I am reading Dawkins (again) and he pointed out the interesting issue about risk aversion. Why do zebras graze without appearing to be too afraid of the lions nearby? The answer is that the alternative for them to not taking this risk is death. If the lion attacks, it will most likely catch someone else in any case. So safety breeds risk aversion. I wonder if in human societies it also implies increased resistance to changes as the society gets more prosperous. Since things already are (or appear to be) risk free, making any changes is, well, risky. Naturally, often the status quo is not unproblematic or risk free and one could easily imagine better alternatives, but the perennial question is: “How to get there from here?” Problem gets worse, when our notoriously poor judgment in probabilities comes into play. The risks of status quo are probably systematically underestimated while risks from change are exaggerated especially when ignorance rules.