This belief in the Holy Grail or magic system arises from the primary
human fear of risk and uncertaintly and the corresponding belief that it is possible to understand and control them, whereas the truth is that we can only manage them.
Not exact matches
The jury may be out still on whether trace amounts
of the popular herbicide glyphosate pose health
risks to
humans, but industry insiders predict mounting consumer
fear about the possibility will pressure more food and beverage manufacturers in 2018 to...
The huge decrease in
human violence, the great
risk of cyber attacks, and the paralyzing
fear of pandemic disease.
The first movement
of Rwandan refugees arrived in South Africa in December 1996 after escaping forced massive repatriation, perpetrated by Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC) and Gabon without regard
of said refugees»
fears of a personal, real and foreseeable
risk of persecution or torture and
of probable
human rights abuses back home.
There is also a
risk that the baby animal will «imprint» on
humans, meaning that it will no longer have a
fear of humans.
Pioneering research on this subject by Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, and others, vast research on
human cognition by Daniel Kahneman and colleagues, and research on the brain's
fear response by neuroscientists Joseph LeDoux, Elizabeth Phelps, and others, all make abundantly clear that the perception
of risk is not simply a matter
of the facts, but more a matter
of how those facts feel.
Some degree
of fear is rather normal given the way
humans approach
risk, particularly with something like the
risks from radiation, and particularly given inherent trust that comes from for - profit overlay onto the «common good» and (IMO) laying that
fear exclusively at the feet
of environmentalists, or simply labeling it as irrational, is more a product
of ideologically - driven identity - protective cognition and tribalism on the part
of nuclear proponents than a useful ingredient for making progress on energy policy development.
In the two - track approach to the European
human rights project, where the Luxembourg Court is also proactive in providing guidance, the Strasbourg Court in 2013 in M.E v Sweden is being asked by the interveners [42] to apply the guidance
of the UK Supreme Court, [43] and the UK Upper Tribunal, [44] in engaging with the
risk group (those who are open), and how they are identified («not being straight enough, including straight individuals, due to non-compliance with a heteronormative stereotype in the eyes
of the potential persecutor»), independent
of whether an individual is «voluntarily discrete», where such discretion is due to a well - founded
fear of persecution.
In considering whether witnesses giving evidence to an inquiry should be given anonymity on grounds
of fears for their safety, the criterion to determine whether the
risk to life is real and immediate for the purposes
of Art 2 (right to life)
of the European Convention on
Human Rights (the Convention) is one which will not be readily satisfied; the threshold is high.