Usually, a state of refers to an exceptional situation during which a government can suspend law, freedom, and fundamental rights. As Giorgio Agamben argues in State of Exception,The voluntary creation of a state of (though perhaps not declared in technical sense) has become one of essential practices of contemporary states, including so-called democratic ones. . . . The state of exception tends increasingly to appear as dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics.1According to Agamben, permanent state of emergency is based on of a provisional and exceptional measure into a technique of government. This transformation reveals the essential contiguity between state of exception and sovereignty.2 Curiously enough, Agamben does not question in this book historic contiguity between state of and economic, technological, and ecological condition of contemporary society. The problem is that it is almost impossible to understand modern and contemporary politics without analyzing way economics frames it and without understanding how technological embodiment of capitalism informs sovereignty in its relations with social body. What Agamben calls the voluntary creation of a state of emergency is first and foremost creation of an ontological state of that concerns our whole planet. It is genesis of such a global situation that this article will attempt to trace.In our societies, state of is global and permanent; because it's and pervasive, we are unable to feel it: after emergency, our fear became an affect without a subject. We daily experience impossibility of immunizing ourselves against ravages stemming from what Ulrich Beck called risk society; but we immunize ourselves against impossibility of protecting ourselves. The current global state of looks like a flat world where nothing really new seems on verge of emerging, except an call coming from a potential victim, be it human or non-human-like that of a white bear dying on an ice floe who was lucky enough to find someone able to translate his resigned attitude into a fleeting matter of international concern. Can we escape banalization of emergency? But is it really-urgent to do this? From which point of view, from which unlikely extraterrestrial position could a writer, a philosopher, an activist, urge us to remedy a situation of constant emergency?To answer these questions, I will first analyze birth of a new kind of economy that governs current state of capitalism. This economy came along with a new paradigm that occurred in 1970s, paradigm of turbulence. The ontological axiom of this paradigm is following one: in universe, and thus on Earth, nothing is fixed, nothing is stable. As a scary fox says in Lars von Trier's Antichrist (2009): reigns, that is to say Chaos is sovereign. In this ontological frame, emergencies-defined as situations requiring immediate attention-cannot but happen. What became rule is not repetition of extra-ordinary events (financial collapses, terrorist attacks, or ecological disasters), but mere genesis of things. Turbulence or chaos is not first a political state of exception, but ontological rule that we take for granted. What I call economy of is not suspension of law, but promotion by any possible means of new commandment of world: As everything is in flux, as everything is uncertain, Thou shall adapt. Or, as Melinda Cooper puts it in her crucial analysis, turbulence (can) not be prevented; it (can) only be managed.3If first part of my article sheds some light on articulation between ontology and economy to describe turbulent superego that rules world, second part insists on articulation between technology and psychology to trace out globe itself, global sphere as a cruel theater in which state of is (under)experienced as a state of fear. …