10 January 2010

Risk allocation

I've spent the morning reading Diana Wyndham's 1996 PhD dissertation (History, Sydney Uni) on Striving for National Fitness: Eugenics in Australia, 1910s to 1930s. It's an excellent account of aspiration, anxiety and sheer barking moonbat zaniness among proponents of 'racial' or other 'hygiene' from the 1860s onwards. I was thus in the mood for Paul Campos' feisty 'Undressing the Terrorist Threat: Running the numbers on the conflict with terrorists suggests that the rules of the game should change' in the 9 January online Wall Street Journal. Campos takes a statistics-based 'toughen up princess' stance regarding institutional overreaction that has seen US airlines instruct passengers to remain seated for the last hour of flight and Canadian lines reassure passengers that yes, it is ok to have a book in your lap. 

Campos argues that -
As to the question of what the government should do ... the answer is simple: stop treating Americans like idiots and cowards. It might be unrealistic to expect the average citizen to have a nuanced grasp of statistically based risk analysis, but there is nothing nuanced about two basic facts:
(1) America is a country of 310 million people, in which thousands of horrible things happen every single day; and (2) The chances that one of those horrible things will be that you're subjected to a terrorist attack can, for all practical purposes, be calculated as zero.
Consider that on this very day about 6,700 Americans will die. When confronted with this statistic almost everyone reverts to the mindset of the title character's acquaintances in Tolstoy's great novella "The Death of Ivan Ilyich," and indulges in the complacent thought that "it is he who is dead and not I." 
Consider then that around 1,900 of the Americans who die today will be less than 65, and that indeed about 140 will be children. Approximately 50 Americans will be murdered today, including several women killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and several children who will die from abuse and neglect. Around 85 of us will commit suicide, and another 120 will die in traffic accidents. 
No amount of statistical evidence, however, will make any difference to those who give themselves over to almost completely irrational fears. Such people, and there are apparently a lot of them in America right now, are in fact real victims of terrorism. They also make possible the current ascendancy of the politics of cowardice—the cynical exploitation of fear for political gain. 
Unfortunately, the politics of cowardice can also make it rational to spend otherwise irrational amounts of resources on further minimizing already minimal risks. Given the current climate of fear, any terrorist incident involving Islamic radicals generates huge social costs, so it may make more economic sense, in the short term, to spend X dollars to avoid 10 deaths caused by terrorism than it does to spend X dollars to avoid 1,000 ordinary homicides. Any long-term acceptance of such trade-offs hands terrorists the only real victory they can ever achieve. 
It's a remarkable fact that a nation founded, fought for, built by, and transformed through the extraordinary courage of figures such as George Washington, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. now often seems reduced to a pitiful whimpering giant by a handful of mostly incompetent criminals, whose main weapons consist of scary-sounding Web sites and shoe- and underwear-concealed bombs that fail to detonate. 
[Overreaction to threats], in short, is made possible by a loss of the sense that cowardice is among the most disgusting and shameful of vices.