A friend of mine wrote:
"Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced.
Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,662, and homicide another 17,330. No one on American soil was killed by terrorists in 2000 and only one in 1999. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.
Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180.000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Near every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion a year on "homeland defense" for as long into the future as we can see.
Is all this really necessary? Not many lives will be saved and all the money will not ease the near-hysterical fear of terrorism that has been created.
Assuming that the $50 billion investment would have saved the lives of the 2,978 people killed by terrorists in 2001, that's a cost of $1,678,979 per life. An recent issue of USA Today had a major article questioning the wisdom of safety improvements to automobiles that would cost far less per life saved.
I think we have got things totally out of whack. The emphasis on terrorism by our government is, in my view, a very opportunistic and convenient means of distracting attention from far greater threats to our future."
So, by this measure, have the terrorists won?
"Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced.
Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,662, and homicide another 17,330. No one on American soil was killed by terrorists in 2000 and only one in 1999. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.
Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180.000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Near every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion a year on "homeland defense" for as long into the future as we can see.
Is all this really necessary? Not many lives will be saved and all the money will not ease the near-hysterical fear of terrorism that has been created.
Assuming that the $50 billion investment would have saved the lives of the 2,978 people killed by terrorists in 2001, that's a cost of $1,678,979 per life. An recent issue of USA Today had a major article questioning the wisdom of safety improvements to automobiles that would cost far less per life saved.
I think we have got things totally out of whack. The emphasis on terrorism by our government is, in my view, a very opportunistic and convenient means of distracting attention from far greater threats to our future."
So, by this measure, have the terrorists won?
Comment