Security or: The Sky’s the Limit

Recently, members of Al Qaeda in Yemen have been discussing plans to get around the TSA’s new full-body scans so that they can continue to plot terrorist attacks on American airports. Among several different ideas, the one which sticks out both to the organization’s leader and to United States intelligence agencies: Surgically sewing explosives under the skin of suicide bombers. If this sounds deranged, ridiculous, and a little terrifying, that’s because it is. And if you think this will affect you the next time you get onto an airplane, then you’re two for two.

Plan B

                The history of airline security begins in 1969, where a steady increase in hijackings peaks at an all-time record of 82 hijackings in a single year. This is followed closely by the infamous D.B. Cooper hijacking in 1971, and the government begins to take notice. President Nixon places sky marshals on major flights and the Federal Aviation Administration begins to require that passengers and baggage go through metal detectors. These bulky tunnels brought the FAA to court over the 4^th Amendment, which provides protection against unwarranted search and seizure. While the courts eventually decided that this did in fact violate the 4^th Amendment, such searches were permissible as long as everybody was subject to them and only weapons and explosives were being searched for. The reason this was possible is that, in the 70’s, air travel was still very much a luxury item. Airlines would hire private security firms to conduct screenings, and since it was a luxury, the courts did not feel that anyone’s rights were being infringed upon since they were choosing to play by the airline’s rules, so to speak. This continued until the 80’s, when the famously unsuccessful “War on Drugs” brought new screening techniques, x-ray machines, and drug-sniffing dogs into airports. Other than that, airport security remained fairly static for almost thirty years. And then, you know…

Too soon?

                The events of September 11^th changed the course of global and domestic history drastically. But let’s stick to air travel. Two days after the attacks, blades and knives of all sizes (from Swiss Army to nail clippers) are banned. By November, the Transportation Security Administration is established and private security firms are replaced by TSA agents at airports across the country. By December, passengers have to remove their shoes while going through security. 2004 prevents visitors and family from accompanying travelers to the gate, and in 2006 liquids over three ounces are banned. Finally, on Christmas Day, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts to smuggle explosives in his underwear, directly leading to the shiny new full-body scanners and every bit of controversy which comes with them. On the surface, this might appear to be a series of logical and necessary escalations in response to some very real threats. Of course, in 2005 the Department of Homeland Security (parent to the TSA) reported to Congress that there was no evidence whatsoever that the TSA had in any way improved the protection of airplanes from dangerous objects, despite the fact that the TSA spends nearly $3 Billion each year screening passengers and baggage, several times more than the private groups ever did. To date, there remains no evidence that the TSA is doing any better; despite everything they’ve done to improve our security experience.

If we don't search her, the terrorists win.

                The simple facts are that the security loopholes exploited on 9/11 (insecure cockpit doors and the fact that you were allowed to bring box cutters on board, mostly) were closed almost immediately by the private firms, and that air travel was and is very safe. Over the last twenty years, fewer than 1700 people have died while on an airplane in the US. Of those, only 265 deaths occurred as a result of acts of terror, and most attempts at terror have been woefully unsuccessful. To date, the TSA has yet to report on a single terrorist being caught at a security checkpoint, though it is not necessarily their policy to do so should they catch one. The widely reported “shoe bomber” and the “underwear bomber” each boarded their flights outside of the country (and outside of TSA screenings) and the majority of attempts are foiled by intelligence rather than screenings. So, why put in all the effort? Some say screenings act as a deterrent. If somebody knows that their shoes will be x-rayed, they’re not likely to try smuggling something illicit in them. While there is undoubtedly some truth to this, the real reason probably has much less to do with passenger security and much more to do with another kind of security.

Shown here: the slightly harder to catch "Bra Bomber"

                The United States air transportation industry is among the most important pieces of our nation’s infrastructure. Every day, hundreds of flights take off and land from each of this country’s over 450 airports. These mostly domestic flights, crisscrossing over the wide expanses of land separating our metropolises, have become absolutely critical for the continued growth and competitiveness of business in America. By the late 90’s, air travel had already drastically changed from a thing of luxury to one of the most difficult industries in the world. Profit margins on airlines are razor thin, forcing competition by any means necessary (which usually means worse food and less leg room). Pan Am and TWA, two of the largest and most successful airlines in America went bankrupt in the 90’s. Airlines at this time were very fragile companies, and the entire country more or less depended on them. By mid-afternoon on 9/11, the stock for every single major airline in the United States plummeted to record lows. For months afterwards, people all over the country (especially on the East Coast) are terrified of flying and ticket sales continue to drop. Companies like United nearly go under. Then, the TSA is formed, and new screening procedures go into effect, and increased airport security is all over the news, and in 2002 stocks begin to climb again.

