5 ms·

How ready we are to sacrifice many of our freedoms and conveniences to * prevent 200 deaths - especially considering how mindlessly we accept risks that are mul

by Kenji 9y ago

How ready we are to sacrifice many of our freedoms and conveniences to * prevent 200 deaths - especially considering how mindlessly we accept risks that are multiple orders of magnitude higher, like driving cars. It is fascinating. *try to

jliptzin 9y ago
Agreed. Not sure why you're getting downvoted.
Spooky23 9y ago
That's a meaningless statistical comparison. I'm more likely to choke on a chicken wing than getting hit by a streetcar in San Francisco. Risk assessment is about probabilty and impact. People overweight risk in cases of extreme impact or high probability. We're also bad at identifying root cause.
edgartaor 9y ago
You have a good point. But we don't know if the government agencies are actually preventing an even higher amount of deaths. Or we are sacrificing freedoms for nothing.
- thescriptkiddie 9y ago
  In all likelihood, we are sacrificing freedoms for nothing. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-ha... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/does_the_tsa_ever_catch_terrorists.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-tsa-20170207-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-tsa-20170207-stor... http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/abend-tsa-screening-failure/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/abend-tsa-screening-f...
- Bakary 9y ago
  Even if say the amount of casualties triple, that's still a rounding error compared to heart disease, suicide, car crashes, and a number of other sources of massive suffering and shortened lives.
refurb 9y ago
I agree we shouldn't be sacrificing our freedoms, but do you not see the difference between someone dying from a terror attack and someone dying in a car crash? Terror attacks destabilize societies. Car crashes don't.
- Bakary 9y ago
  If you alter the way these attacks are covered by the media, they will stop being so destabilizing.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Tell that to the parents of a child who just had their limbs blown off.
    - Bakary 9y ago
      I agree (and I'm slightly shocked that's what you assumed I meant) but that's clearly not what I wrote. The poster I responded to explicitly referred to society itself being destabilized. The more the media focuses on the terrorists themselves instead of commemorating the victims, the more would-be attackers will want to have their 15 minutes of infamy. The more shocking the reporting the media crafts, the more fearful the citizens become, and thus the more effective terrorism becomes. If terrorist see that they can fundamentally alter the way an entire Western nation functions, they will be encouraged to continue. More groups will pop up and thrive. More people will die. The question is, how do we actually stop kids from dying? Looking at the big picture and changing the way we respond to attacks is one such way, knee-jerk accusatory reactions are not. Why don't we at least try it?
      - mistermann 9y ago
        You don't think parents will be destabilized if the media doesn't report on it? We could try stopping killing their kids and see if that changes anything.
dgut 9y ago
The "more people die in car accidents" is a moot argument. Terrorism hits a nerve car accidents or w/e can't. Here is the thing: When driving a car, you have some level of control of your destinity. Take precaution, use the seat belts, children seat, and so on... You know there is risk involved, but that you also can lower that risk. Worrying that your next train trip, museum visit, or national day celebration will end up fatally, changes your way of life. You have zero control over that. You worry about those dearest to you.
- spangry 9y ago
  I guess a more analogous phenomena would be sudden death due to various medical conditions. Just to pick a random one (not the only one): spontaneous coronary artery dissection. Statistics are rather difficult to come by on this, but assuming the US population incidence is 0.28% [0] of all 735,000 'heart attacks' per year in the US [1], with a mortality rate of 60% (wikipedia says 70% but that number is iffy), that's 1235 random "sudden deaths" per year from just one non-preventable and non-predictable medical condition alone. So I suspect the more general point, that statistically you are much more likely to be randomly killed by "not terrorism", is probably a valid one. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3249260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3249260/ [1] https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/heart_attack.htm https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/heart_attack.htm

by Kenji 9y ago

jliptzin 9y ago

Agreed. Not sure why you're getting downvoted.

Spooky23 9y ago

That's a meaningless statistical comparison. I'm more likely to choke on a chicken wing than getting hit by a streetcar in San Francisco. Risk assessment is about probabilty and impact. People overweight risk in cases of extreme impact or high probability. We're also bad at identifying root cause.

edgartaor 9y ago

You have a good point. But we don't know if the government agencies are actually preventing an even higher amount of deaths. Or we are sacrificing freedoms for nothing.

thescriptkiddie 9y ago
In all likelihood, we are sacrificing freedoms for nothing. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-ha... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/does_the_tsa_ever_catch_terrorists.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-tsa-20170207-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-tsa-20170207-stor... http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/abend-tsa-screening-failure/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/abend-tsa-screening-f...
Bakary 9y ago
Even if say the amount of casualties triple, that's still a rounding error compared to heart disease, suicide, car crashes, and a number of other sources of massive suffering and shortened lives.

refurb 9y ago

I agree we shouldn't be sacrificing our freedoms, but do you not see the difference between someone dying from a terror attack and someone dying in a car crash? Terror attacks destabilize societies. Car crashes don't.

Bakary 9y ago
If you alter the way these attacks are covered by the media, they will stop being so destabilizing.
- mistermann 9y ago
  Tell that to the parents of a child who just had their limbs blown off.
  - Bakary 9y ago
    I agree (and I'm slightly shocked that's what you assumed I meant) but that's clearly not what I wrote. The poster I responded to explicitly referred to society itself being destabilized. The more the media focuses on the terrorists themselves instead of commemorating the victims, the more would-be attackers will want to have their 15 minutes of infamy. The more shocking the reporting the media crafts, the more fearful the citizens become, and thus the more effective terrorism becomes. If terrorist see that they can fundamentally alter the way an entire Western nation functions, they will be encouraged to continue. More groups will pop up and thrive. More people will die. The question is, how do we actually stop kids from dying? Looking at the big picture and changing the way we respond to attacks is one such way, knee-jerk accusatory reactions are not. Why don't we at least try it?
    - mistermann 9y ago
      You don't think parents will be destabilized if the media doesn't report on it? We could try stopping killing their kids and see if that changes anything.

dgut 9y ago

The "more people die in car accidents" is a moot argument. Terrorism hits a nerve car accidents or w/e can't. Here is the thing: When driving a car, you have some level of control of your destinity. Take precaution, use the seat belts, children seat, and so on... You know there is risk involved, but that you also can lower that risk. Worrying that your next train trip, museum visit, or national day celebration will end up fatally, changes your way of life. You have zero control over that. You worry about those dearest to you.

spangry 9y ago
I guess a more analogous phenomena would be sudden death due to various medical conditions. Just to pick a random one (not the only one): spontaneous coronary artery dissection. Statistics are rather difficult to come by on this, but assuming the US population incidence is 0.28% [0] of all 735,000 'heart attacks' per year in the US [1], with a mortality rate of 60% (wikipedia says 70% but that number is iffy), that's 1235 random "sudden deaths" per year from just one non-preventable and non-predictable medical condition alone. So I suspect the more general point, that statistically you are much more likely to be randomly killed by "not terrorism", is probably a valid one. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3249260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3249260/ [1] https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/heart_attack.htm https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/heart_attack.htm