3 ms·

It hinges massively on how correct the worst-case predictions about impact are. I don't agree with the worst-case predictions but let's entertain them for a mom

It hinges massively on how correct the worst-case predictions about impact are. I don't agree with the worst-case predictions but let's entertain them for a moment as a thought experiment: let's say grid power is almost entirely knocked out for a full year in and that leads to mass starvation and a general breakdown in society. 30% of the population dies of either starvation, heat/cold exposure or from th troubles. If, and it's a big if, that came to pass just once in five hundred years then sure, the chances of dying in such an event turn out to be higher than dying in a car crash. Much higher, at that, so the real figures don't need to be anything like this extreme. Low-frequency high-impact risks can lead to that situation and it's one reason why 'the odds' is often too simplistic to be useful in assessing risk. Humans have a general cognitive blind spot when it comes to assessing this kind of thing. We're generally terrible at predicting how high-impact, low frequency events will impact us and play out and part of that is that our collective reaction is the most unpredictable element, with potential to multiply or mitigate the impacts to a huge degree in either direction. The current pandemic illustrates that quite well, as does Texas. A CME if/when it hits will open us up to a similar opportunity (or risk) of reacting in a way that either minimizes or intensifies the damage.

the_af 6y ago
> If, and it's a big if, that came to pass just once in five hundred years then sure, the chances of dying in such an event turn out to be higher than dying in a car crash. Wait, do you mean "if you were involved in a car crash you'd be less likely to die than if you were involved in a CME"? Is that what you and the OP were saying? If so, I could agree with that, rephrased as "the lethality of a CME is higher than that of a car crash". But what I was thinking is that CMEs are far less likely, so their lethality doesn't matter as much when predicting what you'll die of. I'm far more likely to be involved in a car crash than in a CME, and since fatal car crashes actually occur, I'm far more likely to die in one than in a CME. Simply because the CME is very, very unlikely to happen. To rephrase it in terms of things that actually happen in our lifetimes more than once: the lethality of plane crashes is very high: you're very unlikely to survive one. Their lethality is higher than that of car crashes. However, if I were to ask you: "is this person, Jane Random, more likely to die of a car crash or a plane crash?", you'd have to bet on the car crash -- simply because plane crashes occur far less often. (This is purposefully excluding other, likelier causes of death, of course).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > Wait, do you mean "if you were involved in a car crash you'd be less likely to die than if you were involved in a CME"? Car crashes kill around 35k Americans per year. Whereas let's say a CME would kill 300M Americans. Even if a CME only happens once every 500 years, your chances of dying in a CME would still be vastly greater than your chances of dying in a car crash, because 35,000 * 500 < 300,000,000. Now granted a CME might not kill 85% of Americans, but they also happen more like every 100 years, rather than every 500. So yeah, the math should actually be pretty terrifying no matter what assumptions you plug in.
  - FooHentai 6y ago
    Thanks, you said it far better than I was able to!

the_af 6y ago

> If, and it's a big if, that came to pass just once in five hundred years then sure, the chances of dying in such an event turn out to be higher than dying in a car crash. Wait, do you mean "if you were involved in a car crash you'd be less likely to die than if you were involved in a CME"? Is that what you and the OP were saying? If so, I could agree with that, rephrased as "the lethality of a CME is higher than that of a car crash". But what I was thinking is that CMEs are far less likely, so their lethality doesn't matter as much when predicting what you'll die of. I'm far more likely to be involved in a car crash than in a CME, and since fatal car crashes actually occur, I'm far more likely to die in one than in a CME. Simply because the CME is very, very unlikely to happen. To rephrase it in terms of things that actually happen in our lifetimes more than once: the lethality of plane crashes is very high: you're very unlikely to survive one. Their lethality is higher than that of car crashes. However, if I were to ask you: "is this person, Jane Random, more likely to die of a car crash or a plane crash?", you'd have to bet on the car crash -- simply because plane crashes occur far less often. (This is purposefully excluding other, likelier causes of death, of course).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 6y ago
> Wait, do you mean "if you were involved in a car crash you'd be less likely to die than if you were involved in a CME"? Car crashes kill around 35k Americans per year. Whereas let's say a CME would kill 300M Americans. Even if a CME only happens once every 500 years, your chances of dying in a CME would still be vastly greater than your chances of dying in a car crash, because 35,000 * 500 < 300,000,000. Now granted a CME might not kill 85% of Americans, but they also happen more like every 100 years, rather than every 500. So yeah, the math should actually be pretty terrifying no matter what assumptions you plug in.
- FooHentai 6y ago
  Thanks, you said it far better than I was able to!