4 ms·

The difference is that terrorism in the US is a miniscule threat in reality, killing a handful of people a year, whereas the virus is one of the top causes of d

The difference is that terrorism in the US is a miniscule threat in reality, killing a handful of people a year, whereas the virus is one of the top causes of death over the past two years. Not all fears are unjustified. Climate change already kills far more people annually than terrorism via floods, fires, and droughts. That being said, fear doesn't justify authoritarianism, even when the fear is reasonable.

raxxorrax 5y ago
The individual chance that you die from any of that does NOT warrant fear.
- vannevar 5y ago
  Similarly, the individual chance of getting cancer by smoking a cigarette doesn't warrant fear. But if you apply this logic to cigarette after cigarette, you may end up in a PSA talking through a hole in your throat and telling everyone not to smoke. Fortunately, as human beings, we can see patterns in large numbers and act on them. We aren't limited to looking at the world through the keyhole of individual risk. We can take a broader view.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I think your system is not an accurate representation. They are talking about an individuals risk of these events killing them. Your system is talking about the cumulative risk of individual cigarettes. This distinction needs to be made because the risk varies greatly by location and ones preparation (mitigating factors).
    - vannevar 5y ago
      My 'system' is talking about incremental risks, whether they are across time or across individuals. The point is that these incremental risks are not great in themselves, but when accumulated, they become substantial. If climate change contributes to increasing disease, as is projected, the cumulation of diseases over time become a substantial risk even to the individual, even if they aren't directly affected by flood, fire or drought. And of course even a low direct individual risk can cascade into a societal risk that circles back to affect the individual. Take the chief risk of COVID-19, which is that the local medical system is overwhelmed. When this becomes acute, as it did in Italy, it affects even those who were at little risk of COVID itself, by denying them access to health care in the event of an accident or other illness.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. The infectious diseases they talk about are from expansion of the disease carrier range (mosquitoes and ticks). These have mitigating factors to avoid the infections. There's very little cumulative risk and it's still largely location based. So this is a far cry from your example of cigarettes and ending up in a PSA. The risk is much higher with cigarettes. As stated by the previous commenter - they are not something to be afraid of.
        vannevar 5y ago
        > Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. You're looking at it through the individual lens again. The chances of an individual winning the lottery in any year are near zero, but the chances of there being some lottery winner in any year are near 100%. The chance of any one car trip resulting in an accident are extremely low, yet we still wear a seat belt consistently because the long term chances of an accident are high even if we are careful drivers---we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint. And the cigarette example, which is only a "far cry" if you grossly underestimate all the cumulative risks associated with climate change. Simply handwaving away the death toll from insect-borne infection because they don't affect you personally doesn't make them any less real. And of course those aren't the only climate related risks. Drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are all correlated with increasing thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere. Something we should rationally fear and actively work to mitigate.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "You're looking at it through the individual lens again." The entire point of this thread - that individuals shouldn't fear these things. Fear is at the individual level. "we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint." Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. Even then, the occurrence of an accident when being careful is low enough that there is not fear when driving down the road. If there was substantial fear, then we wouldn't drive (like people I know who have a panic attack when driving). "if you grossly underestimate all the cumulative risks associated with climate change." They have yet to be fully disclosed/known and materialize. It's reasonable to not be afraid of something that does not yet exist. "Simply handwaving away the death toll from insect-borne infection because they don't affect you personally doesn't make them any less real." It's not hand waving. There are mitigating steps to be taken. It's certainly nothing to be afraid of for many people. Again, the component of the comment we are discussing. "Drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are all correlated with increasing thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere. Something we should rationally fear and actively work to mitigate." It's not rational to fear something that doesn't affect you. These things do not affect all areas. You can work to mitigate things without being afraid of them. I'm not afraid of those events as they largely don't affect my area, and I take steps to mitigate any damage from the ones rest do occur.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Absolutely right. However, it doesn't stop politicial groups or media from using ominous music and dystopian or wasteland images to evoke fear in their audience.
kabouseng 5y ago
Actually fewer die due to climate change due to fewer people freezing to death...
- lesuorac 5y ago
  > Overall, a total of more than 19,000 Americans have died from cold-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates. It's a bit hard to prove who died due to the flood/etc being affect by climate change as opposed to if they'd have died if the flood was less. But I'm not sure ~500/yr is a good number to bet against. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-cold-related-deaths#:~:text=Overall%2C%20a%20total%20of%20more,1979%2C%20according%20to%20death%20certificates https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica....
- pchangr 5y ago
  That’s a gross oversimplification of climate change. You have people dying because crops can’t survive.. people dying because they got misplaced on coastal areas .. people dying because of extreme heat.. people dying on fires … And that without counting that freeze to death due to extreme cold.. which climate change also causes

raxxorrax 5y ago

The individual chance that you die from any of that does NOT warrant fear.

