Is Safety Now a Religion?

For many years I've been bugged by the constant appeals to "safety" in our society. It seems that, if a policy has nothing at all to recommend it, on rational grounds, then it's invariably supported by an appeal to safety. The very word has a kind of magical power, and is almost impossible to resist. "I'm sorry, but it's a safety issue." Who can argue against that?

More recently I've started to wonder about the sources of this practice, and begun to suspect that it has its roots in our post-religious culture. It is, I am starting to believe, the result of a religious impulse, the need for salvation.

The world is a fairly dangerous and unpredictable place. Of course life in Canada is relatively predictable, compared with most other places, and the dangers are relatively few, but it remains true that any of us could be killed, or be permanently crippled, tomorrow. This is scary. And I'm not sure that the fact that these risks are low in Canada helps reduce the fear that much. (I get the impression that we learn to tolerate the level of risk that we're exposed to.)

So what do we do with that fear? Our Christian ancestors had one strategy, and now we have another. The Christian approach (shared by other religions) is to acknowledge that there is no safety in this world, which is arbitrary and chaotic. Yet we have nothing to fear, since our safety is with God, who guards our life and will bring us into his kingdom. "And as surely, sinner, as thou canst put thy trust in God, thou art safe" (Charles Spurgeon, "Salvation and Safety", p. 4) It's this understanding of safety that comforted early Christians as they waited to be eaten by lions, for example.

The present approach is quite different, of course. With no God, our safety cannot reside in another world. We must be safe in this world. And here we see the source of the irrationality in the present safety religion. For the world just isn't safe. The Christians are right on this point: the world is arbitrary, chaotic and unpredictable. Our psychological need for a safe world just doesn't make it so.

I realise that, these days, saying that the world isn't safe (and cannot be made safe) is some kind of blasphemy. Our modern scripture says that there are no accidents, but only "preventable injuries", with the obvious consequence that injury-free living is a real possibility. (We just need more regulations, more inspectors, more safety gadgets ...) By denying the possibility of safety I am saying, to our culture, that there is no heaven.

For some time now I've been following the debate about bike helmets, looking at the arguments for and against. This case provides a very good illustration of the safety religion in Canada (and no doubt elsewhere). The arguments against wearing bike helmets, and especially against legislating their use, are simple and rational. The absolute risk of injury and death from cycling is very low. And wearing a helmet doesn't make much difference to that risk, if any. These arguments would appear to be irrefutable, yet the majority reject them. How do they respond? Judging from various internet discussion forums, that I've been reading, the typical response is emotional, fear-driven, and grounded in the need to be safe.

The human skull is only a quarter of an inch thick! Imagine that smashing into the hard asphalt, or the hood of a truck. You might think you don't need a helmet to ride to the corner store, but that could be the very time disaster strikes. Think about all those dead cyclists, and drooling scores of others with permanent brain damage. Strap on a helmet and be safe! (It sounds eerily like Spurgeon. "There is a hell for the wicked, but none for the righteous.")

I reject all false gods, including the modern idol of safety. I refuse to worship it. I prefer to live in the real world, and worship the real gods of reason, truth and love.


[Caveat: I'm not necessarily against all measures that are justified on grounds of safety. Some can be justified on rational grounds. I don't, for example, eat raw hamburger bought from a supermarket! I am trying to foster the virtue of prudence, in myself and my children. I object only to the worship of safety, and the irrationality that goes with it.]

Building Codes and "Safety"

I just spent a couple of hours trying to figure out why I can't live in my own basement. Of course I know the reason, that the ceiling height of 6'6" (less in some spots) doesn't meet the minimum for the building code, or planning bylaw, or some such thing.

But I wanted to know the reason for that reason. Why is this the minimum height, rather than some other value? And why is there a minimum ceiling height at all?

I had heard that it was something to do with fire safety. So first I connected to the UBC library VPN, giving me access to the world's knowledge stored in electronic academic journals. Then I searched for factors influencing fire safety, especially relating to ceiling height. What did I find? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Plenty about fuel loads, fire exits, fire barriers, sprinklers, etc. etc. Nothing about ceiling height.

So, turning my back on the academic world, I did general internet searches, visiting discussion boards, planning documents, etc. Finally I found THE ANSWER.

I found a 2006 report by the Acting Commissioner, Department of Development Services, City of Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. (It can be read here.)

Apparently the Property Standards Committee had requested that proposed that the minimum ceiling height be reduced in existing residences, presumably to increase the supply of cheap housing. How dare they!!!

I couldn't wait to read the response from the Acting Commissioner, a Mr Hodgins, MA. Why can't I live in my own basement? Here are the arguments:

1. The existing minimum height matches the Ontario Building Code.

Yes, yes, I know that! One code justifies another. No doubt the Ontario code cotes the BC code, which cites the Quebec code, which cites ...

2. "It promotes a reasonable level of comfort, convenience and dignity for occupants..."

Whaaa..? Do we now need laws to ensure that people look out for their personal comfort, convenience and dignity? Will there be laws forbidding tight shoes, or itchy sweaters? This would be pretty hilarious, were it not for the fact that my family of 4 is crammed into 600 square feet while a 900 square foot basement lies empty beneath our feet. Where's the "comfort, convenience and dignity" in that? Those values would be enabled, rather than hindered, by a spare bedroom, an office, a play room, a home movie theatre with a 60 inch plasma screen and surround sound (oops, daydreaming!)

Better get to the 3rd and final reason:

3. "It advances safety and safe access for emergency services personnel who need sufficient height to undertake their work"

Aha! Now, finally we have it. No one could question the appeal to safety, now could they! The argumentum ad salvum (taking a guess at what the latin might be). Here's the argument structure:

1. Option X would be cheaper, more convenient, etc. etc.
2. But option Y would be safer
-------------
Hence, we must do Y

Apparently I can't live in my basement because of the remote possibility that a copper might visit me while I'm down there, and have to stoop a little! (You know how tall those fellas are!)

Does anybody do any cost-benefit analysis of this sort of thing? Apparently not. Since I and my family are here 7 days a week, year round, and we haven't had a single visit from the emergency services since ... well ... our second son was born 4 years ago, such an analysis is unlikely to weight the convenience of those workers higher than ours.