Ties with your neighbourhood, before anything happens
Knowing your neighbours, taking part in something local and knowing who lives alone on your block. It is the best-evidenced personal measure of all, measured on real mortality: in the 1995 Chicago heat wave, living alone multiplied the risk of dying by 2.3 and not leaving home daily by 6.7.
- Level
- Community
- Cost
- No cost
- Effort
- Ongoing
- Evidence
- Observed
What it does not solve
It stops no event: it changes who recovers. It cannot be improvised on the day something happens, because the social capital these studies measure is pre-existing. And it bears repeating until it sinks in: the evidence is from heat waves, tsunamis and earthquakes, not from AI.
It works if the event has a local phase, which is how almost all of them reach a household: blackout, natural disaster, pandemic, economic crisis.
Evidence. High, consistent across independent methods and with hard outcomes. In the Chicago heatwave of July 1995, a case-control study with 339 pairs matched by neighbourhood and age measured the risk of death from heat: not leaving the house daily, odds ratio 6.7; living alone, 2.3. What was protective was having social contacts, group activities or friendships in the area [948]Heat-related deaths during the July 1995 heat wave in ChicagoView source ↗verified through Crossref. In 133 municipalities on the Tohoku coast after the 2011 tsunami, where mortality ranged from zero to ten per cent of the population, social capital strongly influenced the outcome [48]The physical and social determinants of mortality in the 3.11 tsunamiView source ↗verified through Crossref. The evidence closest to causal comes from an intervention: in Ofunato, those who took part in a community centre created and run by older people from the neighbourhood reported greater recovery than comparable individuals who did not take part, with propensity score matching [632]Social capital building interventions and self-reported post-disaster recovery in Ofunato, JapanView source ↗.
It does not work if there is no local phase. And the bridge towards gradual disempowermentGradual disempowermentThe idea that humanity could lose control over its own future without any catastrophe, simply because more and more economic, political and cultural decisions pass to AI systems.For exampleLike a town that hands each of its services to an outside company until one day it notices it no longer decides anything of its own. is a reasonable argument, not a measurement: none of these studies is about AI [47]Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster RecoveryView source ↗.
Cost. The lowest in money on the whole list and the highest in time. It cannot be bought.
What it does NOT solve. It stops nothing: it changes who recovers. And it cannot be improvised on the day of the event, because what these papers measure is pre-existing social capital.
Works if…
- Catastrophe through misuse · Works
It holds for any event with a local emergency phase, which is how both an infrastructure attack and a pandemic reach a home.
- AI as normal technology · Works
- Gradual disempowerment · Partial
It is the only measure on the list with a plausible mechanism here —collective agency against decisions that stop passing through people— but the bridge is an argument, not a measurement: none of these studies is about AI.
- The intelligence curse · Partial
Does not work if…
- Rapid loss of control · Does not work
See in the protection matrix →Report a mistake in this entry →
Sources
- [948] Heat-related deaths during the July 1995 heat wave in Chicago · Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1996 verified through Crossref
- [47] Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery · University of Chicago Press 2012
- [48] The physical and social determinants of mortality in the 3.11 tsunami · Aldrich, Daniel P. 2015 verified through Crossref
- [632] Social capital building interventions and self-reported post-disaster recovery in Ofunato, Japan · Lee, Juheon 2022