and she said.. "how you interpret the dream is probably more important than the dream itself"

Bruce Schneier, cryptographer and computer security dude, has a recent post on his blog about perceived risk vs. actual risk. For anyone who reads my blog somewhat regularly this will sound familiar as he makes some points that I have been saying for quite some time (and so apparently has he. More hopeful is that he is discussing a recent LA Times op-ed piece.

#1 We over-react to intentional actions, and under-react to accidents, abstract events, and natural phenomena.

#2 We over-react to things that offend our morals.

#3 We over-react to immediate threats and under-react to long-term threats.

#4 We under-react to changes that occur slowly and over time.

Schneier adds to these points:

People have trouble estimating risks for anything not exactly like their normal situation.

Personified risks are perceived to be greater than anonymous risks.

People underestimate risks they willingly take and overestimate risks in situations they can’t control.

people overestimate risks that are being talked about and remain an object of public scrutiny.

No doubt these are all self-explained, but it explains a lot. It explains our slow uptake on the global warming problem. Certainly, most people do not see the ice caps melting. Most people do not feel the rise in temperature because it is so gradual. Nevermind the fact that millions of people choose to live in places like New Orleans and Los Angeles where natural disaster is a great risk yet their great fear is a terrorist threat.

What does our government do to help this? What does the media do to help this.. well, they help it along. They play on our fears in order to play out their agendas. In the long run this doesn't help us as much as we'd like to think.

We worry about anthrax but not about colon cancer. We worry about getting mugged but not about over paying for cell phone service. Basically, we worry about the wrong things. The question is why. What is it that causes these discrepancies between perceived and actual risk? It is no doubt linked to our somewhat amazing ability to act irrational and often illogical in the face of fact. Fiction is just more exciting, it would seem.

Compare this to a random off-topic: Solar guerrillas:

The manifesto appeared in Home Power magazine, where it was attributed to an anonymous source. It reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all energy is freely and democratically provided by Nature, that utilities both public and private have no monopoly on the production and distribution of energy, that this century’s monopolization of energy by utilities threatens the health of our environment and the very life of our planet.

“We, the Solar Guerrillas of this planet, therefore resolve to place energy made from sunshine, wind, and falling water on this planet’s utility grids with or without permission from utilities or governments.

“We resolve to share this energy with our neighbors without regard for financial compensation. We further resolve that our renewable energy systems will be safe and will not harm utility workers, our neighbors, or our environment. Signed, Solar Guerrillas of Planet Earth”

Sounds great, right? But the problem is that the electric companies didn't want to play ball.

In 1978, the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, was passed, requiring all utility companies in the U.S. to purchase the excess power created by qualified home electricity producers. But the act did not stipulate the exact costs utilities had to pay independent producers for their electricity. Most utilities chose to pay what are called “avoided costs,” or the amount of money they save by not producing the power themselves.

Afraid of what I can only imagine is diminished returns, power companies tried to screw the consumer. Their fear: no money.. and this from an industry that produces a necessary staple. Everyone needs power. But their line was "you pay us retail for the power we give you, we pay you whole-sale for the same power you send back" because they couldn't imagine a better system - a better solution for everyone. Sounds fair, right? No, of course not.. so it took a good thirty years for them to come around.

What would have been very useful during the cold war - a more robust power grid capable of handling small disasters in basically the same altruistic way that powers the internet - didn't actually happen until it was too late. That's our government at work.

The real fear in the United States and, indeed, all over the world, isn't even death. It's the loss of fiduciary potential. Loosing out on a buck that could be made which is, in the long run, a bit preposterous. The people who make so much money, the Larry Ellison's of the world, are the ones spending so extravagently that they don't know which way is up. Certainly, more money would be nice but is it really necessary to buy that brand new Hummer when a used one will do?

Day in and day out people will bitch and moan about their employer cutting back on overtime or the government taking too many taxes.. when in the long run that energy could be used in a more effective manner to produce earning potential from the other end - by saving. By shopping smartly. By living within your means. By not building a bomb shelter in West Kansas because two airplanes flew into a skyscraper in New York City.