Rather interesting infographic courtesy of my old pal Rogue Leader:
So what does it mean? Does it mean that we should just ignore terrorism? No. We probably shouldn’t. Human life is still valuable. But if human life is so valuable why do we expend so much time and effort on combating one threat to it and ignoring other greater threats to it? Do we spend 17,600 times the amount of money on combating heart disease than we spend on combating terrorism? Are we willing to make 17,600 times the personal sacrifice to combat heart disease than we sacrifice on combating terrorism?
We tolerate the intrusion on our lives to combat terrorism, would we tolerate similar intrusions to combat heart disease? Legislation against fast food, against added salt, mandatory dieting and exercise? How would we react to that? I’d react pretty badly, personally.
What about the rest of it? Well everything we’d be stopped for for heart disease would cover off cancer. No more air travel, cars to covered in foam and limited to 5 mph, safety rails round everything, no swimming, no baths, health monitors while we sleep, food tasters, God knows what we’d do about the police, wrap them in cotton wool maybe, no more electricity and mandatory air conditioning (tricky without electricity).
But we don’t do those things. And why? Possibly because the media hasn’t whipped us up into a frenzy about them.
Ah yes, the Media.
The same media that whipped everyone up into a frenzy about paedophiles to the extent that a man couldn’t take a picture of his own kid in a shopping centre and then went off the wall about that too.
Is that where we’ve come to? A society driven by a media that whips the populace up about things and then complains when the government take action based on that frenzy? A society driven entirely by and for the sale of newspapers? A mediacracy?