Fear of the Unknown Taking any kind of a risk is a gamble. They have the potential to lead to a harmful or dangerous outcome, yet can still provide the opportunity for an outcome that can perceived as positive. The essay, “Into the Wild” by Jon Krakauer is his account of Chris McCandless’ search for himself through taking a risk and inhabiting the Alaskan wilderness. Through his lack of survival skills, it is evident that McCandless is a person who likes to take part of risky and dangerous behaviors. “Immune to Reality” by Daniel Gilbert is an analytical essay that revolves around the existence of the psychological immune system. This defense system proves to work as a mechanism that can create positive views out of a negative experience thus producing happiness to an individual. Through Gilbert’s analysis he discovers that people are usually not in favor of taking risks out of fear of feeling regret. However he proves how the psychological immune system can turn a negative consequence of taking a risk into a more pleasant and bearable one. The essay “Another Look Back, And A Look Ahead” by Edward Tenner is an insightful discussion about how people often miscalculate the way technologies will work in the future and to what extent they are useful. People may find themselves getting an unexpected outcome of some new technology which can lead to dangerous risks in the future. People take risks because they want to attain happiness however in the process of this, sometimes people’s greed and desire for this can cause people to have poor judgment on the consequences of their risks.
Taking risks that only do emotional harm proves to be worth taking than the ones that can potentially threaten one physically because in the long run they result in a lesser cost. There are many varieties of risks to consider such as risks that can impose a threat to one physically and risks that can only threaten one emotionally. Krakauer demonstrates that McCandless’ desire to venture the wild was one that could have resulted in physical harm because McCandless “was fully aware when he entered the bush that he had given himself a perilously slim margin for error. He knew precisely what was at stake” (Krakauer 219). The mention of peril and slim margin for error implies that McCandless’ decision was indeed something that could have threatened his life. Krakauer proceeds to indicate McCandless’ awareness of the life staking consequences of his journey. However because this adventure was of great importance to him he persisted with his journey. Despite the small chances of him surviving the land on his own, he continued on his journey which resulted to him dying of starvation. Choosing to live in the wild was a risk McCandless chose that lead him to lose his life. Risks like these have a higher cost associated with them unlike risks that lead to some consequence that is not as drastic or can only have some negative effect on our emotions instead. Gilbert demonstrates how these risks that are milder yet still substantial than physically harmful risks, should be taken more often because they result in higher satisfaction when he argues, “The irony is all too clear: Because we do not realize that our psychological immune systems can rationalize an excess of courage more easily than an excess of cowardice, we hedge our bets when we should blunder forward” (Gilbert 138). Gilbert suggests that the psychological immune system is able to provide people with happiness subconsciously when people decide to take risks. The immune system can cook facts or create credible, positive views to hinder a negative experience which is useful when taking a risk does not go as smoothly as one planned. When a risk that does no harm to people physically but emotionally results in a consequence rather than a benefit, it can trigger emotions such as grief or anger. However, Gilbert’s studies on the psychological immune system shows that people should actually take more risks because the brain can develop ways to end the pain by cooking facts. It is evident that there is a way to get rid of the pain from risks that hurt us emotionally and not physically. Taking risks that may lead to a negative outcome to our emotional health may not be as harmful in the long run compared to a life threatening risk. To do this however, it is necessary that people analyze the consequences and benefits of a risk in order to understand what kind of risk it is prior to undergoing it. McCandless’ desire to live in the wilderness however caused him to ignore the potential harm he was exposed to. McCandless’ desire to travel so recklessly demonstrates his appeal to danger.
People unconsciously have an attraction to dangerous circumstances which can cause one to overlook the consequences of the risks they take. People are attracted to the rush or the adrenaline that danger provides. When humans find that something is not dangerous enough it is shown that humans automatically look for ways to make that situation more hazardous. Tenner defines this phenomenon as risk homeostasis “meaning simply that people unconsciously seek a certain level of hazard. They compensate for ‘dangerous’ conditions by driving more cautiously-and offset safety measures by taking more risks” (Tenner 443). People tend to have self destructive behaviors according to Tenner because people are not satisfied with being surrounded by safety. It is evident that McCandless was searching for risk homeostasis when he deliberately makes his trip to the Alaskan wilderness even more perilous. McCandless was looking for danger by coming “into the country with insufficient provisions and [McCandless] lacked certain pieces of equipment deemed essential by many Alaskans, a large caliber rifle, map, compass, an ax” (Krakauer 218). If McCandless would have brought these tools with him, his trip to the wild would have been too safe and therefore not as adventurous and exciting as he wanted it to be. This excitement, based on McCandless’s behavior, comes from the need to jeopardize his safety. According to Tenner’s analysis, being surrounded by safety causes people to unconsciously create the opposite. By getting rid of those instruments, McCandless proves that he was creating danger for himself. Blinded by his desire for danger, the outcomes of his decisions were fatal; McCandless could have survived if he had kept his map with him. McCandless proves that people’s attraction to danger can make taking a risk even more detrimental. McCandless’ readiness to abandon his tools also reveals an overly confident trait that does seem to be harmful to himself.
Taking a risk with the mindset that one can overcome any consequence may cause uncareful behavior leading to a harmful consequence. Some people are not willing to make tedious calculations before taking a risk. Sometimes being extra careful can lead to over thinking which makes room for making mistakes; however it is always better to be safer than sorry. Tenner argues that it is sometimes okay to be passive with taking risks when the risk is more predicable than others when he says, “Resilience often turns out to be an excellent policy, provided the phenomena cooperate and appear distinctly and gradually on the horizon” (447). Being resilient means responding to problems as they arise and not fully preparing for them beforehand. What Tenner is trying to convey is that resilience is less likely to have the ability to cope with risks that are sudden or unexpected. As for risks that can be predicted, the belief that one will handle a bad situation when it arises will work to help recover one quickly from disaster. However, McCandless proves this analysis wrong. McCandless chooses to be resilient during his journey to the Alaskan wilderness. Krakauer demonstrates McCandless’ resilient approach when he claims that “McCandless, on the other hand, went too far in the opposite direction. He tried to live entirely off the country-and he tried to do it without bothering to master beforehand the full repertoire of crucial skills” (219). McCandless did not learn survival skills; pack a map or food in order to prepare himself from the wild implying that he believed that he will be able to provide for himself no matter what circumstance arises proving his resilience. Living in the wilderness while being unprepared made the dangers lying ahead of him very obvious or predictable. McCandless was well aware of the consequences he could have fell victim to during his journey and despite of this continued to take the risk because it was what he felt would bring him satisfaction. Because the consequences for the risk were so easy to predict, McCandless’ belief in resilience or taking things as they come according to Tenner should have lessened the consequences for the risk. However, McCandless overestimated his resilience which led to his own death, a consequence from confiding that he will take on the consequences as they arise. In conclusion, people tend to ignore the consequences of their risks when people are focused on attaining their goals. Risks that can do emotional harm are proven to be less harmful because the psychological immune system can cook facts and eliminate the pain. Being resilient when taking risks leads to consequences despite how predictable the consequences of a risk can be. People who believe they can take any consequences as they arise are usually not able to, as proven in McCandless’ case. Tenner proves that people desire danger unconsciously and will even create it if needed. Because people are attracted to danger, it can blind people of the consequences of their risks.