Global development key to resilience to all other existential threats---it outweighs

The second vulnerability that must be prioritized is economic. As of writing (February 2016), economies the world over are going through serious challenges. Decision-makers must create a more stable global market system that provides development and human security for all. Economic development (discussed in the final part of this chapter) will allow states and decision-makers the ability to become more resilient to other threats. Economic development is thus the second most important vulnerability to prioritize because it instigates the best use of resources. By using resources efficiently, states can amass capabilities to neutralize other sources of vulnerability such as health, military and political. To stem economic vulnerability requires some protection from capitalism’s inherent flux: the cycles of boom and bust. The economy must be made to serve the community; it must be able to serve the needs of society and therefore must be re-embedded: Our thesis is the idea of a self-adjusting market implied a stark utopia. Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness. Inevitably, society took measures to protect itself, but whatever measures it took impaired the self-regulation of the market, disorganized industrial life, and thus endangered society in yet another way. (Polanyi 2001, 4) More regulation is therefore needed to ensure the stability of world society, not just in terms of political stability but in environmental and other areas too. Allowing a totally liberal world economy is too risky given the known costs. Proper mechanisms must be put into place to ensure sustainable growth rates to build resilience to systemic vulnerability and its reach or distribution across states. Decision-makers must see this as important but certain industries continue to fight for deregulation. These industries are too greedy to be allowed into political discourse as they pervert the minds of decision-makers (Stiglitz 2013). Greed works in the short term but it is ultimately short sighted: in the long run we are all dead after all. The other vulnerabilities are serious but are on their way to being stable. States understand the power of Ebola, Zika and cyber-security, for instance, to destroy the world. States are well down the road to developing infrastructure to absorb the chaos that can result from proliferation of such issues. This is because decision-makers fully grasp the importance of establishing control over epidemics and cyber-insecurity. Cyber-defensive measures are being bolstered and increasing power is being given to institutions and regimes to help fight and neutralize outbreaks. More can be done but I am hopeful society is moving in the right direction here. Health invulnerability has a great deal to do with mental health. Many terrorist movements take advantage of people who are clinically depressed due to their being ostracized from society. Mental health issues are part of overall health and must be treated like any other disease. For this to occur, certain stigma must disappear in favor of treatment. In this way, environment and health protection can reduce recruitment to malicious organizations through prevention. Military vulnerabilities coming from states and political vulnerabilities such as terrorist networks are the lowest priority. Strategies already exist to deal with these problems. We have established that containment is the best form of engagement for both issues. If decision-makers perceive this as a viable option, then all that is missing is the will to implement the strategy. States such as China, Russia and the USA position themselves aggressively; but war has not broken out yet because of diplomatic channels, as well as the presence of nuclear weapons that deter aggression. Containment allows for a degree of understanding and freedom of state autonomy if certain lines are not crossed. As a consequence, state conflict is not a high priority at this juncture. The same goes for violent political networks. These do not pose a serious challenge to any hegemonic state and are contained in specific areas of the world. Once we cut off access to wealth, then groups like Islamic State are sure to fizzle out eventually if left alone to their own violent devices. The ranked order of vulnerabilities necessitates a fundamental shift of priorities, especially in the realm of health and humanitarian focus. It will need serious cooperation at the global level. States must be made to work together on these matters. This is, therefore, a responsibility for great powers and hegemonic actors, those who possess enough power to create and defend the system. These systems-creative actors (see Chap. 2) must guide this prioritization process by leading the world against systems-destructive forces described. The capabilities of great powers must be used to solve systemic vulnerabilities. These interactions guide state behavior and are the defining principle of any systemic theory of international politics. Given the multiplicity of systemic vulnerabilities and their distribution across units, states must further link respective resources. The more resources available and in use, the more effectively states can solve problems. The use of securitization and prioritization discourse is essential to achieve this goal. It is here that we see the application of the reprioritization process with regards to systemic vulnerabilities. Such action is a product of the securitization/desecuritization process of prioritization as vulnerabilities are perceived as threatening to human survival. Decision-makers must not look at one source of vulnerability, but must rather take a structural approach to determine the most efficient way to deal with the wide array of problems that undermine survival. Hence, to recover well during times of systemic crisis, whether financial, the result of the rapid influx of refugees or after natural disasters, is essential in dealing with sudden and rapid systemic shocks. States that cannot deal with these on their own are considered weak and vulnerable. Great powers are those that are economically developed with the resilience necessary to adapt quickly to any event. The root of success in neutralizing systemic vulnerability is through systems-creation, that is, the formation of an international system that supports economic development. Economic development allows for the efficient use of scarce resources and is the key to resilience given systemic vulnerability. It allows a state the flexibility to absorb and defuse external shocks in all forms: economic, political, environmental and so forth. Henry Bruton’s modernist definition of economic development understands states to be economically developed if they are sufficiently flexible and diverse to adjust to change (Bruton 1965, 1). Development designates any increase in gross domestic product (GDP) that is sustainable, multidimensional and durable enough to endure economic shocks. Undeveloped countries may suffer from productivity discrepancies due to sudden shock. For example, an undeveloped country would be a monocultural economy dependent on one or two sources of wealth. Rapid fluctuations in commodity prices may send the country into macroeconomic chaos. A developed economy must be able to produce prosperity for the population given potential instability. Conversely, an underdeveloped state is “low income … predominantly a primary producing and consuming area … production is food grains and fibers, although in several countries mining is an activity of importance” (ibid., 88). Underdeveloped economies, then, possess vulnerabilities. Bruton notes this: “The rich country seems to have an economy that has growth built into it, while the poor country seems to have an economy in which ‘nongrowth’ is built into it” (ibid., 2–3). Development specifically deals with eradicating systemic issues that hamper growth (ibid., 3). Accordingly therefore, “economic development presents a means to weather exogenous and endogenous economic, environmental, political and social shocks endemic to vulnerable states … there is a clear dichotomy between these two concepts, vulnerability and development” (Kassab 2014, 66). Economic development improves the resilience of states to recover from systemic shock. It allows for best use of resources to counter threats and allows for the provision of human security, an important concept to stem the proliferation of violent political movements. Other vulnerabilities, such as health, cyber, environmental, can also be dealt with given available resources. In the event of war, a developed state could very well outlast a lesser developed, revisionist state. Hence, economic sustainability is the root of any state’s success in the face of systemic vulnerability.