RISK FACTOR ________________     Definition: A risk is something that is usually taken: 1.    as part of an animal's on-going  evolution (no choice), 2.    something a human does without due regard to personal development (ignoring incoming data) (human choice), 3.    something a human does with reference to incoming data and extrapolation as to the consequences of that data (human         choice).     Risk is dependent on the data available to us, how it is processed by the mind, and subsequently acted upon with due regard to the possible consequences as far as they may be extrapolated.     Some risks are inherent in our nature as human animals. They must be taken with or without our consent.     LIFE ITSELF, IS A RISK.     In other words, we may be confronted with a situation about which we know little. How we react to it is dependent on the data we can glean about that situation and how we might react to it.     Risks are with us every day of our lives.     For example:     We risk not getting up in the morning, depending on the circumstances of the night before or what happens during the night about which we may have no choice.     We risk rising from our chair.     We risk danger in driving to work and so on.     Risk is with us all the time. It is what makes us human. To lessen a risk depends upon our incoming data and how we react to it. That data is personal.     Creating risks, is the domain of the fool-hardy and scare-mongers. These people have the data (which they have created) and which they claim as knowledge, with which to scare themselves, or others into believing that there are risks that are not even there in the first place.     If I personally, take a risk, I should be acquainted with all the data that is possible for me to get at the time. I know the risks of driving, I therefore try to avoid risks or at least be aware of them, so that I can act/react appropriately. I admit that this is sometimes difficult but heed is better than nothing. It reduces the risk (that of not knowing or having personal control over).     Without data we cannot create information. Data is not information; it creates information.     Taking risks without due thought to any incoming data can lead to disaster (the death, or injury, ultimately, of the risk-taker). People who take risks for a living, own their own subsequent living styles to the measure/s of that risk. Some people take pleasure in taking risks. They are often accounted as heroes; usually by those who would not consider them (the risks) in the first place. They are not scared, mostly, but possibly wise. Usually, also, they have some data about the risk but not all, therefore, they take what is known as 'calculated' risks. Be it on their head/s.     It's a risky World because we are in it (like it or not). The Earth is risky enough without others of our species who make it riskier. There are enough risks of our own without others putting in their own, for their own sake.     Would you approve of someone who wanted to put you at risk of death? I doubt it, but people do. They vote, for badness sake! There is no incoming data that is personally relevant. There's no data of the proclivities of these people you vote for. Then there's blame when the voting turns to data which turns out to be lies and risk-taking on the behalf of the voter.     What is a voter? A voter is a person who relinquishes the entitlement to be in personal control. A voter may have the best ideals but whom is distracted/detracted by the lies of those who presume to know better; those who have no experience or knowledge of those for whom they purport to 'lead'. Badness knows, these people should have been aborted before their first scan.     I have no problem with people who want to take risks without due thought  (those that 'apparently' take risks are usually those who have thought out the consequences, therefore, there is no risk). But leave me out of your calculations. With no thought, you could be in my risk area and I could die. I don't want to, yet. After-thoughts/words/ceremonies do not matter; I'm dead anyway and then, nothing matters.     We cannot wrap infants/'vulnerable' people into cocoons in a nannyistic State to reduce risks. This is crap.     To live our lives we must all take risks if we wish to survive. Survival is taking risks but with an amount of data which will limit those risks to manageable. Trying to reduce risks, with incongruous stupidities will not reduce them, it will, in my experience, only make them worse.        The notion of 'believe in yourself' might have become a cliché but that is what it is all about. It's all about personal responsibility. No matter what degree of 'brain dead' you might be and under whatever circumstances, you make decisions, they are yours. If you choose to procreate, then the decision for that is a combined one. You are then both responsible for the sibling you have created. It's then your responsibility to gather enough data to be able to help that sibling to maturity. It's not someone else's; it's yours.     One can only reduce risks of failure of some kind by researching data equivalent to that risk. No one can regulate that for you, only proffer data and support. Given that, it is your responsibility, no guilt, no blame. Make a wrong choice, you need support and advice, perhaps.     Personal experience shows that you can rely on no-one else. Only you are inside your head (as a colleague observed). If you allow others to invade this, it's your decision, no one is forcing you; and then it is your choice and only you are responsible.     If by some means others force you, then you are no longer yourself, and that is very sad. It happens to a lot of people. You must find ways of getting out of the situations.     Personal behaviours cannot really be changed. They might be modified by threats, coercion, bullying or other means but in the end, they destroy what is you as a person. Some of this modification may be reversed but in essence, you are no longer yourself. This is the sad way that humans treat humans (and other animals).     Realising this, is data for you to digest. Realising this, is data to make you aware of your own personality, which is invariably 'good'.     It is your personal responsibility (should you so wish) to allow/disallow incoming data to affect your personality. 'Only I am me', I wrote in the 1970's in a poem. If you allow incoming data that is not personally researched but merely imported into your mind as printed words or television pictures and words as they appear, then you have failed in your responsibility to yourself and any others for whom you choose to have a responsibility. The same notion also goes for those persons who choose to live on their own. Without personal research, accepting the values and truths of others is denigrating the one thing you personally have, your own integrity, your own personality, which is as valid as anyone else's (despite whatever else they might claim to be otherwise).     None of us asked to be here. We are all the consequence of the sexual reproduction of our species. There is no fault, no blame.     But being here, as our progenitors were, we have a responsibility given to us to survive. The responsibility is inherent, it is not given by anybody (unless you believe in some form of amorphous omniscience). Thus, no fault, no blame.     All of us have disabilities, more or less. Even with modern technology we cannot determine the outcome of a birth as 'perfect-for-the-rest-of-your-life'. Without intervention, dear old 'Mother Nature' deals with these things in her own way; it's just that Man plays 'god'.     No one will ever know what will happen next in their lives. This is the risk factor. Without it, we would not have been human. Without it, dinosaurs would not be what they were, or still are, if birds still fly.     Reducing risks is great, up to a point.     However, obviating risks is a personal issue. It depends on the research data that is available for the person concerned. The more data, the more truths available.     Legislating against risks is non-productive, except in lawyer's terms because laws need to be enforced and they can only be enforced by bullying. Thus litigation for reasons of personal gain, will eventually fail. The problem with laws, is that they are global. They take no account of anything between the polarities of 'yes' or 'no'. Thus they impinge on everyone and no-one.     Rules, on the other hand, are local. The consequences are local and therefore meaningful because they can be enforced. Being philosophical about this is unproductive. It's a mind-exercise from which little can come about.     No fault, no blame.     If I do something, of my own accord, without reference to warnings against, then who is to blame? Only me. It was my choice, my responsibility, my loss. Tough.     If suitable warnings were not forthcoming, I should know better than to perform an act which was potentially dangerous to my person. Do it? My choice, my responsibility to myself (and possibly others) as survivor.     Living, is getting on with things. Worrying, is not getting on with things. Worrying about risks and how to prevent them, is a matter of getting on with accumulating personal data.     Living is getting on with things for yourself. That done, you will automatically be of use to others. If you can't have or take personal control over situations, you are wasting your life. We can only have control over local activities, not global ones. If some despot wants to blow up the World, it will be done despite anything you can do. Better get on with your life.

Return to CONTENTS page