Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The limits of catastrophe aversion.

Martin Peterson1

  • 1Philosophy Unit, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. martinp@infra.Kth.se

Risk Analysis : an Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis
|June 29, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Australia II: A Case Study in Engineering Ethics.

Science and engineering ethics·2024
Same author

Value Change, Energy Systems, and Rational Choice: The Expected Center of Gravity Principle.

Science and engineering ethics·2023
Same author

The Ethics of Technology: Response to Critics.

Science and engineering ethics·2018
Same author

Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent.

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis·2017
Same author

Introduction: Values and norms in modeling.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2014
Same author

Nuclear power is neither right nor wrong: the case for a tertium datur in the ethics of technology.

Science and engineering ethics·2013

This study explores managing catastrophe risks, defining catastrophes and introducing decision rules. It finds that rigid catastrophe aversion rules are inconsistent and proposes a non-rigid alternative.

Area of Science:

  • Decision Theory
  • Risk Management
  • Theoretical Economics

Background:

  • Catastrophe risks pose significant challenges to traditional decision-making frameworks.
  • Existing approaches to catastrophe aversion, such as maximin and precautionary principles, have limitations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To theoretically analyze the management of catastrophe risks.
  • To formally define 'catastrophe' and establish criteria for aversion.
  • To propose an alternative framework for catastrophe-averse decision-making.

Main Methods:

  • Formal and informal definition of catastrophe.
  • Introduction and analysis of desiderata for catastrophe-averse decision rules.
  • Identification of inconsistencies in proposed desiderata.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The desiderata for rigid catastrophe aversion are mutually inconsistent.
  • Rigid approaches like maximin and maximum probable loss rules are problematic.
  • An alternative, non-rigid form of catastrophe aversion is considered.

Conclusions:

  • Rigid catastrophe aversion strategies are theoretically untenable due to inherent inconsistencies.
  • A shift towards non-rigid catastrophe aversion is necessary for effective risk management.
  • Further research should explore the implications and applications of non-rigid aversion.