Do you think we've become a little too obsessive about trying to avoid every risk?

Definitely ...

It is because we do not know how to avoid any of the risks.   We have no idea how to protect ourselves because we cannot.  

I could walk outside and get hit in the head with a flying toilet seat and die.   How am I supposed to protect myself against that?   There was a TV show based on that premise.  

We are all so fragile we cannot bear to think of it.   We are here by the grace of God, I swear.  It can be the only reason we don't die after our first hours on this planet, considering all the things we are up against from the body,  from our planet, and yes, from Fate.  How do we make it?    It boggles my small pea brain

I love the energy and unique style of your replies. :)

I don't disagree with you...

but

How far back would you return?

I remember when if city bloke visited a farm and claimed he could ride, he'd be given a horse that had never felt a saddle on its back. More than a few ended up in wheelchairs for life, but it was considered a practical joke.

How far is too far?

How much precaution is right precaution?

I don't...as a society we have.  The pros and cons will vary with each individual.  

I think, at least in America, the problem is a little different.

We don't try to avoid risk in rational proportion to risk level. As I pointed out in my lightning strikes vs. terrorism thread, about 6 times as many die each year from lightning strikes as die from terrorism. Yet people spend much more mental energy (and public dollars) on fighting the terrorism threat than the lightning threat.

People spend good money on home security systems (when statistically they can expect to suffer a home invasion once every 35 years). People go out and get guns for "protection" (when that gun is 30 times more likely to end up being used in a suicide, homicide, or accidental shooting than in a self-protection scenario). People buy the biggest heaviest most intimidating SUV for their daily commute (when they live in a Sunbelt state where it never snows, and the death rate per million miles of road travel basically rounds off to zero). The list of "risk avoidance" behaviors aimed at infinitesimal risks is a mile long. Meanwhile, diseases related to poor diet, tobacco smoking, lack of exercise, and ordinary life stress dominate the list of Top 10 killers in the United States, and the policy choices to address those range from indifference, to defiance ("No one can take away my Big Macs") to outright subsidization (there's a reason hot dogs are much cheaper than organic kale).

So we're not going out of our way to avoid risk. We're going out of our way to avoid the PERCEPTION of risks, and most of those perceptions are based upon what draws ratings to CNN, Fox News, etc.

Yes and therein lies most of our current problems

Agreed

I'd go back to the 80's

The unbroken horse is too much ... but on a simple level  playing in the dirt ... these are the things that are required to build a healthy immune system, get rid of the sprays that kill the germs as we need exposure to them ... let kids learn to fail, it's part of life and it's how we learn, stop telling kids that only winning counts, let them fall over and hang their knees... it's part of being a kid

So even a fellow who looks like a gangster needs to avoid ghettos?

That says a lot.

I've always been like that.

"We don't try to avoid risk in rational proportion to risk level."

Your observation, in another question, about the difference in numbers between deaths by lightning and from terrorism was a good point.

But maybe the difference is that one is a force of nature, which is not deliberately malign.

There is something much more shocking about crazies murdering strangers.

Nature one can accept even if one still grieves, but human evil leads to PTSD and haunting pain.

Do you think media and the US government play up terror to create an external bogeyman?

If that's true, it could be used as a reason for eroding privacy rights and increasing the power of big brother (or Uncle Sam.)

Sensible.

I'd wager a bet you survive by thinking.

I think aversion was the main reason for their votes.

They didn't think of the economics because at a personal level there's little direct experience of the benefits.

It's a reaction against increasing social pressures and crimes. They are worried about the floods of refugees coming across the Channel via Europe.

Are you living in Britain?

Which country are you writing from?

What examples come to mind for you?

I guess that would make it easy for you to go with the flow of public health and safety regulations.

Over here we have kid's gymkhanas and riding clubs closed down because the parents can't afford the insurance.

All kinds of things that used to be ordinary leisure activities are now almost extinct.

My hubby had a singing group at a local hall which had to stop when the committee objected that someone might trip on the one-inch high step in the entrance.

In what ways?

 I was born to Australian parents in London.

When 20, I lived for 4 months in Paris, and then studied at St Martin's School of Art in London for three years. Stayed on for one more year after that.

So I still take an interest in British and European News.

From what you say, it sounds as though those who were for the union failed to sufficiently publicise the economic risks and probable consequences.

I was saddened by the separation. It seems that the British and the Europeans share much in common, and can benefit from sharing their specialities. I think economically and politically the countries have a better chance of thriving together than apart.

And yet, unfortunately, it is not impossible to imagine that the whole union could fall apart due to the stresses between the poorest and the wealthiest countries.

@hartfire -- You have inferred an important fact of human cognition. We react much more to "risk" if the risk has a face. Seeing a swarthy-looking guy shouting in a strange language and waving an AK-47 on TV freaks us out. The reality that the guy will probably never travel more than 50 miles from his hometown somewhere in the Middle East doesn't diminish our fear.

Conversely, the gradual spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere is MUCH more likely to significantly mess up our lives than the AK-47-waving guy on TV, but our brains are not wired to perceive such an abstract long-term depersonified threat. So we do little or nothing about it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/opinion/op-gilbert2

I agree about the face, and global warming.

I posted an essay in 5 parts in the Statements section of answerMug. It's by La Trobe University's Professor Emeritus of Politics, and it covers the origin, development and current state of ISIS's thinking.

I posted it mainly for you because I thought you might find it a compelling read. It puts a certain perspective on terrorist activity - how they see it from inside their worldview and goals.