The Risk Society: A Defining Trait of Our Times

Recently, residents of Mexico City — and indeed most Mexicans — were shaken by the tragic incident that occurred on the border between the capital and the State of Mexico. In the area known as Puente de la Concordia, an LPG tanker truck crashed, causing an explosion that spread across nearly 200 meters. Today, victims are still succumbing to their injuries: the death toll has risen to 31, with 13 people still hospitalized in critical condition and 40 others already discharged.

As a nation, we remain deeply shaken by this tragedy. We ask ourselves why it happened, who is to blame, and why there were so many victims. The exact cause of the accident remains unknown, although the most likely explanation is that the driver was speeding. But what was the need to drive at such velocity with such a load — nearly 50,000 liters of liquefied petroleum gas? A ticking bomb, with no precaution at all.

This is a symptom of our postmodern times: living life at full speed, with no fear of risk. The tragedy illustrates the traits of what Ulrich Beck called the "risk society," where three constants merge into an explosive mix: the growing demand for energy; the obsession with immediacy, speed, and acceleration; and finally, the banalized acceptance of permanent risk, which numbs our sense of fear.

This event reminded me that we live permanently immersed in the risk society: multifactorial, widely accepted, and increasingly dangerous. Unfortunately, zero risk does not exist; sooner or later, disaster will strike.

What Is the Risk Society?

The concept comes from German sociologist Beck, who coined the term in the mid-1980s to describe how industrial society was entering a new phase — he rejected the label “postmodern” — a transformation of modernity, or rather its mutation.

Beck argued that we were living in uncertain times, where risks were becoming more frequent and their impacts more severe. Just look at the consequences of climate disruption, and we are only at the beginning of the most sinister forecasts.

For some readers, speaking of a risk society may seem redundant, precisely because we are immersed in it, and we only grasp its magnitude momentarily when faced with a technological disaster or a natural catastrophe.

In French universities, when studying the civil liability regime, students are reminded that at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the Napoleonic Civil Code was not suited to the new circumstances. It was one thing for a runaway horse to cause damage, quite another for a derailed locomotive to do so. With technological advances, explosions and accidents became more frequent and destructive.

Who, then, was responsible when a machine exploded? The worker who operated it correctly, or the factory owner? It became necessary to adapt the legal framework and later create new ones, leading to preventive mechanisms that, as we know, do not always prevent disaster.

Over time, as new regulatory instruments were established, risk became normalized and legitimized.

Today, we accept it daily: millions of people travel by car — even though at speeds over 60 km/h an accident can be fatal — and we do not hesitate to transport our children this way. We also accept food-related risks (ultra-processed products linked to chronic disease) and environmental risks (greenhouse gas emissions).

Our society ceased to be political-humanist and transformed into a scientific-techno-economic one, where the ultimate goal is profit, regardless of the risks it creates.

As Beck paraphrased when discussing nuclear energy policy (his book was published just months before the Chernobyl accident, confirming his fears): “The authorities in charge of ensuring safety and rationalizing technical processes — State, science, and industry — urge the population to board an airplane for which no runway has yet been built.” In other words, we are made to accept risks of disproportionate magnitude.

Progress and technology certainly bring wealth, but they also generate dangers — in other words, risks.

Hans Jonas and the Principle of Responsibility

These reflections take us deeper into the philosophical foundation: The risk society is pushing humanity into unknown and dangerous territory. The 1970s marked a turning point: the end of the so-called “Mexican miracle” coincided with the first major signs of environmental degradation. In that same decade, science gave us the first certainty that human activity was irreversibly damaging the planet. From then on, scientific, technical, and industrial advances no longer meant only progress, but also destruction on a planetary scale.

It was also during those years that German-American philosopher Hans Jonas published his seminal work, "The Principle of Responsibility." In it, he warned that modern humanity has the capacity not only to self-destruct but also to bring the entire planet down with it. Therefore, we have a responsibility to prevent it and to think about the future. We must act in ways that ensure our actions are compatible with the continuity of human life as we know it.

The “superpowers” we possess thanks to technology, innovation, and cheap energy can lead us to self-destruction. Jonas goes further: he calls for the protection of biodiversity as a whole, laying the philosophical foundations for what later became the concept of sustainable development.

Back to the Puente de la Concordia Tragedy

After all this, some may wonder what this has to do with the recent tragedy. In my view, it illustrates it perfectly: it encapsulates the features of the risk society and forces us to reflect on the need for sound risk governance.

To recap: Why was such a massive LPG tanker allowed to travel on a major road during rush hour? Why was the driver speeding and acting so recklessly? How is it possible that one of the richest and most powerful companies in the sector, Silza of the TOMZA group, hires poorly trained and unprofessional drivers? Why were there contradictions and lack of coordination among supervisory authorities?

There we find the ingredients of catastrophe in the risk society. We take it as normal that these “rolling bombs” travel across the country. In fact, videos show drivers who, instead of prudently retreating, tried to drive past the overturned tanker, until the inevitable happened: the flame, the deflagration, the explosion. The 50,000 liters of LPG, upon contact with air, could expand into 700,000 liters of gas.

Here we see the passage from risk to catastrophe: a scientific, technical, and economic system that completely failed.

Risk Governance

To prevent and avoid the repetition of such tragedies, it is necessary to strengthen risk governance. The complexity of our society no longer allows us to choose between the existence or absence of risk. Today, the paradigm is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable risks.

Authorities face the challenge of setting limits where individual freedoms overlap with the common good. Paradigms must change: it is no longer enough to assign responsibility after the fact, nor to adopt preventive measures that fail to eliminate risk.

Decision-making must be radically transformed: we must ensure scientific rigor, guarantee the autonomy and independence of experts, and allow active participation of civil society—especially when decisions directly affect everyday life.

The Escazú Agreement and its incorporation into Mexican law offer an opportunity to forge the risk governance that our society urgently requires.