= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Don't Build Fallout Shelters - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (124)
That might be possible in this age of telecommuting, though still difficult. The trouble with safe places is that part of the reason they're safe is that there's nothing there worth nuking...or living near.
I'm not sure if that generalizes to natural disasters. Are they more common in desirable areas, perhaps because geographical features that invite disaster (e.g. faultlines) correlate to features humans tend to live and build near (e.g. rivers, coastlines)?
I don't think faultlines are necessarily attractive, but the harbors and rivers are, and the ocean may be becoming more of a hazard. On the other hand, you don't want to be someplace that's seriously drought-prone, either.
The big issue is that population concentration is a risk factor in itself if the infrastructure takes much damage. If you can only be happy in a big city, then you can't get much out of trying to avoid disasters, though some thought about which cities are most at risk might be in order.