I think that's an interesting question. On a site devoted to entrepreneurship, taking risks sounds pretty good. And, due to survivorship bias even poorly calcul

I think that's an interesting question. On a site devoted to entrepreneurship, taking risks sounds pretty good. And, due to survivorship bias even poorly calculated risks will sound good. Perhaps there's a real world bias as well. Historically, humans had many more children than would live long enough to bear children. Those who played it safe wouldn't thrive enough to have a lot of children. Those who did take a lot of risks either got erased from the record, or went on to have a lot of children. Genghis Khan is probably the best example! Furthering the idea, bears and cliffs are risky, but a sensible human would have been even more afraid of other humans. And yet, the most cosmopolitan societies tend to be the most successful in terms of demographic health measures as well as economic, political, and even military strength. Just as it's said that mobsters may be some of the most cautious investors of their accumulated wealth, places where people or more risky in terms of not "othering" as many people get a lot of benefits from the ready trust they place in their neighbors.