave the interviewees a space to share their complex and deeply held thoughts, even where their thoughts fall outside of what the researchers’ initially planned to cover. It’s an approach that lends well to discovery and surprise. As the Yinglings report, they did not expect to have so many of their interviewees report that, from their perspective, the status quo seemed catastrophic.
This sort of social science research is vital work to understand public perspectives and better engage people on global catastrophic risk. Democratic participation may be necessary for achieving major policy change, and it also strengthens democracy itself in important ways. An emphasis on democratic participation requires meeting people where they are: bringing them into the project of addressing global catastrophic risk, and likewise listening to their concerns and ideas to see how they can be addressed alongside a global catastrophic risk agenda. Social science research provides a structured way to learn what’s on people’s minds.
Social science research can also help to craft viable policies and other solutions for reducing global catastrophic risk. Policy research has often argued that society systematically neglects catastrophic risks in favor of more common issues. This suggests a strategy focused on win-win solutions that reduce global catastrophic risk while also having co-benefits for other, more prominent issues [1]. To that end, social science research can help identify which other issues people care about.
The idea of statusquotastrophe suggests a different perspective. It implies that, for many people, catastrophe is a commonplace, everyday issue. And so, we don’t need to find win-win solutions for global catastrophic risk and something else. Instead, we can simply address catastrophe in all its forms. This means that the idea of global catastrophic risk may not exist at the margins of society, as people who work on it often assume. In being concerned about catastrophe, we may have more in common with ordinary citizens than we might think. Speaking for myself as someone who has been working on global catastrophic risk for almost twenty years, this is a very significant shift in perspective.
It is deeply troubling to think that so many Americans may see the world in catastrophic terms. I follow US society closely and I am well aware of the many challenges and struggles that we face as a country, but I was still surprised and alarmed to hear about the prevalence of statusquotastrophe sentiment. Despite our challenges, the US remains an affluent country that should be able to offer its citizens a good livelihood and a positive outlook. I found it especially striking that statusquotastrophe sentiment was found across demographic groups, including people who are themselves well-off, and both before and after the recent national election. This seems like a major issue for the country to address. Perhaps it is also an issue in other countries as well.
Other work has studied apocalyptic thinking within the US public, such as this and this. We will also learn more as the Yinglings’ research progresses. Meanwhile, I am honored for GCRI to provide a space to share their initial findings.
[1] GCRI’s work on solutions & strategy has often emphasized this focus on win-win solutions; see e.g. this, this, this, and this.
