We must begin our serious discussion of fatal risks from the basic premise that we may need to change our strategies.
Some people cannot escape the concept of balance when thinking about risks.
Balance refers to a rational strategy when there's a loss on one side and a benefit on the other.
It aims to balance both sides by giving a slight advantage to the benefits. If that balance can be maintained over time, even if losses occur occasionally, it indicates that overall gain is being achieved.
This model cannot handle fatal risks. Balance should only be considered a rational strategy if even a partial failure allows for an overall benefit. Walking a dangerous path with a cliff on the right side, in the name of maintaining balance, is not a rational strategy. It's reckless and by no means rational.
The term balance becomes a misstep when it comes to fatal risks. The wise do not approach fatal risks.
Some people cannot escape the concept of risk management when thinking about risks.
Risk management refers to a rational strategy that involves managing the likelihood and impact of risks to minimize them while maximizing benefits.
If you manage to minimize risks and maximize benefits, you can eventually gain significant benefits. This way of thinking assumes that even if the minimized risk materializes, it's acceptable as long as the expected value favors benefits.
This model also cannot handle fatal risks. When risks materialize, no matter how much profit is made, it will always end up as a loss. Even if the risk probability is low, it's challenging to quantify the impact of fatal risks. Therefore, we cannot calculate the expected value. Thus, dealing with fatal risks through risk management is not a rational strategy. It's arrogant and by no means rational.
The term risk management becomes a misstep when it comes to fatal risks. The wise do not approach fatal risks.
Some people cannot escape the concept of risk minimization when thinking about risks.
The idea is that it's good if risks can be minimized. However, this way of thinking lacks the concept of reducing risks to zero.
Fatal risks demand that risk zero is the baseline. If you cannot reduce fatal risks to zero, it should not be because you desire benefits. That would lead to the misstep named risk management. The only cases in which fatal risks cannot be reduced to zero are when other fatal risks increase. Only when suppressing other fatal risks does taking on fatal risks become rational.
By excluding benefits not involving fatal risks and considering other fatal risks, minimizing overall fatal risks becomes a rational strategy.
The term risk minimization becomes a misstep when faced with a single fatal risk. The wise only consider risk minimization when facing multiple fatal risks.
Sometimes people say that achieving risk zero is difficult. Indeed, it is difficult. But if we look at that fatal risk alone, it's not impossible. If we don't take the risk, the risk of the adventure is zero.
On the other hand, some people suggest that we should strive to keep fatal risks from materializing by controlling them. However, it's almost never guaranteed that we can control everything completely. Overlooking risk modes, human errors, and the emergence of unexpected new risks make it nearly impossible to handle everything flawlessly in most cases.
We need to focus on the gap between the words difficult and impossible. They are entirely different. Difficulties can be overcome. But what is impossible cannot be made possible. This difference is vast. Exceedingly so.
Therefore, while the difficulty of avoiding risk and the impossibility of full risk control may seem similar in wording, it's crucial to understand that there's a decisive break between them in reality.
The Dichotomy between Logical Impossibility and Empirical Impossibility
There are two types of 'impossible': logically impossible and empirically impossible.
In the case of logical impossibility, it is absolutely never possible.
However, empirical impossibility might be logically possible. The probability is not zero. In other words, it can be rephrased as 'difficult'.
The dichotomy between these two types of impossibility is larger than the impression of the word itself. Therefore, when faced with the word 'impossible', it's essential to clearly distinguish between these two.
When it's difficult to both cease the adventure to make the existential risk zero and also take measures while adventuring to make the existential risk zero, the best strategy becomes to exert effort on both fronts.
In particular, the effort to stop the adventure is important. Stopping the adventure is essentially a one-time difficulty. On the other hand, taking measures while continuing the adventure is an endlessly continuing effort, where the risk is always required to be kept at zero. Clearly, the former is a more rational risk measure.
Judgment by Values, Decision by Resolve, or a Strategy of Ignoring
On the other hand, we are frequently exposed to fatal risks with very low probabilities in our daily lives. We don't always act based solely on risk rationality.
When we cross the street, get in a car, train, airplane, or boat, enjoy sports or outdoor activities, or enjoy alcohol and delicious food. When we go to unknown places or intentionally ignore the doctor's advice. We expose ourselves to fatal risks with minute probabilities.
This is different from risk balance or risk management. It's likely one of the following three:
Even if our lifespan might be shortened a bit, enjoying alcohol and delicious food is part of life. Sports, outdoor activities, and visiting unknown places enrich our lives. What's the point of living long by giving up enjoyment? We take risks with such a value perspective on life and enjoyment.
Decision by Resolve
Getting on an airplane can be a little nerve-wracking and scary. However, if something happens, so be it. Although it might be small, we take risks based on such resolve.
A Strategy of Ignoring
Living while considering all risks is difficult. Humans are not made to live while paying attention to all worries. Risks with minute probabilities associated with things everyone does as a matter of course, or things repeated many times in the past, have become invisible. We expose ourselves to fatal risks with such a strategy.
The above is the basic literacy we should understand beforehand when thinking about fatal risks.
With this literacy as a prerequisite, we can finally have a sincere discussion about risks. Especially in the case of fatal risks, if we don't base our discussions on this literacy, we will not be able to communicate effectively.
Bringing up balance, risk management, and risk minimization in discussions as if they were rational strategies, while having this literacy, is neither wise nor conscientious. Also, discussing difficulties and impossibilities as if they were on the same level is neither rational nor responsible.
If an adventure is absolutely necessary, we need to ask those affected by the fatal risks for judgments based on their values and decisions based on their resolve. Of course, based on the concept of informed consent, it's a prerequisite to carefully and clearly explain what we know and what we don't know about the risks.
Neglecting this, venturing on our own judgment, or pretending to be responsibly handling risks with expressions like balance, risk management, and risk minimization, is undoubtedly an act against ethics.
The former violates respect for human rights, while the latter violates the duty of care of a good administrator.
