Since the beginning of human organization, societies of various scales have been formed. Whether it is the individual to the collective, the collective to the individual, or collective to collective, all involve one common issue: the transfer of risk. Most risk transfers occur between people, though the transfer from humans to nature is also one of them. In this essay, “risk” is defined specifically as that which can only bring loss, without including the possibility of gain. The focus here is on human social systems.

The fundamental reason people transfer risk is to solve problems, whether physiological or psychological. Yet in my view, this method is only temporary, because everything in the universe consumes external resources to maintain itself. To truly solve a problem, one must first clarify whether it is a root problem or a derivative problem. A root problem refers to risk originating from specific persons, events, or things. A derivative problem refers to those arising from the root. Even if derivative problems are eliminated, the same phenomena will continue to appear.

Risk Problems of the Majority and the Minority
If the majority overwhelms the minority and thoroughly suppresses derivative problems, the risk does not disappear. It merely requires greater costs to maintain suppression. For the system, this means higher expenditure without solving the problem. If the minority suppresses the majority, the cost will be multiplied many times, and the effective duration will be greatly reduced.

If the issue is a root problem, then risk will not reappear. But the cost required—corresponding to the duration, depth, and scope of the risk—cannot be resolved in one stroke.

If an individual leaves the collective to survive in the wilderness, can the individual’s risk be eliminated? Clearly not. It merely transfers social risk into the inconvenience of confronting nature. Or, in a less absolute form, one may become a hermit or monk. Yet even then, risk cannot be eliminated. The degree of withdrawal is proportional to the degree of risk the individual must bear.

For the collective, unless the individual is itself the root problem, the risk becomes greater. The departure of an individual can cause the collective to collapse. In attempting to retain them, the collective may pay even greater costs, thereby triggering larger risks.

Risks Between Systems
A “system” here refers to a collective, which may be a community, society, nation, or civilization. Interactions between systems are broadly similar. Within the same system, the size of subsystems affects their ability to solve problems and bear risks. How is system size determined? Primarily by the sum of its power and influence. The greater the sum, the larger the system. Higher-level systems automatically encompass lower-level ones. Thus, the wealthy and powerful nations belong to large systems.

If a system attempts to transfer risk to an external system, the risk will eventually erupt at the external carrier’s threshold of endurance, and return in another form to the original system—until all the risk it ought to bear has fully come back. Why can’t risk within a system truly be transferred? Because from the moment of transfer, a larger new system is automatically created. It is not a genuine transfer to the outside, but rather system expansion. Unless one only aims to resolve derivative problems by eliminating both the risk and the external carrier, it is merely self-deception.

I believe the magnitude of risk is related to the endurance capacity of the external carrier. The greater the disparity between the two, the smaller the effect of risk transfer—essentially an inverse relationship. Therefore, strengthening the external carrier’s capacity to bear risk is an effective policy to delay the backlash of risk.

In my view, truly solving problems requires systematically rectifying all the involved links, and eliminating every risk that would otherwise need to be transferred outward.