3 ms·
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 stimul
by 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 agoI 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.
- taeric 2y agoI'm not sure I follow. You don't need heavy logic to explain why a single person can capsize a canoe rather easily, but would be unable to capsize something like a ferry. As a similar example, we know that you can't just scale up an ant body to be human sized, as it would crumble under its own weight. Look up the "square-cube law". Same basic idea, in many ways. Ratios and scale just don't hold as things grow. Back on the cities and preparing for a hurricane, this is not that they are stronger because they were hit by a hurricane. By this logic, you couldn't have a new coastal town that can weather one. After all, they weren't made stronger by the first hit. I think we can agree that is silly logic? If you know what forces you will get hit by, you can build anticipating them. This is too close to the phrasing that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Which, frankly, is mostly nonsense. Many things can weaken you to the point that what didn't kill you this time let something else finish you off. Its cute, but largely presupposes growth between hits that has to happen.
- guerrilla 2y ago"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger (for certain types of systems)" is the actual point.
- taeric 2y agoRight, and I said that is cute, but mostly nonsense. There are no systems that can take arbitrary hits without ending. And as soon as you acknowledge that this only works by spurring growth after the hit, you are back to tolerances and growth.