2.1. Definition of 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 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.

This section discusses the need to protect ourselves from hazards and risks while recognizing that perceptions of risk can vary based on societal structures, such as hierarchies. In societies with strict authority, there are defined limitations on how nature can be exploited, reflecting the beliefs and knowledge of those in power. This point aims to underscore that those in positions of authority, like kings or experts, have their own interpretations of risk management that inform their decisions about how resources are utilized.

Imagine a village governed by a chief who decides how much wood can be taken from the forest. The villagers must abide by his rules, believing he knows best how to protect the environment. This reflects the hierarchical view where authority shapes the understanding of risk.

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 and on the other hand, we have fatalists, there is no way to foresee how nature will react to any stimulus.

In this chunk, the variance in attitudes towards risk is introduced. It highlights that while some individuals rely on experts and authorities to dictate the limits of natural exploitation, others, termed 'fatalists,' feel powerless to influence or predict natural outcomes. This highlights a spectrum of beliefs regarding our agency in mitigating risks.

Think of how different people react to weather forecasts. Some may take precautions based on expert predictions of a storm, while others may believe that no matter what, the weather will unfold as it will, and there's little that can be done to change it.

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.

The text explains four distinct cultural perspectives on risk: individualistic, egalitarian, hierarchical, and fatalistic. Each perspective affects how risks are perceived and managed. Individualists may be more fearful of risks to their freedom of trade; egalitarians might utilize the concept of risk to foster community action against threats like global warming; hierarchists may fear risks that could disrupt social order, such as crime.

For example, during a pandemic, individualists might prioritize personal choice in health decisions, while egalitarians might emphasize community health and safety. Hierarchists could focus on maintaining social order and roles in crisis management, indicating how different values influence risk perception.

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.

Steve Rayner’s polythetic concept of risk expands the traditional definition, which ascribes risk simply to the likelihood of negative events and their impacts. Rayner asserts that risk encompasses subjective perceptions that change across different individuals. This means that risk isn't a fixed concept; instead, it varies according to personal experiences and societal contexts.

Consider how two people may react to the same investment opportunity. One may see it as a high-risk gamble based on previous failures, while another may view it as an exciting chance for profit, demonstrating how risk perception is not objective but influenced by personal outlooks.

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 that means, that they all are in a sense and that they have some commonalities but and like they all are goal-oriented okay but that is not only defining the characteristics of the game.

This chunk discusses the complexities in defining categories like 'games' and parallels it to risk categorization. Just as no single characteristic defines all games, no singular measure can encapsulate the idea of risk universally. The varying perceptions and experiences across individuals affect how risks are classified and understood.

Perhaps think of various sports: soccer, basketball, and chess. They all represent 'games,' but they are played very differently. Similarly, risk can be interpreted through various lenses, influenced by individual experiences and societal frameworks.

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 (Trust, Liability, and Consent) as crucial elements in understanding and managing risk. This model suggests that addressing the concepts of trust in institutions, assigning liability for risks, and ensuring consent from those affected can lead to better risk management practices and decision-making processes.

In the case of a new product launch, companies must establish trust with customers, clarify their liabilities (what they are accountable for if problems occur), and ensure that consumers consent to the risks associated with using the product. For instance, a pharmaceutical company must communicate the potential risks of a new drug and get approval from both regulators and patients.

--