Day Two: Surveying
Day Three: Good Fearing
“Youre’ gonna need a bigger boat.”
- Roy Scheider, finally seeing the colossal fish and his own inadequacy in the movie Jaws
There are few things as sobering as realizing a long-developed strategy is hopelessly insufficient to tackle the monster at hand. It’s like crashing Dracula’s Halloween party with only a handful of stakes and a single clip of silver bullets – the end result is sure to be ugly and most likely bloody (meaning your blood and probably your entrails).
Yesterday we discussed having a measured response to fears and how having unbalanced scales can be painful – as has been proved by anyone was ever abandoned mid-air on the teeter-totter.
Today I’m aiming to look at under-whelming experiences, those who don’t treat fearsome dangers with the proper amount of respect.
Seatbelts are optional accessories for some drivers, skateboarders are rarely spotted with helmets (or any other type of plastic protection), and heart disease caused by poor food choice remains a major cause of death.
If pressed, many of the people with these highlighted vices could repeat reports that show their actions are foolish even though the facts didn’t change their behaviour. They knew the dangers and shrugged.
We grow accustomed to these fears in many ways. Sometimes society does the conditioning by repeating false alarms.
Remember when killer bees were scheduled to become the new scourge of the American Southwest? News programs had their science reporters talk about it, cheesy TV movies were made illustrating the threat, and we all sat back to wait.
Most experts are still waiting. The bees’ migration slowed and the deadly threat that was initially predicted has yet to show (yes, many killer bee colonies have been established in the United States, but the death toll that was frequently insinuated has, fortunately, not appeared). For now, we simply must content ourselves with a rented “creature feature.”
Remember the Y2K bug? Think of the people who stocked up on food and provisions for when everything electronic was going to revert to 1900. Even many who didn’t buy extra batteries or bottled water quietly wondered if they should have. Of course, when midnight stuck and nothing happened, they didn’t have to deal with the surplus of unused supplies, like some people I know. The major benefit of the arrival of 2000 was that we no longer had to hear Prince’s song, “1999,” which, while a good song, had been grossly overplayed that year.
Those left holding the bags and bottles would be more wary in the future.
Think of the nation’s color coded terror Homeland Security Advisory System. Do you know what’s today’s hue?
Hint: It rhymes with “yellow-vated.”
I bet you don’t even know that the last time it was lowered two weeks ago. I know the premises of the system, as it is currently setup, is meant well. Should something serious occur and the public discover after the fact that there were unannounced warnings, you’d see people turn red. Still, we become desensitized by the semi-frequent changing of colors, and there is no obvious way to change that.
Let’s change the scope again and take it down to the street where you live.
When was the last time you heard a car alarm and thought, “Oh my goodness! I should call the police!”
If your answer is, “Sometime this century,” I’d say you’re above average. Most people figure someone tapped the wrong button on the remote entry key chain or brushed by an alarm that was simply hyper-sensitive. Personally, I can recall one time when I was woken up at 3 a.m. in the morning and bitterly cheered on the potential thief:
“Hurry up and cut the klaxon so you can finish stealing the stupid car and the rest of us can go back to bed!” I mentally urged before reburying my head beneath a pillow.
It’s gotten to the point where people in positions of authority question whether or not warnings should be given. I’ve seen many editorials questioning whether the bird flu is worth fretting about. While the dangers are noteworthy when you look at the deaths caused by previous flu pandemics, others are arguing that alerts aren’t worth the potential disillusionment that may result if such red flags are unwarranted. These people are afraid that people won’t respond to a serious warning when one is finally sounded.
In my opinion, I think it a grave matter when others’ poor reaction to alerts threatens to limit what information I will hear about future concerns. Once again, it is primarily the response to fear, rather than the motivator, that is of greater concern.
The best way to combat this trend is start challenging fears.
For example, reconsider global warming (which is split by the polar camps who disagree whether the world is turning into a microwave or whether all of this is part of nature’s patterns). Go beyond the sound bites and look at the data. Don’t listen to celebrity sound bites (“Hi! I made a movie in the rainforest once, and that makes me an expert, so listen to me.”) Review articles, especially those that disagree with your views. Consider the alternatives and see if you believe their arguments – whether you amend your beliefs or become more set in your stances, you’ll be better off for having tested yourself. And this method can and should be applied to countless other topics.
I’m not asking anyone to get outlandishly tweaked over topics like nuclear proliferation, deforestation, or raising in-city speed limits. I’m asking you to be involved, to be educated.
Don’t ignore something based on mistakes from the past. Just because an alert was unreliable in the past, it doesn’t mean this one is equally faultless (though on the other hand, if certain outlets fail to improve their batting average, call them on that as well).
Don’t dismiss the latest reports without considering what they mean. You may choose not to be concerned, but make it an informed decision.
For every unfounded fear that is broadcast on the evening news and easily lampooned (shark attacks, anyone?) there are dozens of founded fears that we’ve stopped questioning (how many infants were injured because someone didn’t take the time to properly fasten a safety seat?).
Those who disregard fears out of ignorance do themselves no favors and indirectly harm the rest of us. Sticking your head in the sand won’t protect you from the dangers of the world; in fact, it makes you a more inviting target.
An old First Amendment slogan went, “Your voice: Use it or lose it.” It’s easy to make the same argument about your brain.
It is a sign of intelligence to know what to fear and how to respond. Here’s hoping we’ll all be a little smarter with our actions and reactions today.
No question for today. If you’ve been pondering these thoughts, you’ve been working hard and deserve a break. If you haven’t, well, this time you can slack off with our blessing. Either way, you win.
