Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

No Risk Society

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 3:48:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A million years ago when at Boston College I studied this idea of a no risk society, and that was the direction we were going. It wasn't a favorable prediction for the future, and much of the cautions that I studied are now our reality. Oddly enough I cannot find my books on the subject.

Our society continues to try and mitigate as much risk for the individual as possible in every way possible. It's normal to want to reduce your exposure to unnecessary risk, but is it normal to create a society where the individual has a constant security net beneath him, removing the risks of living as it once was? Taking great calculated gambles in life is generally when great advances and profits are made in life. Is this normal for the human animal to live in a society where risks are constantly being removed or mitigated? Is it good for the individual to walk through life knowing he is ultimately being taken care of by the state?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 3:53:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I honestly think that if we become that safe and sure, there will be nothing more to advance. I see no harm in this.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*cough* Uh, why was my post deleted?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:25:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:20:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
*cough* Uh, why was my post deleted?

Heh heh, I removed the thread because I put it in the wrong forum by accident, and c/p to this forum, your post was a casualty.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:26:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 3:53:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I honestly think that if we become that safe and sure, there will be nothing more to advance. I see no harm in this.

Do they still read 1984 in school?
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:36:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh. I was thinking you were some sort of Stalinist Marxist fascist SS Gestapo Hitler Nazi.

Let it be known that the fascists sent me home when I was eight years old for pointing a gun-finger at the teacher.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:36:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 3:48:00 PM, innomen wrote:
A million years ago when at Boston College I studied this idea of a no risk society, and that was the direction we were going. It wasn't a favorable prediction for the future, and much of the cautions that I studied are now our reality. Oddly enough I cannot find my books on the subject.

Our society continues to try and mitigate as much risk for the individual as possible in every way possible. It's normal to want to reduce your exposure to unnecessary risk, but is it normal to create a society where the individual has a constant security net beneath him, removing the risks of living as it once was? Taking great calculated gambles in life is generally when great advances and profits are made in life. Is this normal for the human animal to live in a society where risks are constantly being removed or mitigated? Is it good for the individual to walk through life knowing he is ultimately being taken care of by the state?

That doesn't sound favorable at all.

There's two implications to reductions in risk.

The first, is financial risk. Removing financial risk form a single person or entity simply displaces it to another single person or group of people. In the case of society, that usually means that society fronts the bill. This becomes a serious problem when it comes to entities, because they're an amalgamation of people dealing with large amounts of money with the intention of risk. What results are people with large amounts of money and influence making money purely on the basis of their decisions, with little to no investment. it creates a distinction between certain types of affluence, which is why some people can have wildly fluctuating finances, while others seem outright untouchable.

The second, is general risk. The capacity to assume risk is directly proportional to how much responsibility you have for yourself, which is proportional to how much power and control you have over yourself. Thus, to relinquish a degree of risk, is also to diminish a degree of power and liberty. Take, for example, children, who are considered largely unaccountable for themselves, their actions, and their general well-being (and even the well-being of others, to an extent). This is actually due to the fact that they have almost no rights and are left under the dominion on those who assume that accountability, whether it's their parents or the state. Another example are those that are considered completely independent -- entirely accountable for risk and activity, but at liberty to take any action they choose.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:29:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:26:50 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/2/2012 3:53:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I honestly think that if we become that safe and sure, there will be nothing more to advance. I see no harm in this.

Do they still read 1984 in school?

Ya, surprisingly
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:28:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:36:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/2/2012 3:48:00 PM, innomen wrote:
A million years ago when at Boston College I studied this idea of a no risk society, and that was the direction we were going. It wasn't a favorable prediction for the future, and much of the cautions that I studied are now our reality. Oddly enough I cannot find my books on the subject.

Our society continues to try and mitigate as much risk for the individual as possible in every way possible. It's normal to want to reduce your exposure to unnecessary risk, but is it normal to create a society where the individual has a constant security net beneath him, removing the risks of living as it once was? Taking great calculated gambles in life is generally when great advances and profits are made in life. Is this normal for the human animal to live in a society where risks are constantly being removed or mitigated? Is it good for the individual to walk through life knowing he is ultimately being taken care of by the state?

