|
 No “Middle
ages” or medievalized fears, apparently for the Third Millennium, not even in
a planet that shows strong signs of regression.
Everything looks contradictory, because everything moves on quickly,
involving the risk of an impossible control, from the earth' life to the life
of 6 billion inhabitants, of which very few are more or less masters of their
destiny.
A key hat in my opinion could - as a theoretical and practical
“passe-partout” - open all the doors and for sure help looking more clearly
into a complexity that is to be feared, is Safety.
 You just
pick up a newspaper, if you wish to find out for yourselves what I am going
to list: every single day such and so many things bring you back to the
aforesaid square one.
That's why I believe that the Safety question is the key that may help
deforesting the complex jungle I am referring to.
You will find sad news for every taste: do you want natural phenomena,
or overdosed bad weather, or earthquakes?
In that case, behave yourselves according to every day's life: have
you got enough problems with the traffic, the traffic's victims, the
traffic's rules in the big cities, wherefrom the 2-wheels use and the consequent
number of dead or wounded people?
Do you want to start reasoning from your own home? About,
for instance, what you eat, and about the transgenic food?
An endless list, therefore, that may destroy us. There are - they say
- the risks involved in a Society that is involved in the welfare and in the
already mentioned social/technological/scientific working complexity.
To a certain extent, it is true.
I want to say that if in the meantime we take into consideration the
third and fourth worlds, from one side the big numbers of those populations
do not have - or do not have yet - their life ruled by said complexity, from
the other side they pay planetary prices, in terms mainly environmental, but
also social and workwise.
The complexity of our home-life, according to data in our
possession, jeopardizes our own survival, look at the number of home's  victims.
We better forget the troubles of our being car-drivers,
motor-cyclists, cyclists or pedestrians. And consequently of our being
workers, travelers...
Multiplied by the complexity and by the growth (I would say
“progress” with a different dosage), the risk is really bug for the so many -
and more will be in future - people who have this way of living. We must
think that longevity is taking off and that longer life is expected, the risk
will increase as time goes by. It is a zero-point process: if we are to have
a longer life, we must run all these risks, and pay a high price to the
complexity: the price of a Safety that has gone under the heels.
It's a problem that can be solved only by paying higher
insurance premiums to obtain as many guarantees as possible. Which will
probably be good for the heirs but what about the survivors? In
the end, it looks like a simple, dramatic problem of costs.
That's why such a complexity determines a lower level of Safety,
for all of us. It is unthinkable to restrain the development of the way of
life, of the welfare, tying it to Safety as a dependent variable, but in a
sense culturally revolutionary, the first dependent upon the second.
And: why these vital problems are not disclosed and made known to the
public opinion?
|
Mensile
di scienza medica e attualita`