the terror of the war on terror
London police shoot a man dead, then admit he
had nothing to do with the bombings. My question: how can we tell how many civil
rights and elements of civilization we need to give up to make us feel
secure?
An excellent New York Times op-ed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, of the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, points out that the human brain has a
very
un-reality-based
system for assessing risks, in three
respects.
First, the part of our brain that assesses risks is not the rational part, but the emotional. No matter how sophisticated we are about statistics, realistic ways of avoiding possible threats to our security, and so forth, it is the emotional systems that take over in a stressful situation.
Second, this emotional brain evolved long before we (or in fact our primate ancestors) knew anything about statistics and science. As Taleb says, "it was built for a primitive environment with simple dangers. That might work for you the next time you run into a snake or a tiger. But because the emotional system is impressionable and prefers shallow, social and anecdotal information to abstract data, it hinders our ability to cope with the more sophisticated risks that afflict modern life."
And third, he points out, "we are moved by sensational images of heroes who leap into action as calamity unfolds before them. But the long, pedestrian slog of prevention is thankless. That is because prevention is nameless and abstract, while a hero's actions are grounded in an easy-to-understand narrative."
In the case of the "GWOT" (Global War On Terrorism), I would suggest, the third point can be extended further. Even though politicians and the press cannot admit this, it is clear that even "prevention" is largely useless in this case.
The recent events in London have illustrated this clearly. Two weeks to the day after the first bombings in London, a second event took place, although an enormous effort was being made to secure the London subways. Following this, the incident mentioned above occurred, in which a group of plain-clothes policemen chased a man wearing a heavy jacket, who had emerged from an apartment they were watching and looked "South Asian," ran into a subway station when they told him to stop. They pushed him to the floor of a train car and shot him five times point-blank in the head. A day later, the police admitted that he was a Brazilian immigrant, an electrician, who had nothing to do with the bombings. Of course, they were profuse in their expressions of regret and vowed to investigate fully. And of course, they and their supporters justified this "tragedy," as they termed it, by pointing out that the police had every reason to suspect that he was a suicide bomber on the move, and that a suicide bomber can only be stopped by shooting in the head, because bullets fired at the torso might set off the supposed explosives.
Whether or not the police behavior could be faulted in this particular case, doesn't this suggest the real problem? Ordinarily, citizens of a civilized country can reasonably assume that they will not be chased down and shot in the head on a subway car because of how they look, what they are wearing (even if it is unseasonable), and other events that have occurred in the same range of time and place. But in a "war on terror," the circumstances are not ordinary. So, it is said, we must give up some liberties and civil rights to assure public safety.
But what if public safety cannot be assured even by giving up a great deal of liberties? What if, no matter how violently the police are allowed to behave and how many innocent people are, if not shot point-blank, rounded up and sent to prisons or concentration camps, terrorist incidents continue? What if we ask those who are made fearful by these incidents exactly how many civil liberties need to be given up before they will feel safe?
It is clear that they cannot answer this last question, precisely because of the three factors Taleb points out. To answer it, they would have to think, which the emotional part of their brains -- from which their fear emanates -- cannot do. And the image of heroic cops jumping on a suspected bomber and removing his suspected threat to the public by snuffing out his life immediately is far too powerful to allow them to stop and think. A lifetime's experience of watching fantastically dramatic films and TV shows of heroic cop actions is just too irresistible.
And finally, they cannot think straight about this question because, if they did, they would realize that determined terrorists could probably act successfully, at least now and then, and probably about as often as they do now in countries such as the U.K. and the U.S., no matter how repressive governments become. And this realization would make them feel even more helpless and depressed. So, to escape from this spiral of helplessness of depression, the rational part of their brains simply shuts down.
What conclusion would they come to if it did not shut down? I believe it would be this: that terrorist movements, like the IRA, the Basque terrorists in Spain, and indeed the Zionist terrorists before the founding of Israel, eventually fade out when circumstances change, and in the mean time, the risk of being killed by their actions is simply one that must be accepted along with the other risks of modern life, such as traveling by plane, train, or car, or even stepping off the curb in cities where a not-too-brilliant driver may well be in that car you think is going to stop for that red light.
