4 ms·

I wonder how many other rare disasters there are that cost only 300M to prepare for. If it's just a couple, then sure, fund this one. But if there are thousan

by ars 7y ago

I wonder how many other rare disasters there are that cost only 300M to prepare for. If it's just a couple, then sure, fund this one. But if there are thousand of possible rare disasters - how can you possibly fund them all?

dmurray 7y ago
Now that we've got "global pandemic" marked off our bingo card, I'd put this at the top of the most likely "unforeseen" worldwide disasters. Some kind of supervolcano eruption is the other candidate. Of course, not all disasters are global and every country or region will have its own rare disasters to prepare for.
- FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
  Add asteroid strike at with the energy level of a nuclear warhead to that list. Fortunately, it is 71% likely to come down in the ocean.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    It would have to be a lot bigger than "a nuclear warhead" to cause a global catastrophe rather than a local one, and it has to be more unfortunately aimed than just coming down over land. It would be pretty bad if the Chelyabinsk meteor had hit Tokyo or Mexico City, but as it happened it troubled glaziers more than doctors.
    - FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
      The problem with a sudden nuclear scale explosion is that it could trigger a nuclear exchange.
williamdclt 7y ago
If there's 3.3 thousand similar disasters, it would cost ~1 trillion to prepare. How much did covid-19 cost?
- FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
  Clearly, an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.
batterseapower 7y ago
I was curious about this question too so I tried to find a list of comparable risks. Wikipedia has a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Global_catastrophic_risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Global_catastrophic_r... The solar flare risk (at ~1% per year [1]) seems much more likely than many of the other items there. Supervolcanos, pandemics, war, and AI also seem like salient risks, but we probably shouldn't worry about e.g. gamma ray bursts or asteroids. [1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL086524 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...

by ars 7y ago

dmurray 7y ago

Now that we've got "global pandemic" marked off our bingo card, I'd put this at the top of the most likely "unforeseen" worldwide disasters. Some kind of supervolcano eruption is the other candidate. Of course, not all disasters are global and every country or region will have its own rare disasters to prepare for.

FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
Add asteroid strike at with the energy level of a nuclear warhead to that list. Fortunately, it is 71% likely to come down in the ocean.
- dmurray 7y ago
  It would have to be a lot bigger than "a nuclear warhead" to cause a global catastrophe rather than a local one, and it has to be more unfortunately aimed than just coming down over land. It would be pretty bad if the Chelyabinsk meteor had hit Tokyo or Mexico City, but as it happened it troubled glaziers more than doctors.
  - FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
    The problem with a sudden nuclear scale explosion is that it could trigger a nuclear exchange.

williamdclt 7y ago

If there's 3.3 thousand similar disasters, it would cost ~1 trillion to prepare. How much did covid-19 cost?

FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
Clearly, an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

batterseapower 7y ago

I was curious about this question too so I tried to find a list of comparable risks. Wikipedia has a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Global_catastrophic_risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Global_catastrophic_r... The solar flare risk (at ~1% per year [1]) seems much more likely than many of the other items there. Supervolcanos, pandemics, war, and AI also seem like salient risks, but we probably shouldn't worry about e.g. gamma ray bursts or asteroids. [1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL086524 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...