vannevar 5y ago
Similarly, the individual chance of getting cancer by smoking a cigarette doesn't warrant fear. But if you apply this logic to cigarette after cigarette, you may end up in a PSA talking through a hole in your throat and telling everyone not to smoke. Fortunately, as human beings, we can see patterns in large numbers and act on them. We aren't limited to looking at the world through the keyhole of individual risk. We can take a broader view.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I think your system is not an accurate representation. They are talking about an individuals risk of these events killing them. Your system is talking about the cumulative risk of individual cigarettes. This distinction needs to be made because the risk varies greatly by location and ones preparation (mitigating factors).
  - vannevar 5y ago
    My 'system' is talking about incremental risks, whether they are across time or across individuals. The point is that these incremental risks are not great in themselves, but when accumulated, they become substantial. If climate change contributes to increasing disease, as is projected, the cumulation of diseases over time become a substantial risk even to the individual, even if they aren't directly affected by flood, fire or drought. And of course even a low direct individual risk can cascade into a societal risk that circles back to affect the individual. Take the chief risk of COVID-19, which is that the local medical system is overwhelmed. When this becomes acute, as it did in Italy, it affects even those who were at little risk of COVID itself, by denying them access to health care in the event of an accident or other illness.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. The infectious diseases they talk about are from expansion of the disease carrier range (mosquitoes and ticks). These have mitigating factors to avoid the infections. There's very little cumulative risk and it's still largely location based. So this is a far cry from your example of cigarettes and ending up in a PSA. The risk is much higher with cigarettes. As stated by the previous commenter - they are not something to be afraid of.
      - vannevar 5y ago
        > Which is still an extremely low risk, affecting a relatively small part of the population. You're looking at it through the individual lens again. The chances of an individual winning the lottery in any year are near zero, but the chances of there being some lottery winner in any year are near 100%. The chance of any one car trip resulting in an accident are extremely low, yet we still wear a seat belt consistently because the long term chances of an accident are high even if we are careful drivers---we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint. And the cigarette example, which is only a "far cry" if you grossly underestimate all the cumulative risks associated with climate change. Simply handwaving away the death toll from insect-borne infection because they don't affect you personally doesn't make them any less real. And of course those aren't the only climate related risks. Drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are all correlated with increasing thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere. Something we should rationally fear and actively work to mitigate.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "You're looking at it through the individual lens again." The entire point of this thread - that individuals shouldn't fear these things. Fear is at the individual level. "we rightly fear the consequences of an accident without a restraint." Why would we be afraid of a moot scenario? If you have and use a seat belt, then this isn't a scenario to fear. Even then, the occurrence of an accident when being careful is low enough that there is not fear when driving down the road. If there was substantial fear, then we wouldn't drive (like people I know who have a panic attack when driving). "if you grossly underestimate all the cumulative risks associated with climate change." They have yet to be fully disclosed/known and materialize. It's reasonable to not be afraid of something that does not yet exist. "Simply handwaving away the death toll from insect-borne infection because they don't affect you personally doesn't make them any less real." It's not hand waving. There are mitigating steps to be taken. It's certainly nothing to be afraid of for many people. Again, the component of the comment we are discussing. "Drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are all correlated with increasing thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere. Something we should rationally fear and actively work to mitigate." It's not rational to fear something that doesn't affect you. These things do not affect all areas. You can work to mitigate things without being afraid of them. I'm not afraid of those events as they largely don't affect my area, and I take steps to mitigate any damage from the ones rest do occur.
giantg2 5y ago
Absolutely right. However, it doesn't stop politicial groups or media from using ominous music and dystopian or wasteland images to evoke fear in their audience.

kabouseng 5y ago

Actually fewer die due to climate change due to fewer people freezing to death...

lesuorac 5y ago
> Overall, a total of more than 19,000 Americans have died from cold-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates. It's a bit hard to prove who died due to the flood/etc being affect by climate change as opposed to if they'd have died if the flood was less. But I'm not sure ~500/yr is a good number to bet against. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-cold-related-deaths#:~:text=Overall%2C%20a%20total%20of%20more,1979%2C%20according%20to%20death%20certificates https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica....
pchangr 5y ago
That’s a gross oversimplification of climate change. You have people dying because crops can’t survive.. people dying because they got misplaced on coastal areas .. people dying because of extreme heat.. people dying on fires … And that without counting that freeze to death due to extreme cold.. which climate change also causes