| >The real question is : "Is environmental activism today more dangerous than it was yesterday". Why would that be the "real question"? Just because all we have is the hammer of statistical analysis? More people are getting killed, whether they are environmental activists is not that relevant. What's relevant is that there is increased willingness to kill in favor of anti-environmnet interests. >Why should the dangerosity of the "environmental activism" activity be computed differently, by only taking into consideration a numerator, and dismissing the denominator ? It shouldn't be computed at all, the concern here is not to give people some dangerocity score to help them avoid being killed. The concern is to stop the interests that kill -- that is, to stop the murders and the murderers, not to avoid them by having people not be environmental activists or be more careful about it. (Same way we would want to reduce racist crime, not e.g. tell blacks to be more careful. We might also want that, but not as a first priority, as a treatment to the symptoms, not the cause). |