3 ms·

In general, this is a waste of resources. There is a very low statistical chance of an apocalypse event occurring. I agree with general disaster preparedness.

In general, this is a waste of resources. There is a very low statistical chance of an apocalypse event occurring. I agree with general disaster preparedness. You should have a few weeks worth of water/food, and a flash light on hand in case of a natural disaster. MMM on preppers: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/03/03/why-we-are-not-really-all-doomed/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/03/03/why-we-are-not-rea...

wyager 11y ago
> There is a very low statistical chance of an apocalypse event occurring. And some people assign a large enough negative utility to dying in an emergency that it makes sense for them to spend a substantial amount of money preparing for an emergency.
- stevenmays 11y ago
  Yes, there is a negative utility on death. But if you spent 50% of your extra money and time on preparing for something that has a 1% chance of happening statistically you will lose. Not only the resources outlayed, but the opportunity cost associated with them.
  - wyager 11y ago
    That's not how it works. It's not rational to allocate resources to preparing for possible outcomes depending solely on the chance of that outcome happening. For example, there is maybe a ninety percent chance that I will get a splinter over the next year, but I don't allocate ninety percent of my resources preparing for this eventuality. One rationally allocates resources so as to maximize expected utility; if an emergency has a very high negative utility, and an agent believes they can substantially minimize the utility loss by preparing thoroughly, it may work out for them to spend a fair amount of money preparing for a hypothetical emergency.
tzs 11y ago
> You should have a few weeks worth of water/food, and a flash light on hand in case of a natural disaster Anyone have thoughts on whether or not a good natural disaster kit should include weapons?

wyager 11y ago

> There is a very low statistical chance of an apocalypse event occurring. And some people assign a large enough negative utility to dying in an emergency that it makes sense for them to spend a substantial amount of money preparing for an emergency.

stevenmays 11y ago
Yes, there is a negative utility on death. But if you spent 50% of your extra money and time on preparing for something that has a 1% chance of happening statistically you will lose. Not only the resources outlayed, but the opportunity cost associated with them.
- wyager 11y ago
  That's not how it works. It's not rational to allocate resources to preparing for possible outcomes depending solely on the chance of that outcome happening. For example, there is maybe a ninety percent chance that I will get a splinter over the next year, but I don't allocate ninety percent of my resources preparing for this eventuality. One rationally allocates resources so as to maximize expected utility; if an emergency has a very high negative utility, and an agent believes they can substantially minimize the utility loss by preparing thoroughly, it may work out for them to spend a fair amount of money preparing for a hypothetical emergency.

tzs 11y ago

> You should have a few weeks worth of water/food, and a flash light on hand in case of a natural disaster Anyone have thoughts on whether or not a good natural disaster kit should include weapons?