Hi David and all

In my mind I distinguish between the probability of something happening,
say that I will come to harm, and deciding that this is a risk. After
that I decide if it is an acceptable risk, necessary risk, unavoidable
risk, etc. I think we take the idea that harm equals risk for granted
probably in a pragmatic world quite rightly. But as this discussion has
already indicated physical harm is only one element of a complex idea.

That it is negotiated and on what terms does matter to me as a
developer. If a physical and literal possibility of harm is a risk the
basis on which I or the leader, or society decide it is worthwhile
matters. The value of risk taking has many interpretations and
constructions. Those around control and esteem are I believe flawed or
at best shallow answers to a deeper question. For now I want to stay
away from deep metaphor and stay with subjectivity of risk.

I agree that risk is the right word to use in your list of risk contexts
but again the cost may be clear but the benefit is hardly understood or
explored.

Lets take risk to the environment as an example. The environment doesn't
understand risk. It evolve and adapts according to circumstance. Any
change in the environment is judged risky or not in human terms because
it threatens our aesthetic sense of beauty or threatens our utilitarian
needs or challenges an ethic of biodiversity, etc, etc. What is at risk
is our value, our sense of what is good. This same understanding can be
applied to the value of any risk in any of the contexts you name. 

So perhaps this discussion might be about the right to decide what is
worthwhile. For me, as my understanding of the risk involved in any
action evolves and adapts to my inner and outer circumstances I would
claim to have the right to decide what is of value. Not the leader, nor
society. However that only applies to risks that are intended to be
personal risks. Many risks are not personal. What happens when we as
adventure leaders bring the personal riks in adventure into the social
world of education and training?

As a teacher in the past the risk was negotiated between me, the
children, their parents, the school and the authority. It was informed
consent between people who trusted and respected each other. When it
went 'wrong' (a student I taught to climb at school died climbing some
years after leaving school) the parents were concerned about my worries
about any responsibility and sort to reassure me.

Today we pack our kids off to distant centres where the only basis of
confidence is our professionalism demonstrated via licenses,
qualifications, track record, etc. It's a contractural arrangement not
based on trust and respect but contract, liability and these days
criminal law. So when it goes 'wrong' it is handled it the appropriate
way for the arrangement.

I wonder if adventure with real possibility of harm should be encouraged
in the latter world. Is it not best left in the former?

Chris Loynes



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%