"The public reacts viscerally to terrorism and crime, out of proportion with natural causes that cause the same amount of damage. Accounting for that in public policy is keeping things in perspective."
My argument was very much not "there are more deaths by X than terrorism, ergo we need to deal more with X". However, I think most people are not at all aware of the staggering difference in the levels of risk they bear from various sources, and pointing out the radical differences helps to keep things in perspective. A narrow counting of the dead is absolutely not the only correct perspective. At the same time, telling people they need to worry more because other people will be worried is only making matters worse. Better that they refuse to be terrorized (http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html); that they recognize that by bearing in mind the actual relative threats they can legitimately feel safer.
"Also, if you want to be hyper-rational about this: the NSA program probably has incredible bang-for-buck. If it costs $500 million a year, it only has to prevent a 9/11-scale event once or twice a century to justify itself."
That is not what rational means.
"Also, if we're "keeping things in perspective" why do you compare lives as if each one has equal value? One WTC worker was probably worth several times as much, in terms of GDP, as the average person who dies of heart disease. 3,000 people dying in Manhattan's financial district == 15,000 people dying in a Kansas City tornado... Obviously I'm being glib with this line of argument. You can't callously compare the two situations in the interest of "keeping things in perspective." So to can you not compare people dying in a terrorist attack to people dying of heart disease."
There are so many things wrong with this.
First, you pick a metric that is most emphatically not just counting lives, find it ick, and conclude that you can't just count lives. Which isn't really here nor there - my intent with number of lives was never to be precise but to give a sense of scale; adjust according to whatever perceived value you place on the respective lives.
More importantly, you're making an emotional appeal that is frankly absurd: yes, comparing certain things can seem crass, but resources we're spending on "fighting terrorism" aren't being put to other use and liberties we're giving up for "fighting terrorism" are enabling abuses (now or down the line), and we need to make comparisons if we're going to make any decisions. Making decisions anyway is implicitly making those same comparisons, just with less care, and people's lives are at stake!
My argument was very much not "there are more deaths by X than terrorism, ergo we need to deal more with X". However, I think most people are not at all aware of the staggering difference in the levels of risk they bear from various sources, and pointing out the radical differences helps to keep things in perspective. A narrow counting of the dead is absolutely not the only correct perspective. At the same time, telling people they need to worry more because other people will be worried is only making matters worse. Better that they refuse to be terrorized (http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html); that they recognize that by bearing in mind the actual relative threats they can legitimately feel safer.
"Also, if you want to be hyper-rational about this: the NSA program probably has incredible bang-for-buck. If it costs $500 million a year, it only has to prevent a 9/11-scale event once or twice a century to justify itself."
That is not what rational means.
"Also, if we're "keeping things in perspective" why do you compare lives as if each one has equal value? One WTC worker was probably worth several times as much, in terms of GDP, as the average person who dies of heart disease. 3,000 people dying in Manhattan's financial district == 15,000 people dying in a Kansas City tornado... Obviously I'm being glib with this line of argument. You can't callously compare the two situations in the interest of "keeping things in perspective." So to can you not compare people dying in a terrorist attack to people dying of heart disease."
There are so many things wrong with this.
First, you pick a metric that is most emphatically not just counting lives, find it ick, and conclude that you can't just count lives. Which isn't really here nor there - my intent with number of lives was never to be precise but to give a sense of scale; adjust according to whatever perceived value you place on the respective lives.
More importantly, you're making an emotional appeal that is frankly absurd: yes, comparing certain things can seem crass, but resources we're spending on "fighting terrorism" aren't being put to other use and liberties we're giving up for "fighting terrorism" are enabling abuses (now or down the line), and we need to make comparisons if we're going to make any decisions. Making decisions anyway is implicitly making those same comparisons, just with less care, and people's lives are at stake!