So, I was definitely once one of those people arguing for lax airline security on the basis that fear of terrorism is irrational and resources would be better spent on actual, mundane, every-day threats (like automobile safety).
But I think you're actually right about this; my original argument ignored human psychology to an extent that makes it nonsensical. Actual threats are important, but so are perceived threats. It's not entirely irrational to protect against the things we fear the most, even if those aren't actually the most likely things to kill us.
This also comes up a lot in arguments about city living. I know a lot of people for whom urban living is frightening to an extent that is not supportable by crime statistics. But so what? If they were to move to the city, they'd be constantly afraid. That matters. Rational or not, their perception greatly impacts their quality of life. And if you want those people to move back from the suburbs, then you need to address their concerns.
There is a reason, after all, that airplanes are such an attractive target for those who'd like to cause terror.
This represents a pretty fundamental reasoning error, I think that a lot of people make - and your argument about city living is the perfect manifestation of it.
While some people do stop living in cities out of fear, obviously most people do not, because otherwise they would not be cities. You could argue that the government needs to come in in a very heavy-handed way and say in order to assuage the fear of the minority, we must pat down everyone that lives in the city hourly and check for weapons. But we don't do that, because it is irrational and unnecessary, and people will take the amount of risk that they feel is comfortable. We trust people to figure that out for themselves.
With airplanes, before the doors were reinforced, the planes could be used as a weapon against people who weren't even flying. That represents an externality. That is a place for the government to come in and say "this is too dangerous to others who cannot protect themselves against this weapon by voting with their wallet". The people who are on the plane, however, can choose to pay a premium to fly on an airline with more stringent security procedures. If people care enough, they will do that. If they don't, they won't, and they should be allowed to make that determination for themselves.
If I don't see terrorism on my flights as a risk, I shouldn't have to socialize those who do. And alternatively, if I do see terrorism as a risk, I damn sure want better security procedures than what the TSA has on offer, and if there were a private market for better secured planes, I don't doubt for a second that it would be substantially safer than what the TSA is able to provide.
Great comment. One thing in regard to this (that's getting off topic, so ignore if you're not interested):
"You could argue that the government needs to come in in a very heavy-handed way and say in order to assuage the fear of the minority, we must pat down everyone that lives in the city hourly and check for weapons. But we don't do that, because it is irrational and unnecessary, and people will take the amount of risk that they feel is comfortable. We trust people to figure that out for themselves."
The reality in most large metros in the U.S. is that the core city competes with its suburbs for resources, the largest of which is people. The region I live in has 2.8 million people, only 300k of which live in the (widely-abandoned) anchor city that gives the region its name. Yes, people are figuring it out for themselves, to the benefit of some interests and the detriment of others. "Let the people figure it out" isn't very useful advice to the losers in that battle.
> Actual threats are important, but so are perceived threats
Like the airplane that was downed because a passenger felt threatened by a math professor solving equations? I'm sorry but catering to ignorance is not the way forward. We have real problems as a society, let's not solve imaginary ones.
It's not merely "catering to ignorance." You can sit these people down and tell them the numbers. It won't matter. They'll no longer be ignorant, but they'll still be scared.
The other problem with the argument that "terrorism death rates are very low" is that terrorism is intelligently adaptive, while cancer, auto accidents, etc are not. If a terrorist group finds that it can burn 20 members to get 3000 enemy deaths, and no security measures change, they will quickly ramp up to doing e.g. 2000 to 300,000.
There is no similar dynamic for cancer or car accidents.
>This also comes up a lot in arguments about city living ... is frightening to an extent that is not supportable by crime statistics.
The (other) problem with the "cities are statistically safe" argument is: you have to account for the presence of countermeasures.
Sure, the crime rate is about the same ... but that's only because of a) much denser police presence, b) locking up your stuff a lot more securely, c) being a lot more distrusting of strangers.
If you fail to keep up these measures, your fear of crime will be totally justified!
(You can think of it as being the opposite argument of "hospitals must be unsafe because so many people die there".)
The total number of terrorists is very low. 9/11 was a major operation and was not something they could ramp up.
PS: Hospitals are dangerous even for healthy people. Much like how trench warfare lead to the 1918 pandemic which killed between 50 and 100 million. Simply being around those with a compromised immune system represents a risk.
>The total number of terrorists is very low. 9/11 was a major operation and was not something they could ramp up.
There is enormous support for terrorism and they have a lot of recruits. If they found something that worked, and nothing changed to make it stop working, you can bet they'd double down.
>PS: Hospitals are dangerous even for healthy people. Much like how trench warfare lead to the 1918 pandemic which killed between 50 and 100 million. Simply being around those with a compromised immune system represents a risk.
I'm aware, and yes, there's a tradeoff between the benefit of the hospital vs the risk of picking up something even worse. Point taken. But if you have a gunshot wound, you should probably go to a hospital. It would be a severe error of logic to say, "most gunshot deaths are in a hospital, so if I have a gunshot wound, I should stay away from a hospital" -- because that figure is an artifact of dumping a disproportionate fraction of living victims there.
It's likewise wrong to say, "cities are safe, look how the crime rate is the same as the suburbs" -- there is much more risk, they just work harder to control it.
Over seven years Iraq had 1003 suicide bomb attacks. That's far from zero, but hardly and endless tide. When you consider 9/11 where preceded by an early 'failed' attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot Which included a test bomb that killed one person but failed to down the aircraft. And out of 26 people that attempted 9/11 only 19 where part of the attack you find they actually got somewhat lucky even before heightened security.
Read the claim again: they will significantly ramp up attacks if they git a high kill ratio and security fails to change in response. The Iraqi forces certainly adapt security in response to the attacks, or they would be much worse.
It's not a refutation to point to zero rampup after a failed attack.
Nothing is stopping those people from paying more for an "experience airline" that will feel them up, perhaps even with a happy ending.
Airplanes are such an attractive target for those who'd like to cause terror, because they're a favorite setting of terrorists - those in the media and government who sensationalize tragedies for their own benefit. These hucksters are the essential problem, and they need to be shunned, disempowered, and repudiated.
There are vastly more efficient methods for dealing with stupidity than playing along. The cheapest would probably just be propaganda talking up real safety features.
For the 0.01% who still will not fly... let them stay on the ground.
It's this type of realization that I think many people lack. Someone's perceived reality is reality to them.
Take a lot of those Someones with a perception of rampant terrorists and security failures, you get a substantial group of people reacting to a false reality. And though false it may be, these Someones still vote, pay taxes and fly (or not) on those planes.
Remove the top-down requirements and let airlines run their own security screenings. Those people who are very afraid of terrorism can pay a little extra and wait in line longer in exchange for the psychic benefit, and those who aren't worried at all can breeze through a minimal security process.
But I think you're actually right about this; my original argument ignored human psychology to an extent that makes it nonsensical. Actual threats are important, but so are perceived threats. It's not entirely irrational to protect against the things we fear the most, even if those aren't actually the most likely things to kill us.
This also comes up a lot in arguments about city living. I know a lot of people for whom urban living is frightening to an extent that is not supportable by crime statistics. But so what? If they were to move to the city, they'd be constantly afraid. That matters. Rational or not, their perception greatly impacts their quality of life. And if you want those people to move back from the suburbs, then you need to address their concerns.
There is a reason, after all, that airplanes are such an attractive target for those who'd like to cause terror.