subject: How We Are Deluded by the Threat of Terrorism [print this page] How We Are Deluded by the Threat of Terrorism
Why don't we restrict public freedoms to counter terrorist threats? After all, what's so bad about a few cameras, continuous surveillance and unlimited detention for a few unlucky innocents? After all, it will increase our safety and make the world a better place.
This is a classical result of availability bias, i.e. the tendency to predict the likelyhood of an event based on how easily an example can be brought to mind.
Even in New York on September 11, 2001 terrorism had a negligible physical health impact on the average citizen, but a catastrophic psychological effect on the 99.985% of New Yorkers surviving the attack. On any given day, 173 citizens of the New Yorkers metro area die of heart attacks and strokes and 105 of cancer. This is not to say that this question can be reduced to numbers alone or that decisions should be based only on statistics. But it is important to see that within 7 days, more citizens of New York metro die of non-terrorism causes than did due to the terror attacks. And most importantly, many of these deaths could be avoided by following general health and safety guidelines.
Nearly three times as many people died in the US in 2001 due to firearm homocides than due to terrorism, but strangely enough nobody is talking about gun prohibition, but instead about abolishing basic freedoms with very limited proven effects on terrorism prevention. Something is seriously wrong when measures of questionable effectiveness and critical impact on human rights are preferred to simple measures which would be effective but lack a triggering event.
Worldwide estimated annual deaths (millions) by cause:
source: WHO causes of death 2002 ( source, source ) Note: Malnutrition is estimated to be the root cause of several million deaths anually.
According to the Department of State in 2007 worldwide as a result of terror attacks:
22,685 people were killed
44,310 people were injured
5,071 people were kidnapped
These numbers are reported to be likely distorted by civilian fatalities in Iraq. For an in-depth view on this topic, have a look at the Human Security Brief.
But even if we take these figures at face value and remember that only a tiny minority of terrorist attacks occured in the West (most of which in Spain and Ireland) we are still not even close to other preventable death causes. Even if we would estimate the risk of terrorism-related fatalities to be on the order of a few 100,000 annual deaths, this would still be much less than deaths due to diabetes, suicide, traffic accidents, infectious diseases or cancer.
If we are already proposing to significantly restrict citizen freedoms, why not start with those expected to generate the highest impact in out country:
Make regular sports activities and healthy eating habits compulsory under penalty of imprisonment. Ban foods high in sugar and fat.
Ban smoking under penalty of imprisonment. Smoking is reported to be the leading avoidable cause of death worldwide, causing 24% of male and 7% of female deaths in 1990.
Limit highway speeds, enforce 0% alcohol level when driving, severely punish all traffic accident participants.
Ban (excessive) consumption of alcohol. Citizens with alcohol-induced liver symptoms will be severely punished
Make medical exams compulsory. Severely punish carriers of sexually transmitted diseases for unsafe sex practices
Drastically reduce air pollution (i.e. by limiting travel to job-related destinations)
Reduce suicide rates by compulsory social activities
And these measures don't even take into account the impact of providing basic nourishment and medical aid to third-world countries where many millions die annually of the causes of malnutrition, starvation and curable or preventable diseases. But no!, instead of going after the population's vices governments want to restrict the most basic human rights and pretend to have everything under control.
