Perhaps a better title would be “Known and Unknown Risks”, since there is nothing inherently different between “stable” and “unstable” risks.
I consider the difference to be extremely important to future decisionmaking, so I’m confused as to why you think this is the case. Can you explain further?
My point is that every disaster likelihood estimate goes through the periods of small and large fluctuations, the only difference between “stable” and “unstable” risks is which phase you are currently in. It would not be a good model to decide that one type of risk is inherently “stable” and another is “unstable”.
I consider the difference to be extremely important to future decisionmaking, so I’m confused as to why you think this is the case. Can you explain further?
My point is that every disaster likelihood estimate goes through the periods of small and large fluctuations, the only difference between “stable” and “unstable” risks is which phase you are currently in. It would not be a good model to decide that one type of risk is inherently “stable” and another is “unstable”.
I think you need to zoom out by a level of abstraction here. Does the argument make sense to you then?