[khafra]

The context of "stop making reactive decisions" isn't "start making proactive decisions." It's to just make fewer decisions.

The specific example is of a rare event which, while regrettable, does not justify the cost of policy changes to prevent it.

[motorest]

> The context of "stop making reactive decisions" isn't "start making proactive decisions." It's to just make fewer decisions.

You don't get the luxury of not making decisions. You always have to make decisions.

[khafra]

If you do not consider the problem at all, you have not made a decision on it; any more than you have to make a decision about, say, the most aesthetically pleasing perspective of Olympus Mons for prospective Martian colonists.

The actual point stands, either way: Whether you do not make a decision, or you decide not to act, the outcome is the same--and it is often a better outcome than the result of reactive or proactive decision-making.

[munksbeer]

What if the decision is to not do anything because the event is so unlikely to happen again that it isn't worth the cost to fix.