Blow up the barriers! By Michèle Wannaz and Stephan Sigrist

With global threats a source of rising fear, isolationist voices become louder, the rhetoric of defence becomes socially acceptable again. Yet it is clear that traditional defensive reflexes such as building barriers or taking flight will prove inadequate in response to the complex challenges of tomorrow. Defence has to be redefined. And that can only happen if we are prepared to abandon our conceptual silos.

If you listen to the threatening scenarios pervading the globally networked community’s collective consciousness, the collapse of modern civilisation is imminent. The Netherlands, the Maldives and Sri Lanka will soon be swallowed up by rising tides, increasing migration is threatening national identities, our dear old Europe is doomed and according to the Mayan calendar the world ends in 2012 anyway. Within the dystopian canon of modern prophets, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult for society to judge which threats are real. What remains is a growing unease about tomorrow’s world. And associated with that unease is an increase in the reactions to many of the globalisation- related developments that have shaped the world in recent years.

This manifests itself in radical defensive reactions towards migrants, global companies and criminals. Traditional protective mechanisms are being applied, such as the social exclusion of foreigners or petty criminals – 2.4% of the population of the USA is currently in jail –, the establishment of gated communities, or preventive strikes by the armed forces. In the long term, these will fall woefully short of their aims or even make the existing problems worse. Our traditional arsenal of defensive strategies will only have a limited impact on the complex challenges of the future in particular, such as the systemic risks of the integrated economy, global food shortages, the consequences of climate change or the dramatic rise in lifestyle-related diseases.

THERE I S MORE TO DEFENCE THAN

BUILDING BARRIER S

What defensive strategies can stand up to the complex challenges of the 21st century? Of the many behaviours and tactics used to ward off dangers in nature, politics, business, the armed forces or society, we first of all have the traditional strategies of closure, flight and fight, and can add to those deception, threat, adaptation and cooperation. They differ in respect of their “degree of openness”. For example, closure, deception and flight generally have a demarcation effect. They aim to ward off danger. Threatening and fighting, in contrast, are based on confrontation, while adaptation and cooperation stand on openness: instead of maintaining the status quo as far as possible, the person, animal, company or nation changes, in other words opens up to new ways of life or even to the actual “aggressor”.

The fact that these strategies have held their ground over millennia is proof of each one’s effectiveness. The complexity of our future challenges says we should make use of this repertoire. The prerequisite, however, is the will to overcome existing disciplinary mindsets.

The strategies are inspired by proven forms of defence, which have been transferred from one area – often biology – to another. For example, developers of anti-virus software have taken their inspiration from evolution: they apply the adaptation strategy in order to protect themselves more effectively from future cyber-space attacks. This notion is based on the creation of continuously changing software systems, so that an attacking virus is constantly confronted with a new environment. Business also learns from nature’s example: the Swiss private bank Wegelin, for example, spun off its private customer business in the home market in 2011 to protect it from the US revenue authorities – in the same way as a lizard sheds its tail when threatened. In medicine, resistance to antibiotics can be combated with intelligent barriers: the surfaces of medical instruments, furniture and clothing can be modelled on sharkskin. Microorganisms only attach themselves to its grooved structure in isolated instances, and therefore cannot grow.

A QUESTION OF DEGREE

However, not only the right choice of defensive strategies is crucial, but also the degree to which they are applied. Because the moment a defence system overreacts, the effect may be reversed: the system then suddenly self-destructs. This happens, for example, when vitally important substances, people or information are fended off as well as harmful ones, or a protective mechanism suddenly loses all sense of proportion and begins to fight against the system it is actually there to protect. In the case of autoimmune diseases, the body attacks itself. A price war can threaten the basis for survival of all companies involved, or the justice system that protects the state may condemn the innocent. However, too much cooperation or adaptation may lead to the betrayal of ideals and a loss of identity.

In other words, either too little or too much defence is counterproductive – as is the wrong choice of strategy. An accurate assessment of the situation is thus often more helpful than blind action for action’s sake, particularly in view of the fact that many supposedly fatal threats are in reality relatively harmless. To ensure the right choice of defensive remedy, then, we should focus mainly on strengthening our “mental immune system” as we look to the future. Considered strategy selection is only possible once we become immune to the virus of panic-mongering.

Michèle Wannaz is a project manager with W.I.R.E., Stephan Sigrist is the founder and leader of the think tank. They collaborated in the design of the exhibition “Defence – survival strategies in nature, business, politics and everyday life” for the Vögele Kultur Ze