I listened to the first half of Adam Curtis being interviewed by Russell Brand. Some interesting insights that caught my ear related to antifragility:
- Risk, as a term, was rarely used up until the 90s
- Then suddenly it was used heavily in managerial terms ‘to avoid risk’ and always achieve stability. Why the sudden usage?
- He talks about how Governments abdicated their power over to financial institutions (managerial bureaucracies) in the 80s when industries and wages started collapsing and the Governments didn’t know what to do.
- The financial institutions answered by ‘supplementing with loans’, thus a perception of increased wealth.
- In order for financial institutions (i.e. a bureaucracy) to survive they sought to minimise their risk / reduce the possibility for change – hence a ‘conservative approach’ – conservative as in, not wanting change.
- Change was therefore seen as being unpredictable and undesirable. Risk was bad. That’s why there has been no significant change despite the desire by many for it.
Through this interpretation, I understand that change and volatility has been suppressed whilst, throughout this time, the systems we live in have become more and more fragile (because there was never any opportunity to adapt and improve) – potentially an even bigger risk of volatility that has built up and systems that are more fragile.