At the doorstep of a risk society

I was considering writing an entry on the snow disaster recently took place in China and what can be done to reduce the loss and accelerate recover. But considering my position, it would be quite unethical to do so.

I'd like to point out that unlike many people's imagination, even if such disaster took place in some OECD countries with similar latitude and meteorological conditions, people would still be caught unprepared. Even in Midlands and South England, such heavy snows are rare. You can imagine what a turmoil there would be if such a snow hit London.

The real unique characteristic of the snow is that it has shown people how vulnerable **everybody** is, and how local disturbances impact the whole society. This can well lead to a sense of vulnerability, just like what nuclear tests and Chernobyl did to people in the West. What is different is that Chinese people obtained the sense not purely out of fear, but from their experience. On the other hand, there are report of other unusual snow events in other parts of the world, implying the possibility of a large-scale climate anomaly (La Niña maybe).

These are necessary prerequisites of the forming of a risk society, in which people are aware of risks and are prepared for it. In my opinion China is close to such a state. The exposure to hazard will increase as the mobility and fluidity of the society increases; the range and connectedness will be emphasised both by intensifying global change and the country's endeavour to be taken into global economics; the understanding of risks by people, as a result, will also be strengthened.

From an environmentalist's view this is hardly a bad thing. After all risks are always there after mankind altered the environment and their means of production so much, and people are just adapting themselves to more and more risks. But for decision makers, they should notice the unbalanced risk distribution over differing social classes; they should also be open to various voices in the face of a potential risk or actual crisis, and encourage the weak to express themselves by setting good communication channels. From the news report I have the impression that China has done a good job in these two aspects in this particular event.

Think about what other countries may learn from this disaster. You cannot at the same time worry about so many possible disasters. Yet it is possible to make the society more flexible so as to battle unexpected events. Doing so may require considerable investment. How do we measure investment and return so we know what kind of investment is adequate? One cannot measure things it does not expect, can one? Back to what I learn, targeting maintaining a certain degree of resilience could be a way to determine the investment for risk aversion and recovery from crisis.