[extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure

[Russell Wallace]

On 6/20/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> My notion is that building expensive vulnerable infrastructure can
> actually
> *cause* terrorism, in which case past history doesn't really help us much.
> The most expensive most vulnerable target will be hit first, for it
> produces
> the most bang for the buck.  Examples: the Japanese subway, the World
> Trade
> Center (twice), the Spanish and British rail station attacks.
>
> The next lesson from kindergarten is that having your block tower knocked
> down requires no provocation.  The little girl in the corner hurled no
> insults.  Canada did nothing to provoke an attack.  Russell, do explain
> what
> is irrational about this line of reasoning.


A long time ago I read an account by a woman whose uncle molested her as a
child. It was when she reached puberty, and she recounts that the
explanation she ended up with at that time was: "It was my fault because if
I hadn't grown the breasts, then I wouldn't have tempted him."

What are you suggesting, doing away with everything above the level of a mud
hut will keep you safe? Ask the Khwarezmids or the Albigensians how well
that works. They didn't have subways, and their losses weren't in mere
handfuls of thousands.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060620/85404b2d/attachment.html>