I found myself saying the words: “the fundamentals remain the same”. A nice phrase that promotes the idea that there are some bedrock ideas that are immune from the winds of change. It’s as easy as saying that 2 plus 2 will always equal 4. Except I wasn’t taking about a mathematical relationship. A traditional set of rules that are so established that it becomes incredibly difficult to think differently. That is unless I get terribly esoteric and argumentative about what do we mean by plus and equals.
Safety is freedom from harm. That’s one of the simplest definitions of “safety”. Simplicity has merit but there’s one or two weaknesses in that basic definition. Although, it’s one that I’m happy to use. It communicates well. Theres a lot to be said for brevity.
The human condition is such that we are never ever free from potential harm. Such is the sheer complexity of our situation that the combinations and permutations of stuff that can harm us is immense. Every tiny cell in our bodies is doing something that it needs to get right. Yet, we exist relatively healthily with a myriad of flaws. Unfortunately, or fortunately, our awareness of the flaws that can harm us is often non-existent. Perhaps we have the freedom of ignorance.
Safety is freedom from harm with these caveats. Generally, even invoking the word “safety” implies that the stuff that can harm us is substantial and tangible. It’s something we might know and understand. Likewise, the word “harm” in this context doesn’t mean trivial or non-consequential actions. It’s something undesirable where effort would be made to avoid.
To compound my kicking away at what seems like a perfectly reasonable simple definition, the well-known dictionaries who publish their wisdom each have different variations on a theme.
Each definition has at least two parts for the abstract noun “safety”. Yes, it doesn’t have a physical form, in of itself but “safety” is a condition. The negative stuff to be avoided comes up as harm, danger, hurt, damage, injury, death, loss, and even risk. The act of avoidance of a negative outcome comes up as a condition of being free or protected.
Another dimension not explicitly mentioned in the common definitions is the dynamic nature of safety. It is not a static condition. Theoretically, the transition from a safe to an unsafe condition can take an infinite number of paths. In reality, some pathways are more probable than others.
This is where the discussion moves away from grammar to the substantial experience of safety. It’s locked into our thinking, and not often expressed that the dynamic nature of the subject means that probabilities always come to bare.
Today, I may not be the least bit concerned that a meteor would crash through the roof of my house without warning and injure me. That is even if I am not entirely free of the possibility of such an event happening. I will take the possibility of tripping on a loose stair carpet much more seriously. Both safety jeopardising events are possible but one is more probable than the other.
Next, I come to what’s conceivable and what’s not. In a universe of an infinite number of possibilities there are lots that are just plain inconceivable. The meteor case above is conceivable. Governments take practical actions to monitor space rocks.
Even to speak of something that is inconceivable is stretching the boundaries of our imaginations. It’s often taken as obvious that certain threats are out of bounds. Yet, the inconceivable occasionally happens and our boundaries are thus expanded. A pilot chooses to fly a perfectly airworthy aircraft into a mountain. As we know it has happened.
I’ll stop here. What’s clear is that a simple definition isn’t simple at all.
John Vincent 