Last broadcast’s Coherence Metric score was 3.758 ,placing it #9 overall! To understand what the Coherence Metric score is, check it out here :)
Hello everyone, today’s broadcast is about the idiom ‘better safe than sorry’, the idea that it’s better to spend time and resources now to do preventative measures rather than potentially suffer consequences later. The idiom is probably the reason insurance companies exist, and is often cited as a source of motivation for many of the actions we take during the day. But how far can we take it? How far until being ‘safe’ is not worth it?
And if ‘better safe than sorry’, why is it that we never apply this idiom to macro-issues such as pandemics, disasters or climate change. The fact that preventative measures always seem to be taken after the fact, in case it happens again, deserves some investigation.
Benefits of Preparedness
Preparedness does have it’s obvious benefits- spend a little time and resources now, and then benefit in the future by not having to suffer as much, if at all. Even just a little bit of effort now can provide dividends in the future. The cost of this effort is likely to be lower now, as trying to do the same thing later when it is obviously necessary.
The prices or costs would be higher as either more people would be wanting to do the same, driving prices up, or morally questionable companies or people would see that they could squeeze customers by raising the price. Imagine how hard or how little relative demand there was for a mask before the Covid-19 pandemic- during it some masks costs as much as 8 euros (~$9, or £7) EACH.
Being prepared and it paying off can bring a huge reputational boost, especially for public figures. Preparation can ensure that your future actions or leadership are more effective, and providing effective leadership or actions in times of crisis can often immortalize you in the eyes of the public. It gives off an air of seriousness and competency, a bright spark on someone’s legacy.
For instance, Churchill will always be a household historical figure, partially due to his insistence of the the impending Nazi threat despite the offical line of thinking of Appeasement, and subsequent leadership of Great Britain.
If Good, Why not Done?
If the benefits of preparedness are so obvious, and potentially huge, why is it not done as often as one might think? One key aspect is the word ‘potentially’- in a world of gambles, these bets may just not be worth it:
Sure, being prepared for a tsunami or another disaster may have benefits, but only if the disaster actually occurs. The problem with things like these is the timing of it all: Disasters may occur decades or years into the future, but a politicians tenure may only last for years at most- What good does it serve them by spending money and resources on something, when that something is likely to occur way after they have left office? Let that be someone else’s problem.
It’s just an adult’s version of musical chairs, hot potato or act of kicking the can down the road: you just pray that when the music stops, or when its your turn to kick the can, you are safely on a chair or there is plenty of road left to kick the can into.
Prevention also isn’t about gain, its more about preventing loss: Not a very appealing statement. Many would rather use the money in the hopes of gaining more, rather than potentially saving themselves more in certain scenarios. ‘Loss Aversion’ (we covered another angle of this phenomenon in a previous broadcast), where losses have a larger psychological impact than gains of equal value also plays a part here. Most people would rather take the gamble of future losses, against a sure loss now: preventative measures are often seen as a ‘loss’ as one can’t strictly ‘benefit’ from an investment into precautions.
Neglected Preparedness- Maintenance
Maintenance is often one of the first things in line to be cut down or slashed when companies or governments try to find ways to cut costs. Maintenance has all the symptoms of preparedness- there is no promise of future profit, prevents something from happening way past one’s tenure, and it’s hard to see or feel its exact benefit.
This can be seen in infrastructure maintenance, where there are visible deficiencies all across the globe:
→ In the USA, 1 in 5 miles of road are considered to be 'in poor condition', and 7.5% of the nation’s bridges, are considered structurally deficient.
→ In Germany, 12.4% of road bridges were considered to be in poor condition, while 7% of road bridges in France are considered to have 'serious damage', with risks leading to collapse.
→ The average age of big dams in Japan is 100, where dams are considered at an 'alert' age threshold. Over 1,000 big dams in India will be over 50 years old in the next couple of years.
Building new stuff is legacy building- photos are taken, you get to use big golden scissors to cut a red ribbon. There is no fanfare with allocation a part of a budget to maintenance, to ensure someone else’s legacy remains standing.
Being Safe can be sorry
If preparedness is taken too far, it can lead to sorry outcomes regardless. I remember as a child, monkey bars used to be a playground favourite- lining up to take turns, see who could go the further, exerting serious effort in other to reach the other side.
However, over the years there has been a push the years to remove these 'dangerous' pieces of equipment off playgrounds. Higher safety regulations, and trigger-happy litigious parents have made it harder to keep the bars around. Sure, kids are now more 'safe’, and the ‘sorry’ has been avoided, but such kind of prevention raises more issues than it creates: many argue that it’s best for kids to figure the world of risk for themselves, and taking away their chance to navigate for themself halts their development.
Determining ‘safe’
Who determines what is ‘safe’? In the example of the monkey bars, parents, adults and governing bodies have determined the best preventative measure against playground injuries. But often what you see when people make decisions for others is that they reach for the most extreme for of preventative and preparedness measures: an outright ban- after, the best preparedness is no preparedness, that way there’s nothing that might come to bite you in the future.
But is this a necessary evil? Surely there’s a better alternative? Trying to prevent any possible risk by bubble wrapping yourself before leaving the house doesn’t sound like the optimal way to live. One can’t prevent all the risks this world sets out, so maybe the way is to stay ready, and not let the risks paralyze you. After all, if there’s anything to be learned from finance, where there’s risk, there’s possibility of reward.
Some say that in an ideal world, you would be prepared for every eventuality, but more and more I’m tempted to push back- being prepared for every eventuality, trying to preemptively deal with any risk, you actually inadvertently lead to new risks being created- Not only the risk of boredom from not being able to be surprised by any unexpected events, but also the risk of it all not being worth it:
what use is a world that doesn’t propel you forward or push you back? Moving up or down in this world, at least you can know that moving upwards is possible. By setting up, fortifying yourself with preparedness and facing all your fears and risks, you turn your back on all opportunities, rewards and progress that you might have enjoyed.
Make sure to give this broadcast a coherence score!
That’s all from me for now, but stay tuned for future broadcasts,
This has been Kunga’s Written Radio,
Check out last week’s broadcast here
→