We're in a position now to identify empirically much of what is harmful or beneficial. For example, using my fast-driving point: We know that fast driving risks damage to property, injury/death of the individual driver, injury/death of third parties.
However, we're not in a position to determine exactly when these bad outcomes will occur. Many people drive at a high speed without a negative outcome. We can identify risky categories, but not predict bad events. That's the definition of "risk," in fact ... "uncertainty of the outcome."
Also, in your question, we address the conflict between what different people or different cultures define as "beneficial."
To the species, this is irrelevant. To the individual, it can be fatal or injurious, or lead to fatalities or injuries to others.
At some point we need to have a social contract between the individual and his society. Some would consider this an unwritten code, but could we write it?
"You have the right to entertain yourself, but not to endanger others."
"You have the right to violate the rules, but you must be willing to pay the costs of that violation."
I believe that Society benefits from having a few risk-takers. No, there isn't much benefit to taking on a mountain climb without proper survival gear for the worst case scenario, but there is benefit to having rescue workers willing to put themselves at risk for others.
Perhaps we need to do a better job, for now, of identifying and rewarding "noble" risk-takers, and discouraging feckless ones.