National securitisation privileges extraordinary measures to defend the nation, often centred around military force and logics of deterrence/balance of power and defence. Humanity macrosecuritization suggests the object of security is to defend all of humanity, not just the nation, and often invokes logics of collaboration, mutual restraint and constraints on sovereignty.
The “Caution” frame. In this frame, many of the worst outcomes come from developing something like PASTA in a way that is too fast, rushed, or reckless. We may need to achieve (possibly global) coordination in order to mitigate pressures to race, and take appropriate care. (Caution)
The “Competition” frame. This frame focuses not on how and whenPASTA is developed, but who (which governments, which companies, etc.) is first in line to benefit from the resulting productivity explosion. (Competition)
People who take the “caution” frame and people who take the “competition” frame often favor very different, even contradictory actions. Actions that look important to people in one frame often look actively harmful to people in the other.
I worry that the “competition” frame will be overrated by default, and discuss why below. (More)
I found this distinction really helpful.
It reminds me of Holden Karnofsky’s piece on How to make the best of the most important century (2021), in which he presents two contrasting frames: