Hi, this is against everyone with Connor Habib.

Friends, have you noticed that the assertion of inevitability seems to be cropping up everywhere?

It's stalking us at every turn and it's a presence that we should take seriously because it's almost always a threat.

There is, of course, the inevitability of climate change, the

collective death we accept unless the state rescues us somehow from it. There is the inevitability

of AI and the acceleration of AI. In fact, inevitability is the marketing language of corporations working on AI.

And there's also what we sometimes I think view as a sort of positive inevitability. The

idea that history is on our side, that people committing atrocities right now will be judged

by history inevitably.

These are all enemies of directive, enemies of our will, of our ability to do much more than

spectate. What we need now is not inevitability, but involvement. Because we accept the inevitable, we end up talking about things

in terms of crisis, crisis after crisis, because we think of crises as ruptures. There are ruptures that we didn't enact, that we didn't do. They're

eruptions of something that seem to sever us from history. But that's not really what they do.

They don't sever us from history. They're not blasts of power that knock us into new directions and those directions terrify us as if we've

been dragged there or just transported to a new hellish realm we use the language of crisis

because we think perhaps that it can revitalize our will.

If there's an immediate crisis, we think, we'll have no choice but to act.

If you think of a small crisis, for example, some trouble that's happening right in front of you,

the idea is, well, if I saw it, I would do

something about it. Let's say a bird flies into your house and you take care of it. Or there's someone

who's about to walk into the street and get hit by a car. You call out to them or pull them back.

And I think that crisis is imagined to have this effect on us in a worldly way,

...