Ash Clouds and Risk

 To God, or to Government We Entrust . . .

Risk is unavoidable.  Life is filled with the uncertain and the contingent.  A society's approach to risk and risk-taking peels back the skin, exposing its heart and the gods that dwell therein.

Consider this contrast.  In Europe, Icelandic volcano ash results in governmental authorities shutting down air-ports and terminating air travel.  In New Zealand and Australia, Argentinian volcano ash results in (some) airlines continuing to fly.  Why the difference? 
Because on this matter, Europe and Australasia have different approaches to risk.  In Australasia, the authorities have monitored the ash clouds, reported on their position and height, and left the decision whether to fly up to the respective airlines.  In Europe, the government made that decision for all airlines and refused to allow any aircraft to fly.

In Australasia, the responsibility for risk taking and risk mitigation was left to those exposed to the risk.  In Europe, a governmental authority removed that responsibility from those who would have actually faced the risk, and made the decision for them.  And the government always--always--goes for zero risk.  If not, then risk taking and risk mitigation has to be left in the hands of others.

There is a clear contrast here.  In Australasia, the role of the government (in this instance) has been to ensure that good information has been publicly available, then leaving others to be responsible for their use of it.  In Europe, the government acted on behalf of others, taking responsibility for them.  Government acting in the place of  individual citizens. 


As expected, in Australasia, some airlines continued to fly (under and around the ash); others (namely the Qantas stable of airlines) declined and grounded all their aircraft.  Some chose to both take and mitigate the risk; others decided not to.  Passengers likewise were taking risks: either they believed the flying airlines, or the grounded one.  Each passenger had to do his own risk assessment and decide whether the risk-mitigation strategies of the flying airlines were reasonable.

The Australasian model maximises liberty and minimizes the role of government.  More importantly, it proceeds on the assumption that all (adult) human beings are responsible agents and must bear the consequences of their own actions.  This is a fundamental Christian doctrine.  The soul that sins shall die!  You act; you are responsible for the consequences.  In a more Christian society, this principle pervades all social and economic arrangements.

The European model proceeds on the principle that "someone" else must take responsibility for everyone.  The only known creational entity which appears big enough to do that is the government.  Consequently, the state becomes the prime risk-avoiding command and control agency for society and individuals.  Responsibility for risk mitigation for the individual, his family, and his sphere has passed from the individual to the bureaucratic administrator.

In the final Judgement we are told that some of the condemned will attempt to put up a rationale or a defence of sorts.  "Lord, did we not cast our demons in your Name?  Did we not perform great miracles?"  As a result of the soft-despotism of the West and the presumption of governments to remove and prevent all risk taking, we expect that another (rather large) group of folk will be arguing, thusly: "Lord, we were only doing what the authorities told us to do.  For our own good, they said."   

The attitude of authorities in Australasia--at least in the matter of volcanic ash clouds and air travel--has been far, far more consistent with the Christian faith.  For that, we are thankful.  Because of God's generous common grace, things are not as bad, in this instance, as what they would otherwise be.  Would that it were more consistently so.