Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The number of people killed on September 11th is approximately the same number killed on the USA's roads in *one month* and resulted in a massive downturn in people using air travel, even though there were huge increases in security.
|
Well, that's OK then. Nothing to worry about.
Just have a look at the comparison you're making. The number of people dead in 3 hours as opposed to 30 days. You could at least normalise the data to try make a legitimate comparison.
The road deaths are an unfortunate side-effect of modern life, having your life ended by terrorists in the manner of 9/11 can in no way be compared to that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The number of people who died in rail accidents such as Paddington or Hatfield are the equivalent of a couple of *days* deaths on the roads in the UK, but they caused a lot of people to decide to stop using trains and, instead, go back to road travel *even though* they would actually be less safe.
|
The way the UK railways have been mismanaged, I can't really blame them. It certainly was looking like it might become a common occurance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
When a certain type of birth control pill was announced to have a possible link with heart disease, many women stopped taking it, even though the risk of complications due to pregnancy etc were much greater than those from heart disease.
|
By the same token we should leave all that food contaminated with Sudan I on the shelves, because there really is only a very tiny risk associated with it in the quantities in which it is found in that food.
If you discontinue with something because of an associated risk when you don't need to continue with it is not irrational, it's sensible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The point of all this is that people do *NOT* respond to risk and threat in a rational or sensible manner. They see headlines and very often don't bother to look behind them, this is very probably what the government is *relying* on to get their anti-terror legislation through Parliament (and also very probably what got George W Bush re-elected).
|
It is true that some people's response to a perceived threat (i.e. risk) can sometimes be irrational. I have an irrational fear of spiders. Fortunately it doesn't rule my life because I am WAY bigger than said spider, and I can reason my way around that one (and/or flatten the spider.)
If, however, we are faced with a threat/risk we cannot properly quantify or control, then how can we know what is a measured/rational response?
You say quite categorically:
Quote:
|
The point of all this is that people do *NOT* respond to risk and threat in a rational or sensible manner.
|
I'm saying that it's not at all that straightforward.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The terrorists (note the first syllable "Terror") are counting on this, they don't want us to *think* about the fact that actually there aren't that many of them and whilst they can hurt us they can't really "destroy" us, they want us scared and frightened and willing to throw away rights and liberties to counter their "threat" because it serves *their* purposes.
We should *NOT* give in to terror by dancing to their tune.
|
This is straight repetition of what you said before, and
assumes that the threat is less real than maybe we perceive. It also
assumes the terrorists motive, which I dispute, since the terrorists have not really given us any reason to assume that.
If, however, that was what their game plan was, then indeed we'd be risking playing into their hands. But before we follow that strategy I'd like some proof.