Zero-risk society

[Tortoise]

As WiseOne has pointed out a couple of times in the coronavirus thread, our society seems to be moving in the direction of zero risk tolerance. I.e., the traditional balance of risks and benefits is giving way to the avoidance of almost all risk -- even if it makes little sense from a risk management perspective.

Another example of this trend recently appeared: The rolling blackouts in California this past week.

Basically, the CAISO (the independent entity that oversees CA's power grid) has decided to mandate rolling blackouts throughout CA during the current heat wave, despite the grid having more than three times the minimum operating reserves (3%) listed by the CAISO. In other words, the CAISO's own rule is that they aren't supposed to initiate rolling blackouts until operating reserves dip below 3%, but in this case they really jumped the gun.

My hunch is that the CAISO did this to avoid blame or potential lawsuits in the off chance that the power grid suddenly were to get overloaded faster than they could react. The wildfire lawsuits that bankrupted PG&E last year probably reduced the CAISO's appetite for risk just a bit.

In 2020, it's all about avoiding blame and lawsuits. A zero-risk society. Welcome to the United States of Cover-Your-Ass!

[Xan]

The prospect of zero tolerance for risk is truly scary. A huge symptom of a decadent society in decline.

[yankees60]

An older article discussing the risk in the world...

Vinny

You live in a world full of risks. These are the biggest

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/ ... ign=buffer

[Mountaineer]

An older article discussing the risk in the world...

Vinny

You live in a world full of risks. These are the biggest

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/ ... ign=buffer

It is interesting to speculate about the assumptions (presuppositions) that went into some of the items on the impact/likelihood chart, and the agenda that drives those presuppositions. I'll offer a few:
1. Man is in control,
2. Science can "fix" most things,
3. Collateral damage minimally addressed (e.g. cost - and subsequent missed opportunity cost - of trying to fix a mostly naturally varying climate), and most importantly,
4. One can "fix" stupid.