This reframes safety as something that emerges from collective awareness rather than absence of threat. The hypervigilance required in high-crime neighborhoods creates a different kind of security - one built on mutual recognition and shared survival strategies. What happens to this delicate ecosystem when crime rates actually drop and that collective attention dissolves?
I think the biggest weakness of this post is that it ignores the broader effects of crime on local economies, public willingness to support infrastructure, etc.
The leukemia/murder comparison seems flawed since leukemia is far more likely to kill old people with fewer remaining life-years.
I don't think there are many actors who have a choice between allocating dollars to crime prevention or allocating dollars to cancer research. Realistically I would expect that many local governments should rationally invest in public safety on current margins; the US is under-policed relative to e.g. Europe. (Public safety investments could even be net-profitable for the municipality, if better public safety improves home values which increases property taxes.)
I think another part of this is how human brains love a story with archetypes like good guys and bad guys. So we sort of fixate on these unknown "criminals" that are other and bad then we can reassure ourselves that we are good, everyone we know is good, etc. The reality is that every single person put in the right set of circumstances would commit a heinous crime. Also, crime is a social construct. So we don't want to stop and think of the environmental influences and get into the complexity so we stick to good guys/bad guys thinking.
It is shocking how few murders there are. Here in SF we only have around 50 a year. One guy with a gun could double our murder rate. But it usually doesn't happen. It's the safest city I've ever lived! If one rich guy gets murdered, the whole town talks about it for six months--that's how rare it is.
This reframes safety as something that emerges from collective awareness rather than absence of threat. The hypervigilance required in high-crime neighborhoods creates a different kind of security - one built on mutual recognition and shared survival strategies. What happens to this delicate ecosystem when crime rates actually drop and that collective attention dissolves?
I think the biggest weakness of this post is that it ignores the broader effects of crime on local economies, public willingness to support infrastructure, etc.
Interesting post.
The leukemia/murder comparison seems flawed since leukemia is far more likely to kill old people with fewer remaining life-years.
I don't think there are many actors who have a choice between allocating dollars to crime prevention or allocating dollars to cancer research. Realistically I would expect that many local governments should rationally invest in public safety on current margins; the US is under-policed relative to e.g. Europe. (Public safety investments could even be net-profitable for the municipality, if better public safety improves home values which increases property taxes.)
I think another part of this is how human brains love a story with archetypes like good guys and bad guys. So we sort of fixate on these unknown "criminals" that are other and bad then we can reassure ourselves that we are good, everyone we know is good, etc. The reality is that every single person put in the right set of circumstances would commit a heinous crime. Also, crime is a social construct. So we don't want to stop and think of the environmental influences and get into the complexity so we stick to good guys/bad guys thinking.
It is shocking how few murders there are. Here in SF we only have around 50 a year. One guy with a gun could double our murder rate. But it usually doesn't happen. It's the safest city I've ever lived! If one rich guy gets murdered, the whole town talks about it for six months--that's how rare it is.