Some think that by preparing to deal with crises you make them more likely. I think the wiser judgment is the contrary. In this area at least, if you want peace or stability, it's better to prepare for war or instability.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It may be that the very qualities that help people get ahead are the ones that make them ill-suited for managing crises. It's hard to prepare for the worst when you think you're the best.
Close scrutiny will show that most 'crisis situations' are opportunities to either advance, or stay where you are.
Crises are part of life. Everybody has to face them, and it doesn't make any difference what the crisis is.
We are entering an era of heightened disaster, thanks to climate change. Being prepared for disaster will mean being prepared to sift truth from rumour, and being prepared to adjust our worldview.
The future is going to require really smart people. What we think are crises today probably will be no big deal, and we have no idea what will really be crises in the future.
When you're in a crisis of, you know, tremendous proportions, it's beyond any human capability to control, you just make the best decisions you can, and you just hope that your intuition is correct.
To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.
You will ultimately be defined by the sum total of your responses to circumstances, situations and events that you probably couldn't anticipate and indeed probably couldn't even imagine. So just keep your eyes on the course and be ready to move in different directions depending upon the crises and opportunities with which you are faced.
Whenever you have a crisis, you're always going to have the extremists taking advantage of the situation.
What one decides to do in crisis depends on one's philosophy of life, and that philosophy cannot be changed by an incident. If one hasn't any philosophy in crises, others make the decision.