The Polar Bear Strategy: Reflections on Risk in Modern Life by John Ross,
Perseus, $25, ISBN 0738201170
I鈥橵E just been listening to a member of the British chattering classes
broadcasting his views on genetically modified crops. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 care if
scientists tell me the risk of eating GM food is negligible,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 want
positive proof that it is safe.鈥� Everyone applauded.
My friend (his name doesn鈥檛 matter, many eloquent people voice similar
opinions) is going to lose a lot of weight if he reads John Ross鈥檚 reflections
on risk in modern life. For a start, he鈥檒l have to lay off cabbage, which
contains 49 different toxins. He鈥檒l also have to give up charcoal-grilled steaks
with their 鈥渂illions of atoms worth of benzopyrene鈥� and coffee 鈥渕ore than a
thousand chemicals鈥�, of which only 26 have been tested for carcinogenicity.
Oo-er.
Advertisement
Ross presents these facts, collected during an unsettling lunch with the
environmentally iconoclastic biologist Bruce Ames, as an argument for thinking
intelligently about risk. Grown-ups shouldn鈥檛 seek a risk-free existence, he
says in The Polar Bear Strategy. Rather, it鈥檚 up to us to 鈥渓earn the
language of risk鈥� and plan our lives accordingly.
Most of us have heard this sort of talk before, normally by blokes justifying
the purchase of an aggressive piece of risk-management hardware. You know the
line: 鈥淚t鈥檚 got enough acceleration to get me out of trouble鈥�, or 鈥淚 wouldn鈥檛
feel safe with anything less than a .38鈥�. Sure enough, Ross is the sort of chap
who climbs remote mountains, eats yak testicles (鈥渃hewy鈥�) and drinks fresh deer
blood (鈥渇rothy鈥�) with Siberian herdsmen.
The 鈥減olar bear strategy鈥� of the book鈥檚 title refers to a debate during an
Arctic expedition when no one could agree on how to carry the rifle brought
along for protection against bears. It ended up being stored unloaded, in one of
the packs, where it would have been useless in the event of attack.
Risk is a comparatively new concept, but it鈥檚 pivotal to the way we think
about the world. Ross dates it to 1670, with Pascal鈥檚 bet on the existence of
God. (Roughly speaking, that it鈥檚 worth believing in God because the effort is
minuscule compared with the chance of being rewarded with eternal life.
Philosophers still argue the toss, though I鈥檇 have thought that God would have
cottoned on by now.)
The idea that life鈥檚 risks are quantifiable has had far-reaching
consequences. It made capitalism possible and, according to Keith Thomas鈥檚
definitive Religion and the Decline of Magic, made the supernatural
redundant. We were better off buying an insurance policy than a magic charm.
Unfortunately, the Enlightenment didn鈥檛 see off all types of fuzzy thinking.
Some of them are all too apparent when Ross dips into the evolutionary
psychology of risk-taking.
He is convinced that individuals carry 鈥渧astly different鈥� responses to risk,
and is obsessed with asking why. Hey presto, a plausible biological link turns
up: 鈥淣ew research suggests that some of our predisposition or antagonism toward
risk is rooted in biological functions.鈥� So risk-takers were evolutionarily
useful in hunter-gatherer societies. Equally predictable is the meaningless
statement that 鈥渙n average, with everything else being equal, a woman will not
rank as high as a man on the sensation-seeking scale.鈥� Ross tempers his argument
with the usual disclaimers about averages and social factors, but hard science
it is not.
For all that, Ross is entertaining and thought provoking. In a world where a
radio disc jockey can solemnly announce, in the tones of someone passing on an
amazing revelation, that 鈥渟tatistically speaking, you鈥檙e more likely to die than
win the lottery鈥� any education on risk is very welcome. I鈥檒l certainly be
sending a copy to my chattering-class friend.