Weakness of the Light

The other day I was struck by a somewhat strange thought: everyday, and without realising or caring about it, we face situations which could be considered highly dangerous, in the sense that a small deviation from the common behaviour of others' could lead to our death.

Let me explain. Think about everytime we cross a street with a green light. We walk right in front of some cars, waiting patiently for their light to turn green again, and we don't even blink. That doesn't give us any adrenaline, it doesn't feel dangerous at all. But truth is, should one of the driver decide to use the accelerator we'd be hit by a vehicle weighting hundreds of Kg and moving at a few dozens of Km/h, more than enough to put us out for good. And even we happily walk by a police officier and greet him with a smile, we never consider that he could kill us in a split second by drawing his gun and taking a shot. When we take a plane, some of us fear it might crash to some malfunctioning or due to bad weather, but who among us have ever worried about the pilot simply deciding to crash it? Those of you who've seen the movie The Happening surely remember how easy it is for one to take his own life, if you're willing and have the guts for it. Now imagine how much easier it is to take someone else's life.

This behaviour is both needed and usually logic. It is needed because we can't live in a steady state of stress. I mean, we couldn't take an exam worrying about whether or not the person next to us will suddenly bring up his pen and stab us in the eye. It is (usually) logic for two distinct motives: those kind of things usually do not happen, and there is no apparent reason for others to behave that way. Let's not linger on the first, since it only has to do with the frequency of uncommon events. The second one is the key assumption behind our behaviour; when it fails, everything stops making sense. This is way modern society is so vulnerable to acts of terrorism, be it a plane crashing on a building or some crazy shooter in a public facility. It's not that we aren't prepared for them, it's that we cannot be prepared for them. Why? Let's discuss it in detail.

There are two mechanisms that supposably prevent others from harming us. First is human empathy, the fact that (in theory) no human being would want to harm another one just for the sake it. The second one is the law, in particular the punishment that comes to those who disrespect it. Now, the first mechanism can be overcome either by sadicism or some twisted perspective of purpose. Although we would not kill for money, some people would. And in fact they do, everyday. And while we see no point in the murder of thousand innocent bystanders through a terrorist attack some believe that a holy crusade is reason enough. And it should be noted that our ancestors also did think that way, a few centuries ago. The problem with the second is that it works a posteriori; the punishment only comes after the act. This means that, should the perpetrator believe that he can get away with it or find the benefits worth the punishment (thus acting like some kind of martyr) he will go through with it.

To exemplify our vulnerability, let's consider that, for some reason, we fear that someone might enter a hospital and stab the secretary, or a doctor. What can you do about it? Well, you can put some extra security at the entrance. But their purpose will solely to be to arrest anyone who actually draws a knife, and it's not likely they'll be able to do it before the assassin makes a kill. Their main purpose is to disuade, but that is not enough against those who don't care about the consequences of their acts. The solution? Perhaps strip-searching everyone who wants to come in, and shooting down those who don't co-operate. Obviously this is not feasible/desirable in a free country, and that's the point precisely. The bad guys will always have the upper hand, since they play by different rules: they are far more unconstrained.

It is interesting that this fact is well known and visited in children's or otherwise considered "simple" movies and stories. Think about a classic good vs evil, light vs darkness kind of stories. One recurrent aspect is that the evil gang is stronger due to the use of forbidden techniques, or playing dirty. In Star Wars, the Sith can use the Dark Side of the Force. In Harry Potter stories the dressed-in-black bad guys (I can't recall their name?) use forbidden magic. In various children stories the evil characters take advantage of the good ones' empathy and/or sense of honour, for example by taking hostages and making demands.

This is why some stories include an unconstrained yet good character, a light-bringer who uses everything at his disposal to fight the darkness. In order to drive way from children stories I'll give Jack Bauer from 24 as an example. These characters are often rogue fighters, misunderstood or despised by the ones they fight for due to their methods. And they should, otherwise we'd fall in the fight fire with fire problem. Hopefully one day we'll see a world where good no longer means weak.