Quoted material without a citation is from my Environmental Communication textbook. In general, we accept risks we choose to accept (or do not know about), complain about risks that are we know are imposed up on us, and bemoan when faced with Acts of God. It is the middle group of unwanted risk consequences occurring that has made lawyers so busy. We expect to be safe-guarded and want someone to blame when we suffer from what we think are unnecessary risks. Modern living is said to be safer and healthier than any other period in history. If that is so, why are we more concerned about risk? To answer that has a lot has to do with perceived safety such as increased workplace and occupational safeguards and of course modern social hygiene from food safety to sanitation sewers and treated water. We are so used to be ‘kept’ safe by government rules, regulations, and other safeguards that anything that causes harm of any kind is treated as an abnormality. That also explains the reason mainstream news pushes so much negativity to get our attention. And of course, with that we get the idea that anything negative must be really risky, such as crime and plane crashes. But, recall what I said in the last two posts, the mass media influences greatly what we think is dangerous (diseases for example) while minimizing or even ignoring the real risks we face everyday from pollution, etc., which are not in corporate or political interests for us to worry about.
Another problem is that shown by Psychologist Gerald Wilde – Risk Homeostasis – when we lower risk through technological improvements, that is we are safeguarded against our own risky behaviors and impulses, we tend to over compensate the lowered risk by taking higher risks. For instance, take automobile ABS brakes and air bags. While the introduction of these devices initially showed a reduction of deaths and serious injuries, it was seen that accidents that did occur seemed to be getting worse because people were now driving faster and with less diligence because of the perceived belief that the ABS brakes would slow them quicker and air bags would safeguard them more in event of a collision. This perceived safety can be seen in many aspects of modern living. Notice that people who would never feel safe on a rock face quite happily get on a wild roller-coaster ride because they feel the ride is safe and inspected according to stringent safety regulations.
Since the rise of the industrial revolution the spread of industry and high technology around the planet, and more technology in general means more complex technological systems and hence, more risk. That is not to say that magnificent benefits—better health, longer life spans, higher quality of life, more entertainment opportunities, faster communication and transportation—have not come to modern humanity. “Our greater reliance on new technologies has two important effects when considering the overall societal perception of risk. Older technologies tend to become taken for granted. Machinery on family farms is some of the most hazardous technology around, but you hear few cries to save farmers from being mauled by their own plows and combine harvesters.” These risks are historically familiar to us, even if we now live mostly in suburban areas. It is the newer and increasingly unfamiliar technology that sometimes breeds outrage initially, yet, notice how quickly they are all accepted as ‘experts, usually funded by the related industries,’ proclaim the benefits while denouncing those calling for caution as neo-Luddites.
Another factor of our broadening technology has been our collective perception of risk is from a statistical perspective. As populations have increased exponentially, in the last 50 years so has the amount of technology available. What we see now is that accidents have increased despite the technological safety also improving. The increase in the complexity of technology literally means that we are inundated with more potential for technological problems occurring. Problems expounded by a widespread belief that technology is totally under our control, and we have industries happy to help us believe it. This blasé attitude is one for the reasons for risk homeostasis, yet also a reason why anytime a bad thing happens we are ready to believe the worst possible report. And of course, the news media engage in a social phenomenon of confusion promoted by dueling experts in litigation. “An incredible increase in litigation has caught more and more of the public’s attention. They see hired guns shooting their mouths off, contradicting each other, all the while apparently using the same data.”
What is happening more and more, especially in this time of Covid-19 is how one side (or more) of the discussion are actually being removed altogether in order to foster a singular perspective of one group of experts – this can be used to heighten fear while other times to remove the fear. The stuff from which conspiracy theories are derived with those supporting alternate perspectives being branded as quacks or simply as idiots. “As we have become wealthier and healthier, it is seductive to feel we have more to lose. This fear can transform into paranoia, an obsessive and acute awareness of being surrounded by risks beyond one’s control. To expect zero risk is to guarantee burning outrage. Pushing an image of a risk-free life is an open invitation to failure.”
“Mass mediated information from well-funded special interest groups plays a significant role in perceptions of ever-increasing danger. The message creation and delivery systems of interest groups have become more sophisticated. They can continually bring issues, both new and old, to our notice. And, the number of available channels available to spread information has increased exponentially. In short, we increasingly rely on others to tell us the truth. Indeed, it can be argued that we are so well-informed now from this broadening information base, that we become psychically paralyzed by the knowledge we possess. [Journalism researcher Garth] Wiebe gave this state of being the name ‘well-informed futility.’”
Sometimes I wonder if we are kept a little too safe? I look at how technology is managed in developing countries and smile at how ‘safe’ we expect our lives to be. One time when I was in Morocco, I saw an old Toyota pick-up truck driving up a mountain road, coming back from a mosque, and in the back bed of the truck stood 15 men getting a lift back up the hill to their homes. I look at film of people hanging outside train carriages in India and ponder at our differences in personal risk assessment. I actually have to wonder if we really do serious risk assessment for ourselves, merely accepting what we want to accept and complain about what we don’t, and put way to much faith in technocrats (the ‘experts’) to make those decisions for us. If we were serious about risks in our lives, we would make the effort to understand what risks really exists and which ‘experts’ are just bamboozling us to promote corporate and/or political agendas. Besides the list below, you might also ask, which perspectives are discounted or even denounced as conspiracy. Let me caution you that there is a lot of weird information out there so being discerning is important, but like good Pyrrho of Elis skepticism (See previous post Skepticism) weigh it all in the balance before discounting it.
“Anyone dealing with risk needs to understand the science behind the hazard as well as the level and qualities of outrage, or lack of, being exhibited.The following questions help when trying to understand the hazard aspect of risk.
- Is there enough information to make a valid decision?
- What data are missing?
- What additional data are needed before a sound decision can be made?
- Are assumptions used for decisions made explicit in the interpretation?
- Are the scientific methods and statistics appropriate for the data used?
- Are all the data open for full scrutiny?
- Have all possible alternatives been considered?
- Have criteria for selection or rejection been clearly outlined and explained?”
- What vested interests exist to have you outright believe or discount alternate perspectives.
To Be Continued …………………….
0 Comments