1.3.4. Fatalist Attitude

Fatalists don’t see the point of fearing any risk, it’s not like they can do anything about them.

Fatalists believe that risks are unavoidable and that worrying about them is pointless. In their view, there is no certainty about how nature will respond to any action, so they choose to accept situations as they unfold rather than trying to manage or control them. This perspective can lead to a passive stance towards potential hazards, as they might feel that intervention or planning is futile.

Imagine a person watching a storm approach. A fatalist might say, 'There's nothing I can do to stop the storm, so why worry about it?' They might choose to go about their day, accepting that the storm will come regardless.

We are talking about this that how one see different way of looking at the risk from their cultural perspective so, it is not that risk is objective and his hazard dependent but it is more that how people are culturally when oriented, how their perception values are met as we see in each cases; individuals, egalitarian, hierarchists and fatalists.

Different groups perceive risks differently based on their cultural and social contexts. For example, individualists might focus on personal safety and economic impacts, while egalitarian groups may use perceived risks to build community solidarity. Hierarchists might fear the risks that could disrupt their social order. Fatalists, on the other hand, believe that risk cannot be effectively managed. This illustrates that risk is not just a scientific calculation but is influenced by societal beliefs and values.

Consider a public health campaign about smoking. An individualist might think about how smoking affects their personal health costs, while an egalitarian might focus on how smoking affects the community's health. A hierarchist might consider how smoking laws affect social status, and a fatalist might say, 'If I’m meant to get sick from smoking, I will, regardless of what I do.'

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.

Steve Rayner introduced the concept that risk is not just about calculating probabilities and consequences, but rather it involves perceptions that differ from one person to another. He points out that risk can be subjective and is shaped by cultural and personal experiences, similar to how different people define what a 'game' is based on their understanding, even if the games themselves are different.

Think of the different ways people might define enjoyment. For one person, enjoyment might mean playing a competitive sport, while for another, it might mean reading a book in silence. Both definitions are valid, yet they stem from personal experiences, similar to how people perceive risks differently.

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.

Rayner compares risk perceptions to categories of games. Just like how games can differ widely in rules and objectives but still belong to the same category, perceptions of risk can differ across cultures and individuals yet still be categorized under 'risk.' This highlights that defining a category such as 'risk' involves understanding various perspectives rather than a one-size-fits-all definition.

Consider different types of family gatherings. Some families may enjoy large parties with games and food, while others might prefer quiet dinners. Each gathering is different but can be described as a family gathering. Similarly, risks can vary greatly but still fall under the broader concept of risk.

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

Rayner suggests that to better understand and manage risk, it's important to consider three factors: Trust, Liability, and Consent (TLC). Trust pertains to how much people believe in the credibility of those managing the risks. Liability refers to who is responsible if something goes wrong, and consent deals with whether people agree to take on a certain risk. These factors also shape perceptions of risk—not just the statistical likelihood or potential impact of an adverse event.

In a community project to build a new park, residents might trust the local government to manage the project responsibly. They should know who will be responsible if something goes wrong (liability) and how they feel about the project (consent). If all three factors are positive, then the residents are likely to perceive the project as a low risk.

--