That doesn't sound favorable at all.

There's two implications to reductions in risk.

The first, is financial risk. Removing financial risk form a single person or entity simply displaces it to another single person or group of people. In the case of society, that usually means that society fronts the bill. This becomes a serious problem when it comes to entities, because they're an amalgamation of people dealing with large amounts of money with the intention of risk. What results are people with large amounts of money and influence making money purely on the basis of their decisions, with little to no investment. it creates a distinction between certain types of affluence, which is why some people can have wildly fluctuating finances, while others seem outright untouchable.

The second, is general risk. The capacity to assume risk is directly proportional to how much responsibility you have for yourself, which is proportional to how much power and control you have over yourself. Thus, to relinquish a degree of risk, is also to diminish a degree of power and liberty. Take, for example, children, who are considered largely unaccountable for themselves, their actions, and their general well-being (and even the well-being of others, to an extent). This is actually due to the fact that they have almost no rights and are left under the dominion on those who assume that accountability, whether it's their parents or the state. Another example are those that are considered completely independent -- entirely accountable for risk and activity, but at liberty to take any action they choose.

Although both forms of your risk mitigation concern me, it is the latter that seems to permeate society with the mask of good intentions. You are correct in that the more assistance and even dependence you receive from someone or something the greater control they have over you, and you have thus fewer freedoms.

But even more than that, or equal to that, is creating a society that is risk adverse is an impediment to our advancement. So many of the great leaps forward, and many of the small steps forward involved massive risk, and in many cases deaths. Our frontiers were explored by those willing to put their lives in jeopardy; the pilgrims came here at such risk half of them died within a year or so. I can remember the Challenger disaster happening, and ironically enough I was in college studying this stuff at the time. - These risks are what pull us forward, and now we're creating a society where you are going to be protected by a large entity, so that you don't order something that has the wrong number of calories. When I was growing up there was a daily threat of nuclear war, and I'm not saying this was good, but it certainly did remove any pretense that you would be safe no matter what.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:13:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like Risk. Best game ever.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 6:35:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sometimes I wonder just how much society's removal of risks will play into the evolution of human beings as a species. It seems like there is no going back at this point unless technologies are forgotten in some kind of major catastrophe. But that seems unlikely. If something is powerful enough to wipe out all record of advanced technology, we'd probably be gone with it.

Anyway, to the point: this is what is most worrisome to me about our anal-retentive mitigation of risks. I would be lying if I said I didn't appreciate it- I like being safe. But it seems as if humans are becoming softer simply because they can. Over thousands and thousands of years, it seems as if this would play some kind of a role in our genes. In numerous ways society and agriculture already have, but we've only just begun this type of society recently (being extremely disconnected from the Earth and the natural risks of just generally being a living creature in the world) and it's effect on the human body would make for an interesting twist on the nature vs nurture debate, wouldn't it?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:08:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well fewer and fewer Americans are getting vaccinated so maybe we will have some natural selection.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:09:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:08:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Well fewer and fewer Americans are getting vaccinated so maybe we will have some natural selection.

We can only hope, bluesteel.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:10:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:09:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:08:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Well fewer and fewer Americans are getting vaccinated so maybe we will have some natural selection.

We can only hope, bluesteel.

Annoying misconception of natural selection, but I suppose it was a joke.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:16:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:10:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/3/2012 10:09:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:08:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Well fewer and fewer Americans are getting vaccinated so maybe we will have some natural selection.

We can only hope, bluesteel.

Annoying misconception of natural selection, but I suppose it was a joke.

haha I would be glad to see the vaccine-phobia gene die out.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:18:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Supposedly the measles is selecting for intelligence.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:20:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:16:43 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/3/2012 10:10:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/3/2012 10:09:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:08:46 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Well fewer and fewer Americans are getting vaccinated so maybe we will have some natural selection.

We can only hope, bluesteel.

Annoying misconception of natural selection, but I suppose it was a joke.

haha I would be glad to see the vaccine-phobia gene die out.

Don't think it exists. But since most of the irrational left seem to believe this stuff, I say go for it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 9:20:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would not being allowed the play tennis in the rain at school fall into this category? Because that really pissed me off the other day. It was drizzling.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena