5 ms·

You are much more likely to be killed by mundane things than terrorism (2013)

55 points by Fice 11y ago

nirmel 11y ago
Despite these facts, the availability heuristic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic) ensures that our perception of probabilities is proportional to how dramatic (and thus memorable) an event is and not to how likely it is.
- raus22 11y ago
  Fearmongering is the best/easiest tool to create the feeling of us against them so you don't have to think about the problems that are way worse (probabilistically speaking). And it is good TV( AKA availability heuristics enabler )
  - Guthur 11y ago
    ...and it's well understood and used throughout history. "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering
- puppetmaster3 11y ago
  Yes, refugees like Tsarnaev tend to influence.
random_moonwalk 11y ago
Surely this is a sketchy way of inferring future likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack? The number of lives claimed by a single biological weapon could be gigantic, while the number killed by a single car accident, say, is limited to a relatively small number.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  > The number of lives claimed by a single biological weapon could be gigantic Terrorists have never used WMDs, except for two incidents caused by one group, the Aum cult in Japan. And all that showed was that WMDs are hard to make and hard to use. They would have killed more people with a cheap improvised bomb.
  - jpgvm 11y ago
    It is at this time we should be thankful that intelligence is inversely proportional to ones desire to blow ones self up.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  A single meteorite could kill everyone. Why don't we pay more attention to those?
  - random_moonwalk 11y ago
    We pay a lot of attention to those https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Planet_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Planet_Center. Their paths are also predictable. Anyway, my point wasn't to do with the attention we should give terrorist attacks, rather that in this case in particular, past events are a poor predictor of future ones.
codingdave 11y ago
Yes, we are much more likely to be killed by something else. But the presence of terrorism is not replacing those other ways to die, but being added on top of them. And it also adds, as the name implies... terror. And trauma for survivors, anger for the victims families, decreases trust amongst different peoples, and strengthens conflicts in our world. So these statistics are true... yet I'm still pretty sure terrorism is a problem worth our time and efforts to fight, even if it will not personally kill me.
- namenotrequired 11y ago
  >And it also adds, as the name implies... terror. And trauma for survivors, anger for the victims families, decreases trust amongst different peoples, and strengthens conflicts in our world. Many of those are purely a product of the way we react to terrorism. We can choose our reaction.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  That's really not true. We take away a greater part of human lifespan doing security theatre at the airport than we save. We spent TRILLIONS on wars. Had we not done so the 2008 derivatives crisis would have been smaller and more readily dealt with. instead we came within a hair's breadth of economic collapse. There are real costs in taking away from living, and taking away from our collective wealth, that are vastly greater than the direct costs of terrorism.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    And that, let me remind everyone, is the whole point of terrorism. Making a nation destroy itself, and maybe even take someone else down too.
- harmegido 11y ago
  But then stopping terrorism should fall somewhere around where the statistics say it should on priority list (adding in the anger/trauma). So right around vending machine accidents or whatever? Those are additive as well. Terrorism disproportionately dominates our media attention, but has a small affect on our death rate. Of course we should stop it if we can. But why place a larger priority on it than something that is more damaging to us (even after weighing in the negative emotions)? I get it. Terrorism is scary and it's easy to have empathy for the victims. But if we accept car deaths as a consequence of modern life, than why not terrorism deaths? That I don't get.
njharman 11y ago
Duh. Very few people die from terrorists, or mass-murderers, or even guns in general (even in war more people die of disease and starvation than guns. And artillery kills more soldiers (at least in 20th cent)). Lung disease, heart disease, obesity are the killers of humanity.
bordercases 11y ago
The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, that one should not worry about one's enemies simply because they're unlikely to do as much damage as other problems, is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing; that because the odds are low, no preventative action should be taken because everything will be OK. That seems to be a poor stance to take against one's adversaries. It puts them in a better position over you that improves the likelihood of another attack occurring. The current rate is associated with our current amount of "security". Surely lowering the vigilance and thus lowering the security would just make matters worse!
- Dwolb 11y ago
  I don't think it's binary choice. The statistics call into question if we should ever decide to launch a full scale invasion due to the threat of terrorism, but isn't arguing against ending safety measures currently in place. Another way to put it is if the threat of terrorism is so low, should we direct investment into terrorism versus other initiatives? If we were a start-up we'd determine the most efficient way to deploy capital to have the maximum lives saved. Something the article ignores is really taking into account efficiency of preventative measures and money spent on those measures.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, (...) is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing; That's exactly what they're supposed to do, because it is the best course of action against terrorism. Not because "ignoring your enemy" is wise, but because "terrorism" is the name we give to the form of attack that weaponizes you doing something - out of fear or anger. There is no value to the enemy in blowing up a bus. Killing a bunch of civilians is an effort wasted. But, if their deaths can get you to change your policies - start a war, or institute a police state, or something - then the attack has achieved its purpose. TL;DR: remember that in terrorist attacks, deaths are just collateral damage - means to an end.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Isn't death collateral damage in just about every conflict? People usually just want power.
ps4fanboy 11y ago
Do not get me wrong, I also think its silly to be afraid of dying from terrorism, but those "mundane" ways of dying are the result of things that provide utility and benefit to their lives or are the result of old age. What is the comparison with someone who dies from Terrorists? They arent exactly blowing up nursing homes. Prevalence of coronary heart disease by age and sex. https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd...
jsutton 11y ago
If you live in a city like New York City, your chances of being killed by terrorism is surely more than someone living in Provo, Utah. I wonder how the statistics would look when taking location into account.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Way more people have died in New York City from non-terrorism causes than from terrorism. NYS Leading causes of death in 2012: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/docs/leading_causes_of_death_nys_2012.pdf#page4 http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/docs/le... NYC causes of death in 2001: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2001/table33c.htm http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2001/ta... -- "Malignant Neoplasms" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplasm#Malignant_neoplasms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplasm#Malignant_neoplasms) alone killed 4x more people than terrorists that year.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vixen99 11y ago
On present records, the statement is a truism but totally irrelevant when it comes to determining measures we should take to protect ourselves from a group like ISIS given their apocalyptic ambitions and relative wealth. We might also factor in the very shocking, and to most of us unintelligible, fact of its attraction for thousands of young people across the world.

55 points by Fice 11y ago

Despite these facts, the availability heuristic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic) ensures that our perception of probabilities is proportional to how dramatic (and thus memorable) an event is and not to how likely it is.

raus22 11y ago
Fearmongering is the best/easiest tool to create the feeling of us against them so you don't have to think about the problems that are way worse (probabilistically speaking). And it is good TV( AKA availability heuristics enabler )
- Guthur 11y ago
  ...and it's well understood and used throughout history. "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering
puppetmaster3 11y ago
Yes, refugees like Tsarnaev tend to influence.

random_moonwalk 11y ago

Surely this is a sketchy way of inferring future likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack? The number of lives claimed by a single biological weapon could be gigantic, while the number killed by a single car accident, say, is limited to a relatively small number.

Zigurd 11y ago
> The number of lives claimed by a single biological weapon could be gigantic Terrorists have never used WMDs, except for two incidents caused by one group, the Aum cult in Japan. And all that showed was that WMDs are hard to make and hard to use. They would have killed more people with a cheap improvised bomb.
- jpgvm 11y ago
  It is at this time we should be thankful that intelligence is inversely proportional to ones desire to blow ones self up.
nitrogen 11y ago
A single meteorite could kill everyone. Why don't we pay more attention to those?
- random_moonwalk 11y ago
  We pay a lot of attention to those https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Planet_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Planet_Center. Their paths are also predictable. Anyway, my point wasn't to do with the attention we should give terrorist attacks, rather that in this case in particular, past events are a poor predictor of future ones.

codingdave 11y ago

Yes, we are much more likely to be killed by something else. But the presence of terrorism is not replacing those other ways to die, but being added on top of them. And it also adds, as the name implies... terror. And trauma for survivors, anger for the victims families, decreases trust amongst different peoples, and strengthens conflicts in our world. So these statistics are true... yet I'm still pretty sure terrorism is a problem worth our time and efforts to fight, even if it will not personally kill me.

namenotrequired 11y ago
>And it also adds, as the name implies... terror. And trauma for survivors, anger for the victims families, decreases trust amongst different peoples, and strengthens conflicts in our world. Many of those are purely a product of the way we react to terrorism. We can choose our reaction.
Zigurd 11y ago
That's really not true. We take away a greater part of human lifespan doing security theatre at the airport than we save. We spent TRILLIONS on wars. Had we not done so the 2008 derivatives crisis would have been smaller and more readily dealt with. instead we came within a hair's breadth of economic collapse. There are real costs in taking away from living, and taking away from our collective wealth, that are vastly greater than the direct costs of terrorism.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And that, let me remind everyone, is the whole point of terrorism. Making a nation destroy itself, and maybe even take someone else down too.
harmegido 11y ago
But then stopping terrorism should fall somewhere around where the statistics say it should on priority list (adding in the anger/trauma). So right around vending machine accidents or whatever? Those are additive as well. Terrorism disproportionately dominates our media attention, but has a small affect on our death rate. Of course we should stop it if we can. But why place a larger priority on it than something that is more damaging to us (even after weighing in the negative emotions)? I get it. Terrorism is scary and it's easy to have empathy for the victims. But if we accept car deaths as a consequence of modern life, than why not terrorism deaths? That I don't get.

njharman 11y ago

Duh. Very few people die from terrorists, or mass-murderers, or even guns in general (even in war more people die of disease and starvation than guns. And artillery kills more soldiers (at least in 20th cent)). Lung disease, heart disease, obesity are the killers of humanity.

bordercases 11y ago

The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, that one should not worry about one's enemies simply because they're unlikely to do as much damage as other problems, is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing; that because the odds are low, no preventative action should be taken because everything will be OK. That seems to be a poor stance to take against one's adversaries. It puts them in a better position over you that improves the likelihood of another attack occurring. The current rate is associated with our current amount of "security". Surely lowering the vigilance and thus lowering the security would just make matters worse!

Dwolb 11y ago
I don't think it's binary choice. The statistics call into question if we should ever decide to launch a full scale invasion due to the threat of terrorism, but isn't arguing against ending safety measures currently in place. Another way to put it is if the threat of terrorism is so low, should we direct investment into terrorism versus other initiatives? If we were a start-up we'd determine the most efficient way to deploy capital to have the maximum lives saved. Something the article ignores is really taking into account efficiency of preventative measures and money spent on those measures.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, (...) is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing; That's exactly what they're supposed to do, because it is the best course of action against terrorism. Not because "ignoring your enemy" is wise, but because "terrorism" is the name we give to the form of attack that weaponizes you doing something - out of fear or anger. There is no value to the enemy in blowing up a bus. Killing a bunch of civilians is an effort wasted. But, if their deaths can get you to change your policies - start a war, or institute a police state, or something - then the attack has achieved its purpose. TL;DR: remember that in terrorist attacks, deaths are just collateral damage - means to an end.
- Retra 11y ago
  Isn't death collateral damage in just about every conflict? People usually just want power.

ps4fanboy 11y ago

Do not get me wrong, I also think its silly to be afraid of dying from terrorism, but those "mundane" ways of dying are the result of things that provide utility and benefit to their lives or are the result of old age. What is the comparison with someone who dies from Terrorists? They arent exactly blowing up nursing homes. Prevalence of coronary heart disease by age and sex. https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd...

jsutton 11y ago

If you live in a city like New York City, your chances of being killed by terrorism is surely more than someone living in Provo, Utah. I wonder how the statistics would look when taking location into account.

nitrogen 11y ago
Way more people have died in New York City from non-terrorism causes than from terrorism. NYS Leading causes of death in 2012: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/docs/leading_causes_of_death_nys_2012.pdf#page4 http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/docs/le... NYC causes of death in 2001: http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2001/table33c.htm http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2001/ta... -- "Malignant Neoplasms" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplasm#Malignant_neoplasms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplasm#Malignant_neoplasms) alone killed 4x more people than terrorists that year.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vixen99 11y ago

On present records, the statement is a truism but totally irrelevant when it comes to determining measures we should take to protect ourselves from a group like ISIS given their apocalyptic ambitions and relative wealth. We might also factor in the very shocking, and to most of us unintelligible, fact of its attraction for thousands of young people across the world.