1.3. Attitudes Toward Risk

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 a 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 depend 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.

Different cultures perceive risks in varying ways. In hierarchical societies, people believe there's a structured way to manage risks, typically relying on authorities (like kings or experts) to define the acceptable limits of exploiting nature. This perspective emphasizes that while certain resources can be used, there are boundaries that must not be crossed in order to avoid harm to the environment.

Imagine a company that is extracting minerals from a forest. The leaders of the company represent authority and have set rules about how much of the forest can be used. Employees know they can work within this limit, but if they go beyond it, they risk damaging the environment, which is akin to the fear of upsetting the natural balance.

On the other hand, we have fatalists, there is no way to foresee how nature will react to any stimulus. So, they don’t know what is the risk okay, it is protected or not so, there is no point in fighting over how to manage it instead you should just try to roll with the punches so, you should go on.

Fatalists believe that the outcomes of natural events are completely unpredictable. They feel powerless to influence these outcomes, and therefore don’t see much value in worrying or managing risks. Instead, they adopt a more laid-back attitude, suggesting that they should just accept whatever happens.

Think of a person waiting for a train that is often late. Instead of checking the schedule obsessively, they bring a book and relax, accepting that they can't control the train's timing. This reflects a fatalistic mindset where individuals believe it's futile to worry about elements outside their control.

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.

Egalitarian individuals see risk as a means to unite people, using threats like climate change to foster community efforts and solidarity in addressing issues. On the other hand, hierarchists focus on how risks might disrupt societal structures or hierarchies, fearing that chaotic elements (like crime) could disturb social order.

In the context of environmental activism, community members come together to fight against global warming, seeing it as a common threat that requires solidarity. Conversely, in a neighborhood where crime is rising, some residents might express concern that it disrupts the social order, leading to heightened fears of risk.

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.

Risk is not a one-size-fits-all concept; it varies based on individual perceptions and cultural contexts. People interpret risk differently based on their experiences, beliefs, and values, making it a complex and layered issue.

Consider how different people respond to the idea of skydiving. One person might see it as an exhilarating adventure with minimal risk, while another might view it as terrifying and dangerous. Their individual backgrounds shape these different perceptions of risk.

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.

Rayner expands upon the idea of risk by focusing on its polythetic nature, arguing that we traditionally see risk as a combination of likelihood and potential consequences. However, he emphasizes that this definition is insufficient as it doesn't capture the subjective perceptions people have about risks.

If you consider a storm approaching a coastal city, a meteorologist might assess the risk based on probability and severity, while a resident's perception might be shaped by past experiences of storms, leading them to feel differently about the risk, even if actual data suggests the same level of threat.

So, he is offering that for that we can have a kind of model which is called TLC; trust, liability and consent okay.

Rayner introduces the TLC model as a way to better understand risk management. Trust, liability, and consent are key factors that should be included when assessing risks. This highlights that managing risk isn't solely about statistical analysis, but also involves social dynamics.

Think about how a community reacts to a proposal for a new road. If the planner communicates transparently and builds trust with residents (trust), discusses who will be responsible if something goes wrong (liability), and seeks community agreement on the proposal (consent), the perceived risk of the project may be seen as lower compared to a scenario where these factors are ignored.

Like, in case of nuclear power plant that if we want to tell people what should be done, we should can consider this; this TLC concept okay. So, that’s how the problem of the need for the plant, why it is necessary to have a nuclear power plant, so that should be defined and agreed among the parties and who pass for the plant, who will take the liability of it, if something happened, who will be benefited out of it and who will take the benefit of it so, these should be considered when we are defining the risk and the management of the technology.

In the context of a nuclear power plant, the TLC model illustrates how important it is to engage with the public on issues of risk. Clear communication regarding the necessity of the plant, who will bear responsibility for any accidents, and who benefits from its operations is essential for building public trust and managing perceived risks.

Imagine a town deciding whether to construct a new nuclear power plant. If stakeholders—like local leaders, the plant operators, and residents—discuss openly about safety protocols, benefits to the community, and what happens if something goes wrong, it builds trust and understanding, potentially reducing fear around the perceived risks.

--