5 ms·

When enduring successive hurricanes the most worthwhile effort might be to improve antifragility on more of a continuous basis than even recovery itself. You c

When enduring successive hurricanes the most worthwhile effort might be to improve antifragility on more of a continuous basis than even recovery itself. You can definitely benefit by increasing your antifragility in the face of a second hurricane long before recovery from the first hurricane has been very well completed at all, no matter how focused the recovery effort. I never thought people needed a new term to be coined for this, but it doesn't sound so bad when you think about it. It's just one of the things you inherently know your whole life.

soulofmischief 2y ago
I think you mean resilient or robust, not antifragile. I know of no building which gets stronger under/after hurricane force winds.
- guerrilla 2y ago
  No, but the community and relevant economy can.
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    Exactly. Plus the individual may have to make progress without a community or economy to fall back on. Whether you have a building or not.
  - taeric 2y ago
    But you can do that with a simple growth model? Larger systems can already withstand larger shocks that would have been fatal when they were smaller. Antifragile is a bit odd, the idea is supposed to be things that get stronger because of the shocks. Think how your muscles grow specifically from micro tears. In that regard, they must have resistance to grow. Though, I think that also misses on some of the definition? Really, the more I try to defend the idea, the more I question it. :(
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      I'm not sure why you're talking about the size of systems, maybe I missed something. I think the point is that the systems become stronger with negative stimuli. The community and relevant economy become stronger only because of the hurricane. They would not have done it otherwise.
      - taeric 2y ago
        I meant only that larger town/cities can take hurricanes a bit better than smaller ones can. Same reason that large trees weather the storm better than smaller trees do. If you increase the size of the system/thing, then it necessitates larger negative stimuli in most cases. Consider the size of a wave that would topple a canoe versus standard war ships. At any rate, this is a hard analogy to stick with as it isn't the hurricane that makes things stronger. It is being ready for the hurricane. And, yeah, you can argue that getting hit by hurricanes is why the city was prepared, but that is kind of silly. Are non-coastal towns that don't have to evacuate for large storms somehow weaker than the ones that do? Not really, they are prepared for other shocks. Again, muscle growth would kind of follow an antifragile model. In that you have to have some resistance for most growth. Maybe the old SR-71 was an even better example. Literally needed the resistance of flight so that it wouldn't leak. The saying for it was the faster it went, the faster it could go.
        guerrilla 2y ago
        > I meant only that larger town/cities can take hurricanes a bit better than smaller ones can. Same reason that large trees weather the storm better than smaller trees do. If you increase the size of the system/thing, then it necessitates larger negative stimuli in most cases. Consider the size of a wave that would topple a canoe versus standard war ships. I don't know anything about that but it's an empirical question that you can't answer with a priori reasoning like you're trying to do. We need actual data. > At any rate, this is a hard analogy to stick with as it isn't the hurricane that makes things stronger. It is being ready for the hurricane. No, the point was that they are not ready the first time, but they are the second time. The hurricane is what causes them to be ready the second time. If their preparations were not good enough the second time, they will be even better the third time.

soulofmischief 2y ago

I think you mean resilient or robust, not antifragile. I know of no building which gets stronger under/after hurricane force winds.

guerrilla 2y ago
No, but the community and relevant economy can.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  Exactly. Plus the individual may have to make progress without a community or economy to fall back on. Whether you have a building or not.
- taeric 2y ago
  But you can do that with a simple growth model? Larger systems can already withstand larger shocks that would have been fatal when they were smaller. Antifragile is a bit odd, the idea is supposed to be things that get stronger because of the shocks. Think how your muscles grow specifically from micro tears. In that regard, they must have resistance to grow. Though, I think that also misses on some of the definition? Really, the more I try to defend the idea, the more I question it. :(
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    I'm not sure why you're talking about the size of systems, maybe I missed something. I think the point is that the systems become stronger with negative stimuli. The community and relevant economy become stronger only because of the hurricane. They would not have done it otherwise.
    - taeric 2y ago
      I meant only that larger town/cities can take hurricanes a bit better than smaller ones can. Same reason that large trees weather the storm better than smaller trees do. If you increase the size of the system/thing, then it necessitates larger negative stimuli in most cases. Consider the size of a wave that would topple a canoe versus standard war ships. At any rate, this is a hard analogy to stick with as it isn't the hurricane that makes things stronger. It is being ready for the hurricane. And, yeah, you can argue that getting hit by hurricanes is why the city was prepared, but that is kind of silly. Are non-coastal towns that don't have to evacuate for large storms somehow weaker than the ones that do? Not really, they are prepared for other shocks. Again, muscle growth would kind of follow an antifragile model. In that you have to have some resistance for most growth. Maybe the old SR-71 was an even better example. Literally needed the resistance of flight so that it wouldn't leak. The saying for it was the faster it went, the faster it could go.
      - guerrilla 2y ago
        > I meant only that larger town/cities can take hurricanes a bit better than smaller ones can. Same reason that large trees weather the storm better than smaller trees do. If you increase the size of the system/thing, then it necessitates larger negative stimuli in most cases. Consider the size of a wave that would topple a canoe versus standard war ships. I don't know anything about that but it's an empirical question that you can't answer with a priori reasoning like you're trying to do. We need actual data. > At any rate, this is a hard analogy to stick with as it isn't the hurricane that makes things stronger. It is being ready for the hurricane. No, the point was that they are not ready the first time, but they are the second time. The hurricane is what causes them to be ready the second time. If their preparations were not good enough the second time, they will be even better the third time.