Risks & Consequences

Many risk-takers like to insist that there should be no limit on what they do because “it’s their business and everyone else should leave them alone”.  But does it not become a matter for other people too if the risk in question could be detrimental to their wellbeing?

Risk taking in the midst of this Covid-19 pandemic has reminded everyone how the behaviour of some can seriously endanger others.  Getting close to others without wearing a protective mask, coughing in proximity to others, turning down opportunities to receive the approved vaccine – can all spread a potentially deadly infection to others while remaining asymptomatic oneself.  Simply focusing on the risk to oneself is clearly inadequate when the probability of dire consequences for others cannot be morally ignored.

 

But risk taking is not just a problem in relation to an infectious disease.  It occurs in all spheres of life, and society needs to take a much closer look at the possible consequences and consider what protective action should be taken.

 

For example, when people get routinely drunk, drive without wearing a seatbelt, or gamble away funds others rely on, it is not just the direct harm they may cause others that is of concern, but the costs in terms of rescue and healthcare that they expect society to bear on their behalf.  Private insurance premiums go up for people who smoke or leave their property unsafe, but in public policy, risk-takers often expect others to foot the bill for their reckless behaviour.

 

It is time we adopt a more coherent approach to curtailing irresponsible risk taking.  This should have three components.  First, evidence-based information and transparency that will ensure people understand the implications of the risks they might take.  What this covers may range from excessive gambling and borrowing from loan sharks that will very probably lead to disastrous consequences for one and one’s family; to voting for politicians/policies that would bring social and economic ruin to one’s country.  If people truly understand the dangers they are risking, more of them might pull back from the brink.

 

Secondly, those who, despite knowing the negative consequences their risky activities could bring, persist with them, will need to be made responsible so they either desist or have to pay to cover the damages.  Anyone addicted to gambling could be required to put an increasingly large proportion of their bets towards an insurance scheme that would provide financial compensation if necessary, while reducing the amount going to the betting companies.  Corporations that wilfully pollute the environment should be made to pay for dealing with the damages caused.

 

Thirdly, there will be cases where the risks are so high and the potential harm so severe, that the activities in question should be stopped outright.  There is no reason why some self-styled ‘business genius’ should be able to keep borrowing money to start businesses that, after they have paid themselves a fortune, are wound up with countless workers and suppliers left without pay.  The same goes for financial institutions that take the savings from ordinary families and gamble the money on high risk lending that could (and has been found to) leave major shortfalls that either wipe out individuals’ savings or require public funds to bail them out.  Such activities should be outlawed.

 

Viewed against the background of great explorers and brave adventurers, risk-taking might be seen as something to be glorified.  But in truth, not all risk-taking is worthy of celebrating, and many are plainly wrong-headed and irredeemably harmful.  We need to see bad risk-taking for what it is, and bring in the necessary measures to curtail it.