Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Mark W. says:
>I don't agree with your part about "to maximize safety -- is
> *always* the primary goal". I believe that there comes a point
>of diminishing return. Where maximum safety adversely affects
>the ability to achieve original objectives.
Yes -- precisely! Your "point of diminishing return" is, if I'm reading you
correctly, where the interest of safety prevents *much/any* results:
"Nothing ventured (risked), nothing gained."
My statement that "maximizing safety is the primary goal" comes from the
common acceptance that *self-preservation* is the absolutely strongest
impulse in Nature, among all species.(Sure, now and then we see that the
motivation of self-promotion sometimes exceeds that of self-preservation,
but that's another thread. ;-) )
So, "naturally", we'd *all* be better off to stay in bed. But -- we don't.
We have "other" goals (what Mark refers to above as "original objectives")
that can/may override the primary/primal instinct for self-preservation --
and as soon as we act to achieve those goals we assume some level of
"risk."
To a diver, the goals carry assumed/perceived benefits (that new discovery,
that world-record, that ship's bell, that magazine cover photo), and the
value to the diver (which is entirely subjective/personal) of those
benefits determines the level of risk s/he is willing to undertake: to get
some food, I could easily pick an apple from a tree -- or, I could jump on
a horse naked and, armed with nothing but a bow and some arrows, gallop
headlong into a pissed off herd of buffalo -- and maybe eat steak!
I could make a warm water shallow reef dive -- or a deep,long, mix,
solo/team, oc/rebreather, photo/mapping/collecting penetration, etc. I can
do *everything* possible to maximize safety ("Safe? You're stupid not to be
safe." -- John Comley) but not necessarily/at all have reduced the *risk*.
This seems to be a contradiction -- and much confusion (pissing) comes out
of that seeming contradiction. As soon as your head is under water, you're
at risk, and that risk continues until you're out of the water. How *safe*
you make the experience of being under water (taking the risk) is a matter
of how well you stack the possibility of returning to a no-risk state.
Managing the risk well (effectively minimizing threats to safety) includes
taking the best steps to insure achieving the goal/benefit *in spite of*
the danger (by maximizing skills, phys. cond., equip., strategy, etc.) --
or may include backing off from the goal, setting a lower-risk/safer goal.
"Lower" and "safer" are not necessarily value judgements here. Some call
the reduction of risk, by any available method, "weenie-ism." We obviously
don't all place the same value on subjecting ourselves to risks. Sometimes
high risks have high (subjective and/or popular) value.
In either case (whether "going for it", or instead, lowering the goal), a
diver makes his/her *own* judgement -- something that *no one* else is
qualified to make *for you* -- and that's what is meant by
*responsibility*, ie. making *the best possible* risk management decisions
for yourself.
There seems to be no argument against the notion that experience, good
training, good role models, learning by the example of others' experience,
etc. are all excellent ways (esp. when combined) to be more responsible,
make better/more informed judgements, and be a better diver. And once you
really are a better diver, proceed to *safely* increase the risk level of
your dives.
A talented person advances in developing skills quickly. When a musician,
the ability to make the correct sounds very early in a career is wonderful.
But there's little risk sitting at a piano. In diving, a talented diver may
get all the moves down quickly ( and with the bucks and visits to web
sites, get all the "right" gear too). But having the moves/equipment ain't
the same as having the experience, and the judgement that comes with it, to
actually be safe during risk situations. In skydiving we used to call the
talented (and well-equipped) but green jumpers "hundred jump wonders." To
be encouraged -- but also requiring special attention, because the
likelihood of their making rash (inexperienced) judgement could kill them,
and you too.
Apparently more divers than ever are willing (want) to increase risk
levels. Again, like any other activity, the internal motivations/external
influences for this vary all over the map (the species). At DEMA this year
there was a startling display: in the "New Products" exhibit, right at the
entrance, were two 40ft. long display cases -- one with both shelves,
running the length of both sides, loaded with "Technical Diving Equipment."
That's a first! If this is any barometer of diving's direction, then
training agencies and publications have their work cut out for them --
because along with the greater benefits of riskier diving comes an
increased potential for the ultimate *cost* -- *no matter* whose
philosophy, technique, equipment, config. is utilized.
*Safety* and *risk* are two different things -- and that's not just
semantics. Confusing them can get us into real trouble by clouding
judgement and obscuring pitfalls.
Denta-Snork:
No sensors, no electronics, no moving parts. It's *got* to be the best
breathing/anti-cavity device ever made!
Christopher A. Brown
The Technical Diving Video Library (TDVL)
http://www.neuro.fsu.edu/dave/docent.htm
(US & Canada): 1-800-373-7222
Outside US:904-942-7222 Fax:904-942-1240
Life is short -- this is not a rehearsal.
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send list subscription requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]