“Without risks, life would be unbearable.”

Where do you personally take more risk than necessary?

Vally Koubi: Everywhere (laughs)! I¡¯m going to Bangladesh tomorrow, which is quite risky in the current situation.

Giovanni Sansavini: I tend to underestimate the risks of doing things I¡¯m familiar with, like eating, drinking and smoking, while I exaggerate the risks of doing things I¡¯m not used to.

Myriam Dunn Cavelty: As someone doing research in cybersecurity, I know the risks of online activities. But I still use social media and shop online. Having insurance makes this risk more acceptable.

What do we actually mean by security?

Dunn Cavelty: Security is always related to something that¡¯s threatened. If there were no threat, we wouldn¡¯t have to think about security. As a political scientist, I investigate what collective values are threatened when we talk about security and how different actors interpret those threats.

Giovanni, as an engineer, do you define security differently?

Sansavini: Not differently, but I would add that security implies protection from possible losses if something goes wrong. So there¡¯s an element of risk and uncertainty involved too.

How has the notion of security changed since the end of the Cold War?

Dunn Cavelty: During the Cold War, we believed we knew what threats we had to defend ourselves against. That has changed. We¡¯re now a lot more uncertain about what the most important threats are. In addition, before 1989, the idea that national borders could protect us against threats from outside was more widespread; the aim of security policy was to protect and defend. Since then, the world has become more interdependent, complex and uncertain. We now focus more on risk management and critical infrastructure. We¡¯ve had to accept that we can never fully protect ourselves against all risks. The concept of resilience has taken centre stage.

Koubi: The notion of security has broadened since the end of the Cold War. We no longer confine it to military security; it also encompasses economic, social and environmental aspects. As a result, in providing security, the state depends on the cooperation of the private sector, civil society, international partners and organisations. Just think about climate change, terrorism or cybersecurity. The most important threats cannot be resolved unilaterally by any single country. International cooperation is crucial here, but increasingly difficult to sustain in a more fragmented world.

Why is this?

Dunn Cavelty: I see two reasons: One has to do with the rising uncertainty and complexity we face. We seem to prefer being certain about big threats to being uncertain about smaller threats. Second, our feeling of insecurity stems from the tremendous changes in the global information sphere. We¡¯re inundated with bad news from around the world;  threatening events that used to be very far away suddenly seem very close and urgent.

Sansavini: Whether or not we experience the world as a dangerous place is a subjective feeling. What we can say objectively is that the world has become more complex. The technical systems that our daily lives depend on ¨C energy, information, financial services, to name but a few ¨C are all interconnected and global. It¡¯s more difficult to manage risks in networks that have many different actors and layers.

What are the most important risks and threats we face as a society?

Dunn Cavelty: What worries me the most is the erosion of people¡¯s trust in authority and the increasing polarisation of societies across the globe. A lot of people, both in developing countries and rich countries, feel left behind and therefore conclude that the current world order based on liberal values, free trade and open borders no longer serves them. At the risk of sounding a bit gloomy, I think we¡¯re plunging back into darker times where nationalism and isolationism gain more and more support. I can only hope that people understand the value of democracy and will stand up for it if necessary.

Koubi: I see the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world as the greatest risk. To resolve the most urgent problems of our time, we need a minimal amount of cooperation and order based on shared values. But authoritarian states across the globe are calling these values into question.

We¡¯ve already mentioned climate change as a major risk. What are the main implications for safety?

Koubi: In my research, I investigate whether climate change will prompt large flows of environmental migrants and, in turn, increase the risk of violence and conflict. We¡¯ve found that climate-induced environmental change does not necessarily lead to more migration ¨C if adaptation is a feasible strategy. We distinguish between two types of climate-change-related events: those that occur suddenly and are typically of short duration, such as storms and floods, and those that evolve slowly and are prolonged, such as droughts, increasing water levels or soil salinity. When it comes to the former, individuals often have little choice but to move, usually within their own country, rather than to countries far away. In contrast, more gradually evolving climatic changes are more likely to allow for adaptation to such changing conditions.

How does this affect the likelihood of conflict?

Koubi: There¡¯s some evidence that climate change makes conflict more likely in poor regions that are dependent on agriculture and have marginalised groups and weak political institutions. Food production, for instance, will be affected by droughts; fishing stocks will certainly decline. Overall, conflicts over the distribution of resources will increase.

Switzerland is extremely dependent on international trade and supply networks. How vulnerable are we here?

Sansavini: Let¡¯s look at the energy sector, since the provision of many essential services depend on it. Switzerland is deeply embedded within Europe¡¯s energy infrastructure. Frankly, I can¡¯t imagine a scenario where Switzerland is not supplied with electricity by its neighbours. The question is rather what price it¡¯s willing to pay. With the transition to sustainable sources of energy like solar or wind ¨C which are seasonal and volatile ¨C Switzerland¡¯s dependence on imported energy is even set to increase in the next two to three decades.

Koubi: Even though wealthy countries like Switzerland have the ability to adapt and to recover, they¡¯ll still be affected by climate change. Already today, hurricanes and floods cause great damage to infrastructure. Making critical infrastructure more resilient will be very costly, and resources will be lacking in areas such as social security, pensions, or healthcare.

How do we cope with the risks to critical infrastructure?

Sansavini: In my lab, we¡¯ve created a digital twin of critical infrastructure such as the electricity system. We try to reproduce the real world in a computational mathematical model, and this allows us to simulate a range of different scenarios. We can test how the system responds to damage from unusual climate events or shortages caused by political decisions. The simulation shows us where the weak spots are. Envisioning scenarios takes creativity: we have to think outside the box. We model, for instance, how the transition from a centralised power grid to a more decentralised system based on wind and solar might look. We can also analyse how certain systems age and how they must be maintained.

Dunn Cavelty: On top of ensuring technical resilience, we have to start managing people¡¯s expectations. Given the tremendous challenges ahead, our lives won¡¯t be as smooth as we¡¯re used to. We need to start preparing people for a time where extreme events, interruptions and incidents will be more frequent. There¡¯s a tendency in politics to ignore these issues because it¡¯s hard to admit that the state can¡¯t ensure full security. But we need to have more open debate about this, with science, civil society and the private sector all playing a key part.

Resilience seems to be a crucial capacity.

Sansavini: Resilience is the capacity of a system to resist and recover from disruption. We talk about a disruption when a system diverges from a level of operation deemed normal. With our digital twin, we model, for instance, how long energy systems take to recover from unexpected disturbances, such as blackouts. We analyse which power corridors should be reinforced and how much storage capacity we need to keep the system running. We also think about alternative means of production that can be switched on during times of high volatility. But resilience is related to how we define a normal level of operation. As Myriam said, we should have a franker discussion about which services we¡¯re ready to give up and at what price.

We usually prepare for events we¡¯re familiar with. So how do we prepare for those we aren¡¯t familiar with?

Dunn Cavelty: The only way we can deal with them is to be aware that unpredictable things will happen and that we have to respond flexibly. Wealthy societies aren¡¯t good at doing that. We¡¯re well insured and quite good at restoring systems, but we¡¯re inflexible, and that makes us vulnerable.

Can we ever be 100 percent secure?

Dunn Cavelty: No, and we never have been. Without risks, life would be unbearable. Insecurity is part of what makes us human.

Sansavini: We can try to reduce uncertainty by increasing our knowledge. But we have limited resources to do so ¨C which means we must just learn to live with risks.

Koubi: No, but humans have proven to be quite smart in adapting to new challenges. I¡¯m optimistic that we¡¯ll be able to cope with what lies ahead.