3. Application of Risk Management

So, we have to help each other to protect as our self from the threat of hazard; from the threat of risk and then we have hierarchical okay, they believe that nature can be exploited freely but there is certain rules, particular way they define there is a limit of it, okay because this limit is put because they have a very strict authority so, the authorities or the higher people those who have or the Kings or the top people they know how to do it. So, they depends much so, expert can tell you what is right and what is wrong, the king can tell you okay that what is right and what is wrong and you have to follow that extent so, it is okay that you can exploit the nature but you cannot cross certain point, cross certain boundaries okay, if you cross that one you are putting the nature at risk and on the other hand, we have fatalists, there is no way to foresee how nature will react to any stimulus.

This chunk introduces us to two contrasting attitudes towards risk. One perspective comes from hierarchical belief systems, where authority figures establish guidelines for exploiting nature. They set limits to ensure that the exploitation does not overly harm the environment. Conversely, fatalists believe that the outcomes of natural events cannot be predicted, and therefore, one should not concern themselves with managing risk because it's uncontrollable. In other words, while one group actively seeks to manage and mitigate risks through guidelines, the other simply accepts risks as part of life and doesn't see the point in managing them.

Think of it like a schoolyard game. On one side, you have the teachers (hierarchists) who set rules to keep the playing field safe and ensure everyone plays fair. They know how to maintain order and limit conflicts. On the other side, there are kids who believe that no matter what rules are set, sometimes things happen that can't be controlled—like a sudden rainstorm interrupting the game. They just accept that the weather will do what it will, and plan to have fun regardless.

So, they are the most vulnerable so here, we look at the attitude of 2 risk; one is individualistic, the fear risk that would limit the market and constraints their ability to trade freely. Egalitarian; use the threat of catastrophic risk to generate solidarity, for example, global warming. Hierarchists fear risk that would upset the ranking of people okay. For example; crime or social deviance.

This chunk discusses different cultural perceptions toward risk management, highlighting three specific perspectives. Individualistic perspectives tend to fear risks that limit personal opportunities, such as trade. Egalitarian perspectives see potential catastrophic risks like global warming as a means to unify people for a common cause—together they can address the threat. Hierarchical perspectives fear risks that disrupt social hierarchies—such as crime or deviance—because they threaten established order. Each group understands risk differently based on their values and social structures.

Imagine a farmer's market. An individualistic farmer worries that pests (risks) will harm their personal produce sales. An egalitarian farmer may rally all vendors to combat pests together, understanding that working as a community will strengthen everyone's yield. Meanwhile, a hierarchical farmer might focus on how pest outbreaks could affect the standing of certain farmers in the community, fearing that those perceived as successful might lose their status.

This idea was then little further developed by Steve Rayner, he was talking about polythetic concept of risk and that in generally, we consider risk is the probability of an adverse event and the magnitude of his consequence right, something will happen, an adverse event will happen and it has some consequences. But he is arguing that risk is more than that risk actually a kind of perceptions, it varies from one person to another, there is no one meaning, risk is more polythetic...

Steve Rayner expands on the traditional definition of risk, which is often seen as merely a statistical assessment of likelihood and impact of negative events. He suggests that risk is subjective and constructed through personal and cultural perceptions. This polythetic perspective means that different people may understand and experience risk in various ways, depending on their backgrounds, beliefs, and contexts. Understanding risk cannot be solely quantitative; it must include qualitative considerations.

Think about two different people viewing a steep cliff. One person (the risk-averse type) sees the potential danger of falling and feels anxiety, prioritizing safety. Another individual (the risk-taker) views the same cliff as a thrilling challenge, wanting to climb it. Their understanding of risk is shaped by their personal experiences and values, which illustrates the polythetic nature of risk.

In all these system of concept of formation, items one end of the chain that constitute a category need not to have any conditions in common with those at the other end...

This chunk emphasizes that categories of risk do not need to have common characteristics to be grouped together. When assessing risk, it’s important to remember that people may not focus solely on numbers and probabilities, especially when small differences exist in risk levels. Therefore, how risks are perceived and understood often matters more than the complex probability calculations behind them.

Consider the difference between two types of chocolate: dark and milk. While both are chocolate, they appeal to different people for different reasons. A health-conscious individual might look at the numbers—dark chocolate being healthier—while another person might simply prefer the taste of milk chocolate without focusing on health stats. Just as taste can vary, so can people's perceptions of risk.

So, he is offering that for that we can have a kind of model which is called TLC; trust, liability and consent okay. So, polythetic definition of risk is that probability and magnitude that is the traditional way of looking at risk but that is not enough, we should add the TLC okay, this is the principle of trust, liability and consent are themselves also, the subject when we define that what is risk.

Rayner proposes a model called TLC—trust, liability, and consent—to better understand and define risk. He argues that these three principles are crucial when considering how to manage risks, especially in contexts like nuclear power, where public perception and acceptance greatly influence the successful implementation and management of technology. It’s not enough to rely solely on traditional risk assessments; understanding how trust and accountability are perceived is equally important.

Imagine a community discussing a new wind farm proposal. For the project to move forward, residents must trust the developers (trust), there should be clear accountability for any potential damage it might cause (liability), and there must be agreement among community members on how it affects them (consent). Without these elements, even the strongest case for the wind farm may face resistance.

--