Transition exists at various phases of life, not just during youth. Those who swim outside the flag and require rescuing cost the tax payer allot more money, than those who require rescuing from between the flags. The trouble encountered outside the flags is harder to identify and the method of rescuing them takes man power away from those who are swimming within the flags, who are still to some degree at a minimised risk. Having said this, without those willing to take risks, innovation and social improvement is impossible. But it is possible to calculate most risks. There is nothing new under the sun.

These issues are particularly relevant to medical care and medical costs. If I eat too much, drink too much, smoke at all, exercise too little, and I have been educated enough to be aware of the risks of these behaviours, then my medical care should be to my personal cost rather than the community? Right morally, wrong socially. Thank goodness that we do not discriminate yet against people who "swim outside the healthy life-style flags"

I'm glad I was referred to this article. Some very interesting comments about the transfer of responsibility from maintstream to youth segment of population.

Just two additional points:

Just because the youth are educated, and even if the social context is receptive, youth may make risky decisions because:

a. some youth choose the stimulus (mental, physical, etc.) of risk that allows for growth, change, etc.

b. some youth do not have the capacity to make 'reasonable' (?), rational (?) judgments with the knowledge about risky behaviour that they have learned (e.g. those who are intellectually damaged so that they cannot consistently equate behaviours with consequences).

Learning to identify "risk" yes, is the key.

You challange a brillant riddle Mercurius Goldstein.

I believe that learning is about critical thinking and is about considering a capacity ie:the evaluation of benefits in doing something against it's worst possible senario.

What IF?

The problem about swimming between flags, is the conformity aspect.

What do we do when a person wins against all odds.... we call them hero's right?

We admire those who are endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for their bold exploits?

My question would be how does one learn how to have this kind of ability if the calculation is to do things only with "no risk" and only "safety"?

Comformity kills innovation which is critical in my books.

Innovation is what is missing in many areas of our culture in modern life. Innovation is dampened by people's sheepish resistance to try something new. We are not encouraged to "think outside the square".

Yet life is about "risk" especially in the way you discribed it below;

"Beyond education, the decades-long trend towards casualised labour markets has reduced the ability of many people to plan for the long-term. So, even though they are educated and thus deemed accountable, many people are unable, due to structural labour market features, to obtain the stability of employment that would enable them to determine their eventual career, social and class location."

I believe you have tapped the core problem.

Over-regulation against wreakless regulations.... or (mainstream) education based on conformity does nothing to set a person up to face the challenge for real life solutions, hence goals, where there is no (self) trust or self-determining safety net offered by the society itself. (We are all working against the odds like this eh?)

I think Mercurius you took a risk in the way you tackled this essay, or collection of "risky" points... I think you could go further still in developing your perspective. It is innovative and brave Mercurius!

Thank You

At risk of diverting the thread, fencepost, it's often very hard to tell if one is willingly participating in risky behaviour. You mention education as the key. I referenced intellectual ability (education will be inadequate to meet the challenge of inherently limited intellectual capacity).

Also, in the case of "medical" issues, its often hard to determine ill health is due to risky behaviour or biology or genetics or some combination. Even doctors often misjudge this.

There's a lot we don't know.

"There is a lot we don't know"!

Well said, there is the start to this whole debate. A reason to remain open to a pathway of new knowledge, and a reason to stay humble about it.

Mental Health is a problem in society. Our calulation of anything different is unfortunately "fear" which is percieved too often as "risky".

Seeing people differently, and accepting their diversity is a long ways from just depending on the rule governed by the flags. This rule I believe was only ever meant to mean advised, to add more safety for families, suggestively. Surfers and others were/are not expected to swim between the flags for example.

Why?

Their boards would put others at risk if they should encounter one from a dis-lodged surf-rider.

So - while we are here what about youth risk-taking in extreme sports?

I think that the risk here is critically about self-discipline and not so much about risk as in doing something wrong... as in totally without any risk-analysis.

In this context, is it to have a sense of positive self-awareness?

Again, it is not based on the social perception, it is about the individuals own perception and capacity.

Where ever there is SPACE...

To see a systemic view, ie: the "No Wrong Door Policy" and more go to;

http://www.miacat.com/