Given a large enough sample of humanity you seem to arrive at the ratio of 52:48

Not just humanity – in non human tests of risk/non-risk averse behaviour in the animal kingdom – the ratio also appears to occur. Risk averse behaviour appears to have 52% of the sample.

Male to female ratio is very close to 52:48

Brexit split 52:48 – admittedly regional variations occurred but the overall figure was close to it.

This concerns me. As an example take Brexit. It might appear to be 48:52 ratio if seen from the perspective of risk aversion. Except in the case of Brexit the status-quo was seen as being the risky option. The public was presented with an overwhelming amount of propaganda which suggested the EU was damaging our society. Immigration, finance, fishing quotas. There were many arguments to suggest that the Leave vote meant security to traditional British values.

Where the ratio concerns me more, however, is not in the Brexit vote. My main concern is for the environment and the politics of greed.

We have to make choices to reverse or improve many of the current “accepted” patterns of behaviour which have proven detrimental or unsustainable. And soon. We must make choices which do not have the easiest short term benefit. Reducing oil consumption, those fishing quotas, providing health services, migration, division of wealth. Many issues across a range of topics will require that we put self-interest behind us.

Conservation in Asia and Africa requires poor nations protecting wildlife and forestry and fauna – more easily treated as commodities than preserved as long-term assets.

And that ratio is always going to pop up.

It might well be that the ratio of 52:48 is what will do for the human race.