Genuinely - thank you for your careful reply, it is appreciated.<p>I don&#x27;t think I believe that climate change is adversarial, and I really get the tragedy-of-the-commons aspect. Perhaps &quot;knowing criminal negligence&quot; is a better fit than &quot;adversarial&quot;.<p>That said, perhaps from the perspective of victims&#x2F;friends&#x2F;families of terrorism&#x2F;climate change&#x2F;etc, I suspect that it may not make all that much difference if they were the victims of some adversarial action, or the victims of the predictable yet semi-randomised results of negligence.<p>I get your point about a failure of our ability to protect ourselves. I think the lesson here is not to try to completely protect ourselves (by yielding to increasingly oppressive government surveillance), as complete protection is not possible. It is particularly hard to defend oneself against, while preserving some pretence of civilisation&#x2F;democracy&#x2F;rule of law, against people who are willing to die in order to kill you.<p>I think the real lesson here is to understand that we, and our society, and our civilisation, are all mortal, and will die some day, perhaps sooner than we think, and there is nothing we can do about it. We are not in control. This lesson is perhaps a hard one to internalise. I am not sure I internalise it. There&#x27;s some more words by someone more eloquent than I here: [1]<p>[1] - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;learning-how...</a>