I am curious what you think of a first-principled approach to resiliency/preparedness? I wrote a blog post on this on LessWrong. I still have a feeling that from an individual, and perhaps from a nation state’s perspective, one will arrive at quite different resiliency measures if one carefully starts with the likelihood of different disasters affecting one’s loved ones, then the likelihood and cost of different interventions mitigating these disasters and in the end having a prioritized list of most cost-effective preparedness actions. It would, for example, surprise me if digging a hole would be a cost-effective way to avert death or permanent damage.
If we look at moon & mars colonization—radiation is a large risk, earth’s magnetic field means we don’t need to care about solar radiation so much, but there’s no reason that’s permanent, Mars also used to have a magnetic field. I think there’s something to be said for physical isolation, the more physical material you can put between yourself and other environments the smaller the chance that bad stuff get’s through your barrier and get’s to you.
Cost effective is another interesting question—if the cost of subterranean building decreases rapidly, it may be the most cost effective solution—certainly on paper it will probably cost less than space colonization as the materials are readily available along with an advanced value chain of goods and services.
I am curious what you think of a first-principled approach to resiliency/preparedness? I wrote a blog post on this on LessWrong. I still have a feeling that from an individual, and perhaps from a nation state’s perspective, one will arrive at quite different resiliency measures if one carefully starts with the likelihood of different disasters affecting one’s loved ones, then the likelihood and cost of different interventions mitigating these disasters and in the end having a prioritized list of most cost-effective preparedness actions. It would, for example, surprise me if digging a hole would be a cost-effective way to avert death or permanent damage.
If we look at moon & mars colonization—radiation is a large risk, earth’s magnetic field means we don’t need to care about solar radiation so much, but there’s no reason that’s permanent, Mars also used to have a magnetic field. I think there’s something to be said for physical isolation, the more physical material you can put between yourself and other environments the smaller the chance that bad stuff get’s through your barrier and get’s to you.
Cost effective is another interesting question—if the cost of subterranean building decreases rapidly, it may be the most cost effective solution—certainly on paper it will probably cost less than space colonization as the materials are readily available along with an advanced value chain of goods and services.