Introduction
Modern politics, instead of building stability, systematically makes our states fragile. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in his concept of antifragility, exposes the political class as "gardeners of risk" who, by suppressing minor stressors, pave the way for major catastrophes. In this article, you will learn why the pursuit of absolute tranquility is dangerous, how the cognitive biases of decision-makers destroy social resilience, and why the system needs leaders with "skin in the game" to survive in a world full of unpredictable "black swans."
Antifragility: Gaining from Chaos as the Evolution of Resilience
The key to understanding modern threats is the distinction between resilience and antifragility. Resilience is merely passive endurance and resistance to shocks. Antifragility goes a step further: it is a property of systems that thrive on chaos and volatility to grow stronger. Politicians are terrified of volatility, striving for the artificial stabilization of complex systems—something Taleb compares to overprotective parenting that turns a child into a life-long cripple.
Suppressing natural fluctuations leads to the accumulation of hidden risk. When a system is stripped of small, adaptive crises, it becomes pathologically vulnerable to destruction. Consequently, the policy of smoothing out every bump does not eliminate threats; it merely delays them, accumulating energy for a single, devastating explosion.
Suppressing Volatility: The Political Fear of Chaos
Politicians build concave systems, where losses grow much faster than gains, and the fetish for "optimization" eliminates necessary safety margins. The opposite of this logic is hormesis and mithridatism—phenomena where small doses of stress or poison strengthen the organism. A society deprived of minor tensions loses its ability to evolve.
Instead of seeking a "middle ground," Taleb proposes a barbell strategy: simultaneously avoiding terminal risk in the state's foundations while allowing for hundreds of small, controlled risks on the periphery. It is these bottom-up experiments and local innovations that build real resilience, whereas central fire suppression in a forest only leads to the accumulation of flammable biomass and an eventual, total wildfire.
The Soviet-Harvard Illusion: The Hubris of Central Planning
Most decisions at the highest levels of power are afflicted by the Soviet-Harvard illusion—the hubris stemming from the belief that academic models allow for full control over the world's complexity. Decision-makers succumb to cognitive biases, mistaking catalysts for causes and taking credit for natural processes. A classic example of shortsightedness is the turkey problem: politicians mistake the lack of evidence for a threat as evidence of its absence—until the butcher arrives.
Fixing the state should occur through via negativa—removing unnecessary regulations and interventions rather than multiplying new ones. A crucial safeguard is the skin in the game mechanism. The current particracy allows politicians to transfer risk to citizens without being held accountable for their mistakes. Without a foundation of axiology and ethics, where leaders risk their own fate, power becomes pure entropy destroying the common good.
Summary
Taleb’s analysis shows that politics has become the primary factor destroying our civilization's antifragility. Through centralization, a lack of accountability, and a fear of small crises, leaders are building a world of fragile structures waiting for their end. In a system where power without responsibility turns leaders into forces of chaos, are we doomed to collapse? The solution may lie in a return to localism, bottom-up diversity, and the absolute enforcement of personal responsibility for public decisions.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF