It's just flat bad statistics to say that, "each time you take a chance, the law of averages creeps closer." If the events are independent, then no matter how many times you win, the risk of losing never changes. If you flip a fair coin 10 times and it comes up heads each time, the 11th flip is still only 50% likely to be tails; the chances for tails don't aggregate.
As for the meaning, I think they're pointing out that you're risking your life no matter what you do. Even if you play it "safe" the whole time, you're still risking your life. "You name the game, the stakes are the same." Every single time you make a decision you're betting your life. If you're betting your life every time you do anything, then you might as well make that bet be worth something. The point as I see it is that, since the risk remains the same regardless of our choices, we should go ahead and make the ambitious choices. They're saying that you don't get to avoid "risks", but that everything is a risk, so you might as well make the bet worthwhile.
I see this theme of everything being a risk reflected in the contradictory listing of types of people"
anarchist reactionary running-dog revisionist
hindu muslim catholic creation/evolutionist
rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
minimal expressionist post-modern neo-symbolist
armchair rocket scientist graffiti existentialist
deconstruction primitive performance photo-realist
be-bop or a one-drop or a hip-hop lite-pop-metallist
gold adult contemporary urban country capitalist
The list includes all types, reactionaries, revisionists, creationists, evolutionists, etc. No matter which end of the spectrum you're on, no matter what you believe, no matter what you do, no matter how "safe" you try to be, not matter how many "risks" you attempt to avoid, the stakes are the same, you're betting your life.
Since you're betting your life no matter what, at least bet it on something worthwhile; not on just trying to maintain the illusion of "safety".
Have to say that I disagree with Katsuni.
It's just flat bad statistics to say that, "each time you take a chance, the law of averages creeps closer." If the events are independent, then no matter how many times you win, the risk of losing never changes. If you flip a fair coin 10 times and it comes up heads each time, the 11th flip is still only 50% likely to be tails; the chances for tails don't aggregate.
As for the meaning, I think they're pointing out that you're risking your life no matter what you do. Even if you play it "safe" the whole time, you're still risking your life. "You name the game, the stakes are the same." Every single time you make a decision you're betting your life. If you're betting your life every time you do anything, then you might as well make that bet be worth something. The point as I see it is that, since the risk remains the same regardless of our choices, we should go ahead and make the ambitious choices. They're saying that you don't get to avoid "risks", but that everything is a risk, so you might as well make the bet worthwhile.
I see this theme of everything being a risk reflected in the contradictory listing of types of people"
anarchist reactionary running-dog revisionist hindu muslim catholic creation/evolutionist rational romantic mystic cynical idealist minimal expressionist post-modern neo-symbolist
armchair rocket scientist graffiti existentialist deconstruction primitive performance photo-realist be-bop or a one-drop or a hip-hop lite-pop-metallist gold adult contemporary urban country capitalist
The list includes all types, reactionaries, revisionists, creationists, evolutionists, etc. No matter which end of the spectrum you're on, no matter what you believe, no matter what you do, no matter how "safe" you try to be, not matter how many "risks" you attempt to avoid, the stakes are the same, you're betting your life.
Since you're betting your life no matter what, at least bet it on something worthwhile; not on just trying to maintain the illusion of "safety".