Hello David, Chris and all  - Just a quick two points :-

- If all risk is "subjective" ( and I do not argue against this) then the
question becomes just what is "subjectivity" ! I suspect we have a little
debate here then in the making and that could be lots of fun.

- Thanks to you David - it has been your comments that have made this little
discussion get going. You have not tried to lead this discussion down the same
old worn paths of either officialdom or will-be-must-be "positioning". Thanks

best wishes
steve bowles

DCrossland wrote:

> Hello Chris, Steve and everyone,
>
> It begins to seem to me as though (certainly in terms of what Chris
> describes as personal risk) risk, loss, benefit and value are all
> interlinked and that we are saying that all risk is subjective because all
> risk involves a balance of potential loss against potential benefit where
> the value of what may be lost or gained is personal (or perhaps it is our
> values that have the most to lose or gain?). After all in a world where
> life has no meaning death is no great loss.
>
> As regards your closing point Chris I must admit I found the question
> initially shocking. Having worked, like you in the former world of informed
> consent and mutual trust (to a great extent I still do) I think I want to
> hold onto adventure with a real possibility of harm as something valuable
> (in the right context). However I feel the pressures of an increasingly
> litiginous, 'blame culture' with a society that seems to believe in the
> possibility of zero risk adventure (why it accepts such horrendous risks in
> terms of road travel yet expects perfectly safe adventure I don't know!). I
> do think you are right though, that without the informed consent and the
> trust the whole area takes on a different character.
> The answer, if there is one, will I suppose depend on the present and
> future adventure leaders and their clients judgement of what is worthwhile.
> For the present I will continue to believe that my job, as an adventure
> leader, is to lead people towards independance in the hills/ on the water
> which will always contain the possibility of harm.
>
> I suppose my answer to Steve's question would be Thoreau's old chestnut
> about coming to the end of life and realising that I had not lived. For me
> the search for authentic existence involves adventure, novelty, growth and,
> therefore, risk. If Whitehead and Hartshorne are right and all existence is
> process rather than being then risk is fundamental to existence - hence
> Whitehad's oft quoted distum that 'without adventure civilisation is in
> full decay'
>
> Thanks for making me think - a nice change after spending so long outside
> doing!
>
> David
>
> At 12:41 20/02/00 +0000, Chris Loynes wrote:
> >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
> >
> >
> >





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