6 ms·

Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. I wonder if that's some kind of evolutionary echo of a more violent time when a le

Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. I wonder if that's some kind of evolutionary echo of a more violent time when a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife. We're apparently still pretty interested in who's out there somewhere, scheming to come and kill us.

otakucode 9y ago
It wouldn't make much sense for the news to report on things which were not newsworthy. That people die from very typical things people always die from just isn't news.
- troels 9y ago
  But people have always died from violence. It's hardly news.
  - pdpi 9y ago
    Fewer people die to violence now than they ever did. That’s what makes it news.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  So by the argument, the more terrorism kills, the less it should be reported? I think it's clear it's not due to its infrequency that it's reported on so much.
  - fyi1183 9y ago
    Are you sure about that? I haven't actually lived through the Troubles in England, but my understanding is that while terrorist acts were obviously reported by the news, there was much less hysteria than for today's much rarer terrorist events.
lifeformed 9y ago
I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how unsafe it makes people feel.
- r00fus 9y ago
  And how useful that feeling is to manipulate for media companies.
- mikeash 9y ago
  It’s right there in the name.
- leetcrew 9y ago
  i am one of those people who think that we should allocate resources against causes of death in close proportion to the number of lives claimed. my guess is that many other engineering types also take this position. recently however, i have come to worry that this position lacks empathy. especially in light of recent mass shootings in the US, i am forced to consider that some types of deaths have far worse second order effects than others. if ten people die on different days out in the woods, ten sets of family and friends are devastated. tragic, but if ten students are killed at school in the same day, it seems that the lasting damage is far more severe and widespread. to some extent you can say that's just because people are emotional/irrational and they are blocking optimal allocation, but maybe the optimal solution does need to take into account how people feel about things. maybe things like terrorism and mass shootings are actually a lot more harmful than the numbers suggest.
  - gnode 9y ago
    The issue is more that due to highly asymmetric reporting, people wrongly estimate what the risks to themselves and loved ones are. This means that we don't act rationally in our own interests, to best avoid harm. I think most parents would care more about road safety, carbon monoxide poisoning, mental health, etc. than about terrorism or school shootings, if they were aware of the statistics.
- mulmen 9y ago
blattimwind 9y ago
> Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. How many people do you know that were killed or injured in a terrorist attack? Second order? Same question for {murdered, illness, natural cause}. Compare magnitudes.
- 13of40 9y ago
  I knew a person whose brother in law was killed in 9/11 and another guy whose best friend was shot down in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Trouble is I really can't compare it to the scads of relatives of friends who have undoubtably died of cancer or heart disease, because those just aren't the kind of stories people swap on a fishing trip.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
craftyguy 9y ago
> when a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife What leads you to believe that was ever a major cause of death for more than a tiny handful of people? It would seem the hardships of living before modern medicine and (any) agriculture would have killed far more people. Given how expensive/risky it was to collect food, why would any group of folks risk most of their healthy, strong brood to wage regional conflict? If they lost, all of them would lose by virtue of losing the most capable members of the society.

otakucode 9y ago

It wouldn't make much sense for the news to report on things which were not newsworthy. That people die from very typical things people always die from just isn't news.

troels 9y ago
But people have always died from violence. It's hardly news.
- pdpi 9y ago
  Fewer people die to violence now than they ever did. That’s what makes it news.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
So by the argument, the more terrorism kills, the less it should be reported? I think it's clear it's not due to its infrequency that it's reported on so much.
- fyi1183 9y ago
  Are you sure about that? I haven't actually lived through the Troubles in England, but my understanding is that while terrorist acts were obviously reported by the news, there was much less hysteria than for today's much rarer terrorist events.

lifeformed 9y ago

I think the fears of terrorism is less about how many people it kills, as how unsafe it makes people feel.

r00fus 9y ago
And how useful that feeling is to manipulate for media companies.
mikeash 9y ago
It’s right there in the name.
leetcrew 9y ago
i am one of those people who think that we should allocate resources against causes of death in close proportion to the number of lives claimed. my guess is that many other engineering types also take this position. recently however, i have come to worry that this position lacks empathy. especially in light of recent mass shootings in the US, i am forced to consider that some types of deaths have far worse second order effects than others. if ten people die on different days out in the woods, ten sets of family and friends are devastated. tragic, but if ten students are killed at school in the same day, it seems that the lasting damage is far more severe and widespread. to some extent you can say that's just because people are emotional/irrational and they are blocking optimal allocation, but maybe the optimal solution does need to take into account how people feel about things. maybe things like terrorism and mass shootings are actually a lot more harmful than the numbers suggest.
- gnode 9y ago
  The issue is more that due to highly asymmetric reporting, people wrongly estimate what the risks to themselves and loved ones are. This means that we don't act rationally in our own interests, to best avoid harm. I think most parents would care more about road safety, carbon monoxide poisoning, mental health, etc. than about terrorism or school shootings, if they were aware of the statistics.
mulmen 9y ago

blattimwind 9y ago

> Wow, terrorism really is overrepresented compared with how we die these days. How many people do you know that were killed or injured in a terrorist attack? Second order? Same question for {murdered, illness, natural cause}. Compare magnitudes.

13of40 9y ago
I knew a person whose brother in law was killed in 9/11 and another guy whose best friend was shot down in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Trouble is I really can't compare it to the scads of relatives of friends who have undoubtably died of cancer or heart disease, because those just aren't the kind of stories people swap on a fishing trip.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

craftyguy 9y ago

> when a leading cause of death for most humans was regional strife What leads you to believe that was ever a major cause of death for more than a tiny handful of people? It would seem the hardships of living before modern medicine and (any) agriculture would have killed far more people. Given how expensive/risky it was to collect food, why would any group of folks risk most of their healthy, strong brood to wage regional conflict? If they lost, all of them would lose by virtue of losing the most capable members of the society.