Note: There is a slight margin of error

                The United States Government needs airlines and the airlines need the United States Government. Both realized that there was only so much more secure that they could make airports. Both also realized that what kept people from flying was not danger, but simply the fear of danger, and that convincing people that they were safe was the only way to keep the airlines safe. So the TSA begins to go overboard with regulation after regulation which reports have shown did little more than waste a lot of money and inconvenience and lot of people. Why? Because if you give somebody two inner tubes, a snorkel, water wings, and a life jacket, they’re not going to be afraid of drowning, even if they’re only standing in water up to their ankles. Someone frustrated with too much security isn’t going to be afraid that flying isn’t safe. Richard Reid was able to smuggle explosives onto a plane in his shoes because he wore one of a few specific kinds of shoes which could fool a metal detector. Forcing everybody to remove their shoes, then, is less of an actual necessary security measure and more of a symbolic response to a perceived failure and a way to make people feel safe by making them think security is going too far. In fact, despite every annoying thing the TSA makes us go through, close to 80% of Americans still support increased security measures like the backscatter full body scans we have today. People think, despite what government experts say, that airport security is absolutely necessary. Why is that?

Heck if I know

                The singular problem with the TSA’s method is that, eventually, it gets out of hand. The TSA can’t ever realistically scale back their security, even their unnecessary or redundant security, without scaring passengers. They also can’t slow down, because they’ve become part of a narrative involving an imminent and growing threat to this country (thanks mostly to certain news agencies whose names will not be mentioned here). Their only option now is to respond to every potential or broadcasted threat with excessive effort or risk hurting the nation’s transportation industry. It’s a classic, almost McCarthyistic example of why fear is such a terribly dangerous social and political motivator. What can we do about it? Very little, actually. The air industry is without real competition, since the United States lacks a sophisticated passenger train system (again, a blog for another day) and driving takes forever. Security is going to increase and it’s going to get more annoying. Even airports like Kansas City International who opt out of using TSA agents are only permitted to use private security firms which the TSA has approved. We’re as safe as we’ve ever been and about as safe as we ever will be. So far, it has cost the TSA $40 Billion, and it’s only going to get worse, because Al Qaeda might start sewing bombs into terrorists, and full-body scans can’t see under skin. The TSA is already working on its response, and we’ll find out about it soon enough. 

I just thought this was funny.
But seriously, whatever they come up with, you're not going to like it.

Homo-phobia or: The War that Everyone Forgot

                Homo sapiens, human beings, are a unique species in several ways. They are the dominant species on this planet, the only sentient species, the most intelligent species, and the only species who can truly appreciate good blogging. Creationism aside, the history of our species from our lower primate ancestors has been on the forefront of our curiosity, from anthropology and philosophy to genetics and evolutionary biology. Despite our fervor, however, the specifics of the unique journey which resulted in the pinnacle of evolution that is us are still very unclear. When thinking of the origins of man, the most common image is that of an ape slowly standing erect and morphing through a series of intermediates into man. This image is so iconic and so widely reproduced, so central to our understanding of ourselves and the connection that we as sentient beings still share with the natural world, that it is a crying shame how inaccurate of an image it really is.

This would be less funny if I weren't on my computer right now.

                Classical anthropology would suggest that the path from bestial ape to thinking man was, like that image, roughly linear. A lower primate slowly evolved more and more intelligent descendants until, eventually, the first hominid (one of those figures standing somewhere between Bobo and Bob.) came to be. Roughly 2 million years ago, a fellow named Homo ergaster originated somewhere in northeast Africa. He used tools, lived in more or less complex social groups, and was considerably more sophisticated than its predecessor, Homo habilis, whose anatomy and behavior more closely resembled that of modern-day apes. On the evolutionary timeline, ergaster marks the most definitive spot at which the primitive brain functions which would lead to self-awareness and sapience first began to develop (note: human prehistory is really messy and there is at least one highly respected anthropologist who will disagree with even the most widely-held theories that I reference here. Feel free to ignore them.)  Homo ergaster lived for roughly half a million years before splitting up into Homo erectus (in Asia) and Homo antecessor (in Europe and the Middle East). Homo antecessor would then go on to produce Homo rhodensis (half a million years ago), Homo heidelbergensis (400,000 years ago), Homo neanderthalensis (350,000 years ago) and Homo sapiens (still here). This evolutionary path is still pretty linear, since a few hundred thousand years ago erectus and neanderthalensis died off, leaving human beings as the winning product of evolution’s greatest experiment.

No joke this time. Just a helpful diagram.

