Earthquake in China, and why we worry about the wrong things

So as I'm sure most of you heard, there was a devastating earthquake in Szechuan province. I'm not sure what the total death toll has reached, but last time I checked, it was at 12,000 and climbing. It got me to thinking about how people spend time worrying about the wrong things. 12,000 people. That would be more killed then both the US casualty total from the 911 attacks and the war in Iraq combined. And this was a random act of nature. It's certainly not unthinkable that a similar catastrophe could hit the US, say in California, but you don't hear the media fear barons sounding their alarms.

The truth is, it is an innate part of human psychology to fear the unlikely. On a basic, primal level, the human animal is most scared of a threat that is perceived as new. That is because something new implies a necessary change in activity, since from a biological standpoint, the new threat should not become commonplace. However, it is counterproductive (from an evolutionary standpoint) to be obsessively worried about consistent threats.

Another example: Compare the situation in Africa to nearly anywhere else. It is par for course that Africa is a humanitarian nightmare. But since this seems to be, in the perception of the masses, an unavoidable reality, it is not something that most people lose sleep over. However, if you recall the situation in Bosnia, it was a crisis that required immediate international intervention.

Take school shootings as another example. A fairly low death toll when compared to urban youth shootings. Yet every time there is a school shooting, there seems to be a need for immediate action to prevent it from happening again. In Newark, last year, there were around 300 deaths from shootings. Yet even people living a few miles away sort of shrugged.

Statistically, one of the most dangerous things for young people in America is car crashes. Yet you see far more people rallying against the war, and the deaths it has caused. It is hard to imagine a large scale movement to say, encourage safer driving practices.

I think terrorism is the most absurd example of this misplaced fear. Certainly, a loose nuke scenario would be utterly devastating. Yet here in New Jersey, about 95 percent of our incoming cargo remains uninspected. Nevertheless, one constantly hears rhetoric about the clash of civilizations, and how terrorism is THE great threat of the modern era.

In Africa, in the mid 90's, around 4 million people died in a brutal civil war in the Congo. In fact, the total number of armed conflicts in the world is at current historic lows. Yet the 90s are remembered as a time of relative world stability, while the aughts seem to be the age of global conflict and uncertainty. I know the media and politicians have alot to do with this odd state of perceptive affairs. But what else? What do you think are the other factors that make our public consciousness focus in on such narrow data?

"The death of one person is a tragedy. The death of one million is a statistic."- Joseph Stalin.

Again, It would be nice if you would learn to use quotes and links before posting articles like this.

Also, Then and Than are not really interchangeable.

there is just so much wrong with this... I don't mean politically, I mean scientifically, logically and factually. your heart's in the right place, I think, but if you'd do a little more research and a little less ungrounded speculation, you might be able to answer some of your own questions about the world. I don't want to do one of those line-by-line "here's what's wrong" things; you seem like a nice guy.

But other than that, its pretty good, right?

I can't tell if the intention of this is to make people guilty about worrying about the wrong things, to philosophize about natural disasters, to try to play down one threat as opposed to another, or to make accusations of racisim because Africa hasn't gotten the attention other places have.

I give this a D. No citations. Poor formating. Lack of a coherent point, more of a loose collection of thoughts revolving around a loose circle of world events. More suited to your blog than CE. On a positive note, at least you got the spelling and decent grammar down. Bonus points for not mentioning Ron Paul.

There was no specific point. It was more of an open ended series of musings.

i thought they called that sort of thing a "blog".

could be wrong.

I take it then, that the newswire formatting guidelines are also meant to apply to this forum?

Turin, I'm not going to be offended by internet criticism. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific?

. . . back in my day we called it a journal.
And we kept it in a nightstand next to the bed, which we crafted by hand from what straw the cows wouldn't eat. We made the journal by hand too of course, from cornstalk fibers pressed into paper.
After all the chores were done, by the light of a kerosene lamp we would pen long winded pointless musings about lifes hardships and the folly of our worries.
Usually as winter wore on and food became scarce, we wound up just feeding them to the cows rather than posting them online at the post office for everyone to critique.

Unofficially, yes. Please use quotation boxes, proper formating and link to your sources.

Also, this thread more suited to your own personal blog/journal. If you're going to post your personal thoughts and musings in the CE forum, prepare for continued ridicule.

Is it possible that such was the original intent?

The Ronpauloompas seem to have an affinity for it. They're all over the local news boards about this Barr douchebag. It's like an infestation.

wouldn't it be the sounding of their alarms that makes them media fear barons? honestly, your libertarian hyperbole makes it harder and harder to take you seriously.

What do you mean? To invite the ridicule?

I am a bit of a cynic, whilst i think all the crap that happens naturally and unnaturally is sometimes heartbreaking, i also believe that sometimes it's the world reacting to how we have all infected and destroyed her... plus aid was late, the buildings were structurally unsound and frankly, shit happens. I feel sorry for the people and am saddened by the loss, i think the future will bring more catastrophes yet do you think people are really going to learn by it? More will come, mother nature cannot be prevented so we should enjoy the little blips of time we call life. If i sound harsh i do not mean to, i just say what i think.

Perzactly. Negative attention is still attention.

If he wanted that, he could just troll like stockula. No, I believe that LSlice is just caught up in the RP Rloveution and possibly an bit of an over-inflated ego from his new found interest in politics. Can't say I wasn't much different the first time I read PHOTUS back in my early twenties.

Probably a nice guy and all, but could benefit from toning down the Libertarian rhetoric and self-importance going on here.

On second thought, now I sound like a self-righteous ass.

I'll leave this thread alone.

Actually, Steve, you're exactly right. I post on other forums where I know the response will be positive. But talking to people who have a somewhat hostile ideological perspective is educational, and extremely useful.

You're talking about Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Black Swan ideas here, right? I have some sympathy with them (though I hate his style and his arrogance). (If you are not familiar with him, there's a Wikipedia article.)

A lot of what you say makes sense. However, your examples need a little more thought, IMO.

Bosnia: Europeans remember Bosnia from 1914. Bosnia looked like a flashpoint. And yes, a lot of that was "because they're Europeans, dammit"; at least IMO. And another lot was NATO looking like an organisation whose time had passed, and desperately trying to be relevant.
Bosnia vs. Africa: Africa is underdeveloped. Its wars do not (in the general perception) risk serious damage to the global economy. (I happen to disagree, but that is another point.)

School shootings: Second Amendment. That's the price you pay for easy access to guns. To prevent that, you have to go up against all sorts of powerful groups, and a public perception that American law enforcement has failed.
Much the same applies to car deaths.

Rhetoric about terrorism appears to be based almost entirely on politically-motivated exploitation of the 2001 attacks. Nobody paid much attention when it was American money funding terrorism in the UK (for example).

Wars: Civil wars are internal. They do not raise much interest on the world stage, because by definition that is populated by countries. Countries view conflict between themselves as the major type of conflict.
Which is why the current period looks more warlike than the 90s: The USA is the biggest global power, and it's spending a stupendous amount of money on a war it didn't have to fight in the first place, apparently either on a whim or for internal political advantage.

There is an underlying theme here which is interesting:
Individuals are important, on a global scale.
School shootings? Yes.
Bosnia? Less so, but the framing by the image of the lone assassin (Gavrilo Princip was his name) is still important.
Guns? Yes.
Car crashes? Definitely.
Terrorism? A whole 20 people for 9/11.
Iraq? Looks like it.

Tentative conclusion: Globalisation and the interdependence of cultures have made us hostages to motivated lunatics. Especially in the coming age of biotech.