[anigbrowl]

What's the point of putting it somewhere maximally inaccessible with lots of ice? I was never that sold on the idea of putting it on a coastal island to begin with. I realize they want somewhere cold but a large mountain cave seems a better bet. That's where we put things that are meant to withstand nuclear war or similarly drastic upheavals.

I don't blame the organizers for that, it's a lot harder to raise money for protecting biodiversity than for making weapon systems, but this outcome suggests to me that our institutional cooperation models of governance are not working well.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Placing the vault in a more populous and accessible region increases the possibility of, well, take your pick: theft, terrorism, political interference, collateral damage in the case of war, and so on.

[anigbrowl]

The existence of other considerations doesn't validate the poor choices that have already been made. I said at the time that putting a vault on a small island near sea level might not be a great plan given the wholly predictable rise in sea levels over the long term.

It was a predictably stupid decision, and the only surprising part is that the stupidity became obvious so early rather than 50 or 75 years from now as more conservative models of climate change suggested could be the case.

I am absolutely in favor of projects like this that are built to maximize survivability of ecosystems in the face of unpredictable change. But you are saying that all risks are equivalent over the long term and it's impossible to choose between them, which I think is an absurd copout.

The reality here is that there wasn't enough money or political will to invest in something more obviously permanent, so we ended up with a shitty system that has started to fail within a single decade, will now probably have to be decommissioned (because the problem is only likely to get worse), and we've got to start over. It's not a total write-off, much valuable work has been done, but it's plain that trying to cheap out on the location was a dreadful false economy.

[Pinckney]

The vault is 130m above sea level. It's not going to flood even if the arctic and antarctic both melt entirely.

[anigbrowl]

Also, when I questioned the wisdom of putting it somewhere maximally inaccessible, I didn't necessarily mean they should have gone to the opposite extreme of putting it in the middle of a population center.

Nothing personal but this mode of argument seems both fallacious and unhelpful. I suggested an alternative (a somewhat accessible mountain cave) grounded in real-world experience (actual locations of military command centers). I don't understand why you chose to ignore one half of a short comment in order to produce a facile refutation of the other half.

[rm_-rf_slash]

I didn't mean middle of manhattan. Even rural Kentucky is readily accessible.

[TeMPOraL]

Case in point: Aleppo.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10255821

[rbanffy]

Also, on any sane design, the entrance would be below the vault.

[Pinckney]

The entrance is V shaped, and is fitted with pumps at the bottom.

[rbanffy]

Clever, but depending on the flooding, the pressurization inside the vault may not be enough to keep water out.

[mrkstu]

Granite Mountain would be just about perfect.

http://perpetualstorage.com/