1.3.3. Hierarchist Attitude

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...

The hierarchist attitude towards nature is based on the belief that it can be exploited for human needs, but this exploitation must follow certain rules and boundaries. This viewpoint emphasizes a strict authority, where experts and leaders (such as kings) dictate the acceptable limits of natural resource exploitation. People under this belief tend to trust the judgment of authorities regarding what is considered right or wrong action towards the environment. This creates a structured approach to risk, where individuals are advised to exploit natural resources carefully while not exceeding established limits to avoid endangering nature.

Consider a game of soccer, where the referee (authority) sets rules that all players must follow. Just as players must respect the boundaries of the field and the rules laid out, a hierarchist believes that humanity must understand and respect the natural limits set by nature, guided by experts, to ensure sustainable use of resources.

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...

This section discusses different cultural attitudes towards risk. An individualistic perspective sees risk as a fear that restricts one’s ability to engage freely in market activities. In contrast, an egalitarian perspective uses perceived risks, such as climate change, to foster community solidarity and collective action. The hierarchist perspective, however, is based on a fear of risks that may disrupt social order or rankings among people, for example, crime or social deviance. Fatalists, on the other hand, do not prioritize risk at all, believing that there is little that can be done to manage or predict nature's reactions.

Imagine a school environment: The individualistic student may avoid raising their hand in class due to fear of being wrong (limiting their participation), while the egalitarian student rallies classmates to study for a test together, emphasizing teamwork. The hierarchist student may worry a bad grade will affect their status compared to peers, while the fatalist student believes that grades are out of their control and does not engage deeply in the competitive grading process.

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...

Steve Rayner introduced the concept of a polythetic understanding of risk, suggesting that it is not merely tied to statistical probabilities or consequences of events. Instead, he argues that risk is subjective and varies between individuals. For example, what one person sees as a risk might not be perceived the same way by someone else. This indicates that risk assessment must consider personal perspectives and cultural backgrounds, not just objective data.

Think of how different people perceive the risk of flying: some individuals feel entirely comfortable and see it as a safe mode of transport, viewing the statistics of safety positively. On the other hand, a person with a fear of flying may see just the possibility of a plane crash as an overwhelming risk. Each interpretation of risk comes from their own experiences and beliefs, illustrating Rayner's idea that risk is subjective.

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

The model of Trust, Liability, and Consent (TLC) suggests that addressing risk involves not only understanding probability and consequences but also examining how trust is built, who is liable for outcomes, and if people consent to the risks involved. For instance, when discussing projects such as nuclear power plants, it’s important to clarify how decisions are made, who bears the responsibility for any mishaps, and whether the community supports the project based on informed consent. This understanding highlights the multi-dimensional nature of risk management.

Similar to how a community might discuss building a new sports complex, they would need to trust the developers (trust), understand who is responsible if the project fails (liability), and ensure that everyone agrees to the plan after knowing its benefits and risks (consent). Thus, the TLC model helps facilitate shared understanding and decision-making around risk in communal projects.

--