Risk versus Uncertainty

I have read the book Radical Uncertainty: Decision Making Beyond the Numbers by Mervyn King & John Kay. As the title suggests, it talks about radical uncertainty. What is uncertainty? Its definition is simple: any uncertain knowledge. But there are two types of uncertainty:

·         Risk: Measurable or resolvable uncertainty. Probability calculations can be applied. Example: the outcome of a roulette or lottery game. Problems of this type can be called puzzles. Phenomena of this type are stationary (their properties do not change over time).

·         Radical uncertainty: Uncertainty that is not measurable. It arises when there is obscurity, ignorance, vagueness, ambiguity, ill-defined problems, lack of information. It cannot be described by probability calculations. Problems of this type can be called mysteries. Phenomena of this type are usually not stationary.

The ethical frameworks in technology

Chernobyl disaster

Oxford Languages gives the following two definitions to the word Ethics:

Moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

The branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

The Wikipedia gives the following definition:

A branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.

Since Aristotle wrote two (or three) books on ethics (the Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, and perhaps the Magna Moralia or Great Ethics), ethics has been considered an important part of philosophy.

Traditionally, three main approaches have been considered (there are more) that can serve as a framework for the construction of ethics:

Zero risk does not exist

No entry: radiation risk

We would like to live in a world where we run no risks, but that is impossible. Whenever we get into a car, cross the street, turn on the gas, or play sports, we run a risk. The most elementary acts of our life entail a risk: breathing polluted air; getting exposed to the natural radioactivity in buildings; passing under a roof just when a tile is falling down... We have always known that life is synonymous with danger, and we have adapted to that. In our time, however, it seems that the threshold of risk we are willing to tolerate has fallen down. In other words: we are now more cowardly.

The media are largely to blame. Trying to attract readers and increase their profits, they often encourage states of opinion close to panic. We can see it in the way many news are presented, especially those affecting health (mad cow syndrome, bird flu, SARS, type A influenza, whatever...); the viability of human life on Earth (global warming, collision with an asteroid); or the economy (times of crisis). Many of these threats are real, but they are systematically exaggerated.