[tekromancr]

I don't think it's callous at all. In fact, it's a sort of higher order empathy. If the goal is to save as many lives as possible, then this is exactly the right way to think about these things.

It's like how most Americans are more likely to die from obesity related diseases than terrorism, but we spend orders of magnitude more resources trying to prevent terrorism.

[poster123]

That is a bad comparison. My weight is under my control, and I don't want the government to interfere. Preventing terrorists from getting in the country and committing attacks is something I expect the government to do.

[Someone]

I think it is highly unlikely to be true, but it could be that the money spent fighting terrorism saves millions of lives every year. That would make it a bargain.

Similarly, if there were no attempt to stop street racing (not even speed limits), we _might_ see thousands more deads due to street racing every year.

[mlindner]

If that were true you can compare back to when we didn't spend money on fighting terrorism. Has it changed much? No not really. Terrorism is not a (major) problem in the world if looking at major causes of human loss of life.

[Someone]

Neither is street racing.

Also, I didn’t argue that; I just pointed out that “few people die today, so we shouldn’t spend much money fighting it” isn’t a valid argument because the truth could be “few people die today because we spend so much money fighting it”.