> Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of eve

> Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of event. This seems to hinge on the assumption that we should value our lives infinitely. This isn't particularly logical, however, given the fact that most people do dangerous things. If you are like most people, you probably want to maximize your total happiness over the course of your life, regardless of how long it is. Would you rather be miserable and live to be 80, or live happily until 50? So if the cost of mitigating such an event happening results in a lower expected net happiness than the cost of of the event happening (including all future happiness) multiplied by the probability of it happening, it would make logical sense to not attempt to mitigate it.