[themodelplumber]

I'm just a casual ham radio operator, military history hobbyist, amateur health science researcher, and I know a tiny bit about space. But it seems the four types of disasters you mention have been studied and measured in depth, with the result bring great impact on our vulnerability to them. Is this not so, and should we not continue improving our measurement (control) systems?

[lotsofpulp]

We should strive to improve our model of the universe, but I was specifically responding to the notion of being “terrified” by the person I responded to. I think am not terrified by it because I’ve accepted that there are always any number of risks that can wipe me out, known and unknown.

[rubicon33]

You conclude that infectious disease is "out of your control"?

[lotsofpulp]

Is it not? As far as I know, it’s plausible a new bacteria, fungus, or virus could develop and we can’t figure out how to fight it, or at least not quickly enough.

Anything is possible, but I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t fight it or take steps to prevent it or mitigate damage from it. I’m saying no point in being worried about it.

[coding123]

> I’m saying no point in being worried about it.

(sorry there is no reply option for lots of pulp).

Isn't worry the one human emotion that actually makes us ready for things. If we had an earthquake 1000 years ago that killed half of society and the people just said, damn oh well. They don't do things the same way after that do they? They change design, learn more about the planet, adjust adjust adjust. All of that is driven by worry.

[lotsofpulp]

Perhaps worry is not the right word, as the person I initially responded to had used the word “terrified”. As in I wouldn’t dwell on things out of my control.