I say no. They’re prioritizing short-term over long and very long, but they’re properly thinking about human threats as more amenable to policy response (not exactly more important, but more comparative-advantage for governments).
One very important piece missing from your analysis is that humans are strategic and other threats are not. If you can convince humans that you’re prepared for their threat, you don’t actually have to be prepared, because the attack won’t come. You can’t convince a virus of anything—they just keep replicating regardless of your stance or position.
I’d also argue that governments (and other ingroup/outgroup political units) are correctly categorizing threats to themselves, even when that incorrectly prioritizes threats to constituents. WWI was a threat to the style and composition of governments. Influenza killed more, but didn’t threaten the organizations.
I like your last point a lot, does it mean that governments/institutions are more interested in protecting the systems they are in than their constituents? It indeed seems possible and can explain this situation.
I still wonder if such thing happens on an individual level as well, which can help shed some light.
I think there’s a bunch of subtlety in the causation, but yes, most political units act on self-preservation more fervently than pursuing their nominal goals. Another filter would be that those who control and benefit from the organization are acting in their interests, even when the non-powerful “members” are harmed.
I say no. They’re prioritizing short-term over long and very long, but they’re properly thinking about human threats as more amenable to policy response (not exactly more important, but more comparative-advantage for governments).
One very important piece missing from your analysis is that humans are strategic and other threats are not. If you can convince humans that you’re prepared for their threat, you don’t actually have to be prepared, because the attack won’t come. You can’t convince a virus of anything—they just keep replicating regardless of your stance or position.
I’d also argue that governments (and other ingroup/outgroup political units) are correctly categorizing threats to themselves, even when that incorrectly prioritizes threats to constituents. WWI was a threat to the style and composition of governments. Influenza killed more, but didn’t threaten the organizations.
I like your last point a lot, does it mean that governments/institutions are more interested in protecting the systems they are in than their constituents? It indeed seems possible and can explain this situation.
I still wonder if such thing happens on an individual level as well, which can help shed some light.
I think there’s a bunch of subtlety in the causation, but yes, most political units act on self-preservation more fervently than pursuing their nominal goals. Another filter would be that those who control and benefit from the organization are acting in their interests, even when the non-powerful “members” are harmed.