Reflecting on Acceptable Risk, Technology, and Our Collective Responsibility
“Symmetry demands an actual + virtual future, too. We imagine how next week, next year or 2225 will shape up — a virtual future, constructed by wishes, prophecies + daydreams... Like Utopia, the actual future + the actual past exist only in the hazy distance, where they are no good to anyone.”
— David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas
How Many Ways Do We Try to Understand the Future?
When we assess risk, we often believe we've done everything to reduce it, but how certain are we? Do we know for a fact that risks are minimized? Are we acting on up-to-date insights or applying old assumptions to new realities? Most importantly: what is our collective risk tolerance?
In occupational health and safety, risk tolerance can be quantified. For example, the WHO's benchmark for lifetime exposure to carcinogens allows for a 1-in-a-million cancer risk. Translated to the EU, that means 510 individuals could be affected before action is deemed necessary. From a macro perspective, that may seem negligible. But from a micro level—when it's someone you know—it becomes deeply personal.
This issue compounds when we consider cumulative exposure to thousands of chemicals, often without evaluating their synergistic effects. So, how should we, as a society, approach such layered risks?
Environmental Risk in Practice: Oil Spills vs. Reactor Meltdowns
Let’s explore two examples of environmental risk with very different scopes:
1. Oil Spills at Petrol Stations
While a few drops of petrol during refueling seem insignificant, the aggregated effect at old stations leads to soil and groundwater contamination. Though the risk per event is low, constant repetition amplifies the environmental impact.
Regulations like the UK’s Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations 2014 now require containment and separation of runoff to prevent contamination. It took decades of spills before technology and policy caught up, highlighting how often we tolerate risks until long-term consequences force action.
2. Nuclear Reactor Meltdowns
Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima illustrate how high-impact, low-frequency events carry staggering costs. Billions of euros have been spent on remediation efforts, with consequences still unfolding decades later. Radiation-related deaths, environmental degradation, and the struggle to maintain secure containment remain pressing issues.
Even with radiation thresholds and exposure limits in place, the question remains: Is our risk assessment process realistic, or do we underestimate the low-probability, high-impact disasters? In the EU, the precautionary principle aims to prevent such harm. But are we following it strictly enough, especially when we face scientific uncertainty?
The Human Factor: What Do We Accept in the Name of Progress?
We cannot eliminate all risks, especially in complex systems like energy and industry. Yet, blindly accepting them because "we can't do better" can no longer be the default mindset.
During a conversation about Industry 4.0, a common fear arose: mass automation leading to unemployment. While some foresee social collapse, I see opportunity. Automation could free up resources to invest in:
- Education and care work
- Research into clean, risk-averse energy
- Community engagement and innovation
Rather than fearing what automation could take, we should ask what it could enable.
Shaping the Actual Future with Informed Awareness
Mitchell’s quote reminds us that our imagined future—our hopes, fears, and strategies—shapes what comes next. Let’s use this insight to:
- Be more realistic about the true scope of environmental and human risks
- Revisit what we deem “acceptable” in light of new data and technologies
- Prioritize investments in long-term resilience over short-term convenience
We are defined by the future we prepare for, not just the one we imagine.
Originally published on Medium: Read on Medium
