11. Reducing Fear of Death Means Case Debate For Preventive Foresight

1. Lead desecuritization scholars like Wæver (2000) support debating case to avoid worse ongoing securitization, to help in “shaping the continent in a way that creates the least insecurity and violence - even if this occasionally means invoking/producing 'structures' or even using the dubious instrument of securitization. In the case of the current European configuration, the above analysis suggests the use of securitization at the level of European scenarios with the aim of preempting and avoiding numerous instances of local securitization that could lead to security dilemmas and escalations.” Viewing both a security and non-security issue solves the critique and avoids our turns, as Elbe (2006) explains: “First, those presenting HIV/AIDS as a security issue could be sure to insist that it is not exclusively a security issue, but rather a security issue in addition to also being a health issue […] The security dimension of HIV/AIDS could then complement, rather than supersede, existing frameworks, and it would not undermine alternative rationales for global health initiatives, or unduly prioritize the needs of the security community over those of civil society. Second, the ethical dangers of securitizing AIDS could be further minimized by framing the illness as a security issue, or as an issue with an important security dimension, rather than as a dangerous and overwhelming security threat. This would still add considerable political gravitas to international efforts.” Elbe (2004) furthers that the question “is not so much whether to securitize HIV/'AIDS, but rather how to securitize it. […] [B]iopolitics can be best mediated by securitizing AIDS primarily through a human security framework emphasizing the needs of ordinary people rather than just elites, and by insisting that policy responses not violate human and citizenship rights.” Calculating the number dead is moral and avoids dehumanization: “Without a body count, our nation becomes more of a robotic killing machine. As we dehumanize Iraqis, we slip even further into our own dehumanization. Let us bring back the body count, if only to recover our own sense of responsibility to the world's people, to history, to our own humanity.” (Chernus, 2003). Atlee (2002) explains debating nuclear fear empowers value to life: “Once they got in touch with their shared feelings and stories and passion for life, such groups often found a new vitality and determination to do something about the problem. […] ‘We are finding how important it is to do fear and empowerment workshops re Y2K. A group of us have done several afternoons on all the assaults from nuclear war on down that we are facing and then going deeply into our fears (Y2K) and then coming out the other end with a sense of power and vision.’” Kleinman (1996) defends death discourse to influence policymakers and avoids compassion fatigue: “Our critique of appropriations of suffering that do harm does not mean that no appropriations are valid. To conclude that would be to undermine any attempt to respond to human misery. It would be much more destructive than the problem we have identified; it would paralyze social action. We must draw upon the images of human suffering in order to identify human needs and to craft humane responses.”

Figure 13: speaking security or articulating a cultural predisposition towards enemy definition is more important.

2. Minimizing the risk of things we can avoid is rational coping that allows us to live without debilitating fear of death. “Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of an incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. […] Curiously, therefore, before we can implement such education, we will need to reduce the perceived threat of nuclear war and enlarge the belief that the short-term goal of nuclear stability is within our grasp.” (Beres, 1994). “What can you do to become less afraid of death? [...] 1. Help the next generation [...] 2. Don’t avoid the topic [...] [A]voidance can make those things loom even larger in our minds. [...] [S]tudy with funeral directors found that those who had directed more funerals feared death less.” (Wu, 2020). Fearing death ensures human survival—anxiety affirms life and mobilizes support for its preservation: “Fear of death, the ultimate source of anxiety, is essential to human survival. This is true not only for individuals, but also for states. Without such fear, states will exhibit an incapacity to confront nonbeing that can hasten their disappearance. [...] For states, just as for individuals, confronting death can give the most positive reality to life itself. [...] When a state chooses to block off such an awareness, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, it loses, possibly forever, the altogether critical benefits of ‘anxiety.’” (Beres, 1996). There is no compassion fatigue: “Both of these critiques have, we believe, been dismissed convincingly by scholarly literature. [...] [T]he compassion fatigue position cannot be sustained in an unqualified manner, not least because there is widespread evidence that the public often reacts generously when charity organizations appeal.” (Bleiker, 2007). Kurasawa (2004) shows how debate is preventative foresight that solves worse threats: “dystopianism need not imply despondency, paralysis, or fear [...] [T]he responsibility to face up to potential disasters and intervene before they strike becomes compelling. […] Such scenarios can act as catalysts for public debate and socio-political action, spurring citizens’ involvement in the work of preventive foresight.” For example, debates securitizing environment avoids extinction: “These considerations can greatly enhance the process of formulating effective solutions and winning sustained public attention and support for international environmental action. Policymakers might therefore be best served by framing international environmental priorities in terms of a broad set of interests, including, but not limited to, security concerns. [...] debates concerning environment and security matters will continue to be instructive.” (Dabelko, 1997). There is consensus on probability: “There is consensus that there is a relatively short window to reduce carbon emissions before drastic effects occur. [T]he chances of extinction from climate change are good.” (Schultz, 2016). Public debate thus connects critical reflection to preventive action by allowing citizens to contest inflated dangers, assess credible risks, and compare measures that could reduce vulnerability without treating any single prediction as certain.