katydee comments on Don't Build Fallout Shelters - Less Wrong

26 Post author: katydee 07 January 2013 02:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (124)
Tags: existential_risk rationality safety health

Comments (124)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: katydee 07 January 2013 10:14:16PM 0 points [-]

The actual quote from the original post is:

Unfortunately, full-scale nuclear war is very likely to impair medicine and science for quite some time, perhaps permanently.

Thus even if your fallout shelter succeeds, you will likely live a shorter and less pleasant life than you would otherwise.

This does not seem as if it is stating "nuclear wars are unpleasant to survive, thus we shouldn't prepare for them;" it seems as if it is stating "nuclear wars are unpleasant to survive, and we should discount preparations accordingly." What am I missing?

Comment author: Vaniver 07 January 2013 10:58:40PM 2 points [-]

I think it's the combination of "thus" and "otherwise" being insufficiently clear. There are two main possible interpretations:

  1. Conditioned on a nuclear war happening, if your fallout shelter succeeds, you will likely live a shorter and less pleasant life than if your fallout shelter fails.

  2. If a nuclear war happens and your fallout shelter succeeds, you will likely live a shorter and less pleasant life than if nuclear war does not occur.

The first is obviously wrong; the second is incomplete, because it penalizes the act of building the shelter (the variable under control) for the occurrence of the nuclear war without penalizing the act of not building the shelter in the event of a nuclear war occurring. The full analysis is a 2x2 matrix, where the fallout shelter actually does make you better off if the war occurs, and actually does make you worse off if the war doesn't occur.

Comment author: katydee 08 January 2013 08:16:41PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for the clarification. What do you think of the following revision to that passage?

Unfortunately, full-scale nuclear war is very likely to impair medicine and science for quite some time, perhaps permanently.

Thus, even if your fallout shelter succeeds, it will only partially mitigate the harm done to you by nuclear war, not erase it completely. You must apply a discount factor to the years of life that you expect your fallout shelter to buy you in the event of a nuclear war.

Comment author: Vaniver 08 January 2013 08:31:58PM *  1 point [-]

That's fine; I might move the conclusion up to the introduction, like this (my edited version):

Further, one must consider the quality of life reduction that one would likely experience in a post-nuclear war world and discount accordingly. Even if your fallout shelter succeeds, it will only partially mitigate the harm done to you by nuclear war, not erase it completely. You may have enough medicine stockpiled to prevent enough diseases that you eventually die of old age, but the prospects of curing old age or undoing death require medical and scientific progress that require large and advanced human civilization. Unfortunately, full-scale nuclear war is very likely to impair medicine and science for quite some time, perhaps permanently.

Seeking to buy QALYs by investing in a fallout shelter is buying them when they're lower quality, and unlikely to be delivered, and thus probably underperforms other investments.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 January 2013 09:48:25PM 4 points [-]

Seeking to buy QALYs by investing in a fallout shelter is buying them when they're lower quality, expensive

This is highly dubious. You probably have much cheaper low hanging fruit in the event of a disaster, than otherwise.

Comment author: Vaniver 08 January 2013 10:04:42PM 0 points [-]

Removed. You're right that I was double-counting the probably and value.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit