Collective loss of trust

Imagine this: Every day, the news hits us with a new crisis—climate, war, democracy—everything seems to be at stake. And the headline that sums it all up almost sounds like a curse: The world is ending today. But this is precisely where something strange happens. We are not drowning in ignorance; on the contrary, we have too much information and yet no sense of direction. The real threat to our freedom doesn't just come from the outside; it grows within us: a collective loss of trust that renders us incapable of taking action. Most people believe that freedom is primarily threatened by external forces – governments, disasters, systems. But the real risk is much quieter: if we stop believing in the self-healing powers of science and society, we make ourselves prisoners of our own fear. The new perspective: Trust is not naive or blind. It is the tool that enables societies and science to correct their mistakes and that makes progress possible in the first place. Without this fundamental trust, we lose the ability to resolve crises and learn from them. The person behind this analysis is Tanja Artiga Gonzalez, a professor of finance who has been conducting research at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam since 2022. She is concerned not only with numbers, but also with power, responsibility, and how groups—from companies to societies—keep themselves alive. She talks about markets, which are often seen as cold machines but, in reality, embody the principle of self-correction. Her favorite example: the dot-com crash of the late 1990s. At that time, everyone was pouring money into internet companies because they believed that the old rules no longer applied. The bubble burst, the market lost 75% of its value, and billions were gone. Yet it was precisely out of this collapse that the companies that shape the digital world today emerged. The lesson: Systems fail, but this failure is the beginning of self-correction. And this doesn't just apply to the economy. Societies are built in the same way. Independent courts, a free press, and active citizens—these are the sensors that detect mistakes and initiate corrections. It often takes a long time, and sometimes it hurts, but it works if we believe in it and participate. A surprising fact: Science thrives on contradicting and improving itself. The fact that studies are revised is not a sign of weakness, but rather evidence of the strength of the system. Nevertheless, many people confuse healthy skepticism with cynicism and do not give science the time to correct itself. The real attack on freedom begins when we no longer trust society and science to improve. Those who see only the end in every crisis miss the open space where true freedom is born—between uncertainty, reflection, and action. But let's turn this around: What if we didn't accept this loss of trust as a predetermined fate? What if, instead, we understood trust as an act of freedom? Not as an excuse to remain inactive, but as a prerequisite for reform, research, and social change to be possible in the first place. Here is a thought that is rarely voiced: It is not courageous to constantly sound the alarm. It takes much more courage to believe in the capacity for correction and to work towards it. The risk of trusting is being disappointed – but the risk of distrusting is giving up on the future before it even begins. Freedom thrives on acknowledging mistakes, confronting them, and growing from them. Those who forget this lose not only hope, but also the ability to act. Freedom only remains alive when we do not give up, but instead give the system the opportunity to correct itself. If this idea resonates with you, you can select I'm In on Lara Notes – that means you want to embrace this trust, not just know about it. And if you talk to someone today about this perspective on freedom and trust, there is Shared Offline on Lara Notes – that way, it is recorded that this conversation mattered to both of you. This thought comes from an article by Tanja Artiga Gonzalez for Philosophie Magazin. The original reading would have taken five minutes – here, you have heard the essence in just under half the time.