                Except for the case of Homo floresiensis. This hominid’s remains were found in southeast Asia back in 2004, and it is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, its skull looks a lot like a human’s. Secondly, it’s pretty small, with much of its anatomy very similar to that of the chimpanzee. Thirdly, this species very likely was walking around and using tools less than 15,000 years ago, right around the time that we as a species were slowly spreading over the entire world. This means that, in all probability, Homo sapiens could have encountered floresiensis in the wild. There is further evidence to support the notion that human beings also coexisted with the Neanderthals and perhaps even Homo erectus, at least briefly. Recent breakthroughs in technology along with new fossil finds are showing us a very different image of our evolutionary history, with diversity anywhere you look. In all likelihood, human beings, or at least their most direct and recent ancestors, coexisted with several other species of hominids, all of them using tools and walking upright.

Homo floresiensis? It's a pretty obscure anthropological find.
You've probably never heard of it.

                We are the only sentient species on the planet and by far the most intelligent. Behind us are the chimpanzee (fairly restricted to a small part of western Africa), and the dolphin (a marine mammal), neither of which come close to our intelligence or even the intelligence of the hominids with which we once shared the world. Why such a gap? Why so geographically far apart? The answer, of course, is that intelligence has its drawbacks on the evolutionary stage. While it greatly increases an animal’s fitness, intelligence also carries with it a certain role to play within an ecological niche. And where there is a specific role and a specific niche, there is competition. We have no competition with the dolphin and hominids left the chimpanzee’s habitat a long time ago, but a few hundred thousand years ago, when Homo sapiens was walking the plains amongst its semi-sentient cousins, competition almost certainly existed. In nature, competition is almost always indirect. Two species of birds which eat the same kind of seed will compete for seeds, but they’re not fully aware that they are competing. The bird’s only thought is “get more seeds;” it never considers the possibility that actively removing the competition will free up all the seeds. It’s not smart enough. Homo sapiens, we know, are smart enough.

"Those seeds are all mine now!"

                At some point in time, multiple hominid species coexisted with us, and there is evidence to support the notion that all of these species would have been capable of evolving into a more sophisticated and perhaps even sapient species. Some were smaller, others larger, and when compared to the human’s most recent ancestor, some may have been just as smart or even smarter. The details of those millennia are shaky, vague, and uncertain. What we know is that at one point they were all in the same place at the same time and then, sometime later, only we remained to inherit the earth. There are two possibilities for how this occurred. Option one: homo sapiens were the most fit out of all these species and were able to in all cases survive where others could not and natural selection alone killed off all other hominids. Option two: these species did not coexist peacefully, and the competition for niche and for resources eventually led to homo sapiens, in the course of their spread across the world, killing off other hominids. There is some evidence to support this: Neanderthals and Homo floresiensis both died off around the same time that Homo sapiens are predicted to have migrated to their respective areas. If this is true, then it is possible that we survived not because we were smarter or more fit, but because we were the most violent.

Option 3: Aliens.

                This is all speculation, of course. Even if such a pre-historical genocide had occurred, no record would exist and there would be virtually no way of proving it and if there were, I doubt we’d really want to know. However, there is something in our nature which is unusually aggressive towards our own kind, especially towards humans who look differently. Racial violence predates even language, and humans have been warring with each other for as long as we’ve been around. It would seem that we picked up our aggressive tendencies somewhere down the evolutionary line. In many ways, because humans have no natural predators, war between different groups of humans has acted as a major factor in determining which groups of human beings have survived. And while intelligence factors heavily in an individual’s ability to kill others of its kind, aggression, strength, and size are other heritable factors which contribute to this sort of survival. Humans have grown tremendously since the earliest fossils, the largest surviving to pass on their genes, while highly isolated groups such as the pygymys remain much smaller. Competition, war, drives our evolution now.

               

Another isolated group. Note the height.

          Our evolution was not linear. We were not the only human experiment. From the first hominids, a family tree grew and branched off. Not so long ago, all but one branch either died or was cut off. How we came to be the lucky ones to inherit the earth I do not know, but it probably was not through meekness. We are a species which, more so than any other, has the capacity and drive to expand its territory from an original location to the entire world in a very short period of time. We do not adapt, we alter. We do not compete, we eliminate. We do not survive, we dominate. This is our history and our present. The Homo sapiens of a hundred thousand years ago, not unlike the other hominids, were crude and savage. We have evolved since then, in ways nature does not select for. We have learned to think and to feel and to believe. In this, we are unique in all the world. And while our past may be dark or violent or troubled, we are our own selection now. We control our own evolution. Just as we invented war, we as a species are capable of ending it and driving ourselves forward, ever further from our primitive beginnings and towards our bright future.

Or, you know, we could do it tomorrow.