4 ms·

Not to impugn on your cred or anything, but 25 years may as well be the blink of an eye when you're talking about geological phenomenon. > 'What are you worrie

Not to impugn on your cred or anything, but 25 years may as well be the blink of an eye when you're talking about geological phenomenon. > 'What are you worried about, I've lived here 25 years and that mountain never did shit.' -probably some Roman citizen in Pompeii, 79 BC

dekhn 6y ago
Lives are ~75 years long, should I actually invest any effort into large-scale problems that occur at scales longer than my life when there are risks that are far higher around which I can make direct changes?
- kube-system 6y ago
  Depends on how much effort it takes. Statistically, my house will never burn down within my lifetime, but the $20 it takes to buy a fire extinguisher is worth it. It also doesn't take much effort to do the types of things mentioned on https://www.ready.gov/kit https://www.ready.gov/kit
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Likewise, I have all-electic heating and no gas service to my home, but a carbon monoxide detector only costs a few dollars so I still have one even though the risk is very low (most fires would probably trip the smoke detectors first I think.)
- bigbubba 6y ago
  If it happens during your lifetime, it will likely only be once. So 'it never happened to me before' is not a very good way to reason about this sort of risk.
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    That's kind of an amusing way to put it: "Why would I prepare for a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe? It never happened to me before."
  - dekhn 6y ago
    Please recall that when the last "big one" happened in the Bay Area, the outcome was very few deaths (63 people died), but decades of economic problems. 500 people die in car accidents in the bay area every year. It would seem that fatalities from earthquakes aren't a good model for making rational decisions about what is likely to affect you in your lifetime.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      You wear your seat belt, right? That's obviously a risk you already take seriously, so I'd not take it for a bound on tolerance for risk.
      - dekhn 6y ago
        Cars pretty much define my bounds on tolerance for risk.
throw1234651234 6y ago
We also have a much better understanding of geological phenomenon and money likely gets you a faster evac than a gun and some gold bars. But again, pointless argument on my part since everything boils down to the point I made below.
olivermarks 6y ago
I too live in NorCal and am appalled by the glib headline on this NG article. We are encouraged to have emergency supplies ready in the event of catastrophe, the whole 'preppers are idiots' but a few aren't is really unhelpful and short sighted. I'm not a prepper and my emergency kit isn't in good shape but it should be...
truantbuick 6y ago
Not the best example since there was a severe earthquake in Pompeii in 62 AD. They were still rebuilding in 79 AD when the town was destroyed by Vesuvius.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  If they had taken the matter seriously, they'd not have rebuilt there. We know some Romans recognized the mountain as a volcano years before the eruption, but if there were any warnings associated with this recognition, they seem to have gone unheeded. (Also, earth quakes are/were pretty common throughout Italy. This perhaps contributed to complacency.)

dekhn 6y ago

Lives are ~75 years long, should I actually invest any effort into large-scale problems that occur at scales longer than my life when there are risks that are far higher around which I can make direct changes?

kube-system 6y ago
Depends on how much effort it takes. Statistically, my house will never burn down within my lifetime, but the $20 it takes to buy a fire extinguisher is worth it. It also doesn't take much effort to do the types of things mentioned on https://www.ready.gov/kit https://www.ready.gov/kit
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Likewise, I have all-electic heating and no gas service to my home, but a carbon monoxide detector only costs a few dollars so I still have one even though the risk is very low (most fires would probably trip the smoke detectors first I think.)
bigbubba 6y ago
If it happens during your lifetime, it will likely only be once. So 'it never happened to me before' is not a very good way to reason about this sort of risk.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  That's kind of an amusing way to put it: "Why would I prepare for a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe? It never happened to me before."
- dekhn 6y ago
  Please recall that when the last "big one" happened in the Bay Area, the outcome was very few deaths (63 people died), but decades of economic problems. 500 people die in car accidents in the bay area every year. It would seem that fatalities from earthquakes aren't a good model for making rational decisions about what is likely to affect you in your lifetime.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    You wear your seat belt, right? That's obviously a risk you already take seriously, so I'd not take it for a bound on tolerance for risk.
    - dekhn 6y ago
      Cars pretty much define my bounds on tolerance for risk.

throw1234651234 6y ago

We also have a much better understanding of geological phenomenon and money likely gets you a faster evac than a gun and some gold bars. But again, pointless argument on my part since everything boils down to the point I made below.

olivermarks 6y ago

I too live in NorCal and am appalled by the glib headline on this NG article. We are encouraged to have emergency supplies ready in the event of catastrophe, the whole 'preppers are idiots' but a few aren't is really unhelpful and short sighted. I'm not a prepper and my emergency kit isn't in good shape but it should be...

truantbuick 6y ago

Not the best example since there was a severe earthquake in Pompeii in 62 AD. They were still rebuilding in 79 AD when the town was destroyed by Vesuvius.

bigbubba 6y ago
If they had taken the matter seriously, they'd not have rebuilt there. We know some Romans recognized the mountain as a volcano years before the eruption, but if there were any warnings associated with this recognition, they seem to have gone unheeded. (Also, earth quakes are/were pretty common throughout Italy. This perhaps contributed to complacency.)