First, the part of our brain that assesses risks is not the rational part, but the emotional. No matter how sophisticated we are about statistics, realistic ways of avoiding possible threats to our security, and so forth, it is the emotional systems that take over in a stressful situation.
Second, this emotional brain evolved long before we (or in fact our primate ancestors) knew anything about statistics and science. As Taleb says, "it was built for a primitive environment with simple dangers. That might work for you the next time you run into a snake or a tiger. But because the emotional system is impressionable and prefers shallow, social and anecdotal information to abstract data, it hinders our ability to cope with the more sophisticated risks that afflict modern life."
And third, he points out, "we are moved by sensational images of heroes who leap into action as calamity unfolds before them. But the long, pedestrian slog of prevention is thankless. That is because prevention is nameless and abstract, while a hero's actions are grounded in an easy-to-understand narrative."
In the case of the "GWOT" (Global War On Terrorism), I would suggest, the third point can be extended further. Even though politicians and the press cannot admit this, it is clear that even "prevention" is largely useless in this case.
The recent events in London have illustrated this clearly. Two weeks to the day after the first bombings in London, a second event took place, although an enormous effort was being made to secure the London subways. Following this, the incident mentioned above occurred, in which a group of plain-clothes policemen chased a man wearing a heavy jacket, who had emerged from an apartment they were watching and looked "South Asian," ran into a subway station when they told him to stop. They pushed him to the floor of a train car and shot him five times point-blank in the head. A day later, the police admitted that he was a Brazilian immigrant, an electrician, who had nothing to do with the bombings. Of course, they were profuse in their expressions of regret and vowed to investigate fully. And of course, they and their supporters justified this "tragedy," as they termed it, by pointing out that the police had every reason to suspect that he was a suicide bomber on the move, and that a suicide bomber can only be stopped by shooting in the head, because bullets fired at the torso might set off the supposed explosives.
Whether or not the police behavior could be faulted in this particular case, doesn't this suggest the real problem? Ordinarily, citizens of a civilized country can reasonably assume that they will not be chased down and shot in the head on a subway car because of how they look, what they are wearing (even if it is unseasonable), and other events that have occurred in the same range of time and place. But in a "war on terror," the circumstances are not ordinary. So, it is said, we must give up some liberties and civil rights to assure public safety.
But what if public safety cannot be assured even by giving up a great deal of liberties? What if, no matter how violently the police are allowed to behave and how many innocent people are, if not shot point-blank, rounded up and sent to prisons or concentration camps, terrorist incidents continue? What if we ask those who are made fearful by these incidents exactly how many civil liberties need to be given up before they will feel safe?
It is clear that they cannot answer this last question, precisely because of the three factors Taleb points out. To answer it, they would have to think, which the emotional part of their brains -- from which their fear emanates -- cannot do. And the image of heroic cops jumping on a suspected bomber and removing his suspected threat to the public by snuffing out his life immediately is far too powerful to allow them to stop and think. A lifetime's experience of watching fantastically dramatic films and TV shows of heroic cop actions is just too irresistible.
And finally, they cannot think straight about this question because, if they did, they would realize that determined terrorists could probably act successfully, at least now and then, and probably about as often as they do now in countries such as the U.K. and the U.S., no matter how repressive governments become. And this realization would make them feel even more helpless and depressed. So, to escape from this spiral of helplessness of depression, the rational part of their brains simply shuts down.
What conclusion would they come to if it did not shut down? I believe it would be this: that terrorist movements, like the IRA, the Basque terrorists in Spain, and indeed the Zionist terrorists before the founding of Israel, eventually fade out when circumstances change, and in the mean time, the risk of being killed by their actions is simply one that must be accepted along with the other risks of modern life, such as traveling by plane, train, or car, or even stepping off the curb in cities where a not-too-brilliant driver may well be in that car you think is going to stop for that red light.
Posted: Sun - July 24, 2005 at 01:30 PM | |
Quick Links
SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
(while I bone up on html and css)
(while I bone up on html and css)
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Comments powered by
Archives
Truth Laid Bear
Technorati
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
