Patrick, have you read "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb? Most well known for his book "Black Swan," he extensively discusses the idea of resilience and asymmetrical effects in "Antifragile." As the title suggests, the topic is about systems (organic and organizational) that get stronger when they're stressed, rather than weaker.
This occurred to me because the opening of this post reminded me of the Pareto principle (as generally used, it would suggest that 20% of the population requires 80% of the resources), but Taleb delves much deeper into the topic, exploring how phase transitions occur (e.g., a small increase in the number of cars on the road suddenly extends commute times by a large amount), and also how considering the relative upside vs. downside of actions can aid decision-making. In other words, if there's a big potential upside and a small potential downside to a course of action, it's advisable; the opposite is equally true.
Hey Alex - I love "Antifragile" and it was a huge influence on "The Evolution of Left of Bang" (link below) where I talk about the ability to grow through disasters in the middle of the article. Absolutely recommend that book to everyone working in this field.
What's funny about your comment is that I referenced the Pareto principle in my first draft of the article, but then cut it out during editing because I felt like I was diluting the point. Maybe that was the wrong decision! That being said, I don't think I would have done the concept justice in the way I was referencing it.
Do you think that concept applies in the case I mentioned of caring for older adults or people with disabilities during wildfires? Is it that the "downside" of focusing on that population is that people who DON'T have greater needs have delayed responses? Or, is it that the upside of addressing their needs first means reduced downside? Just trying to flesh the concept out in my head for the way I speak about it, so appreciate your inputs here!
Very cool! I think you made the right call in not mentioning Pareto. It's a convenient heuristic (a term I learned from you!), but it is so reductive (and has been applied - and misapplied - in so many ways) that I think your argument is stronger without it.
To your question about allocation of resources: living in a state that regularly gets walloped by natural disasters, my ground-level perspective is that there are three main challenges when it comes to assisting the population in an emergency:
1. Logistical
2. Economic
3. Informational
Sadly, Hurricane Katrina was a textbook example of what NOT to do.
1. Logistical - The authorities did not take into consideration that much of the New Orleans population did not have the transportation to evacuate (or anywhere to go), nor did they properly consider what would be needed in a mass shelter.
2. Economic - The authorities did not recognize the economic pressure on the population to resist evacuation. People were afraid to miss work or to lose their jobs, they didn't have gas money or hotel money to evacuate, they couldn't afford to prepare their homes or their personal supplies, etc.
3. Informational - After Katrina, it was found that a significant number of deaths were among older people who had lived through many hurricanes and floods, and assumed that this would be just like the others. For emergency planners, I think this is probably the toughest nut to crack, and I think that to a great extent it's a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. When officials and media treat every storm as though it's going to be devastating, and most of them turn out not to be, people stop taking the warnings seriously. I don't know how to fix the problem, but I have definitely heard a lot of frustration from business owners and residents who are tired of the hyperbole and exaggeration associated with floods and hurricanes.
So, with all that said, I think the short answer to your question is that devoting a disproportionate amount of effort to assisting the most vulnerable is definitely the right thing to do. And, in accordance with your whole left-of-bang philosophy, I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The more you can do before a storm to get people out who should be leaving, and get some basic supplies in the hands of those who can't or won't leave, the less urgency there will be afterwards.
Since my personal background and interest is in the field of creative strategy and production, I would like to see more use of narrative in this domain. For example, during WWII and the Cold War, there was a big push to encourage citizens to become more reilient - prepare for emergencies, plant gardens, etc. It wasn't just about stocking a bomb-shelter in your backyard (most people could never do that), it was about cultivating an attitude of self-efficacy. Today, we have the opposite: the general public has an attitude of entitlement and dependence that is dangerous both individually and societally. And governments aren't helping: look at the advice the EU gave a while ago - three days of food and water in case of war? How does that even make sense? A 72-hour kit is fine for a short-term emergency, or to keep you hydrated while you get off the X, but I don't think it's good to give your citizens the impression that they will be prepared for a Russian invasion if they have a few bottles of water and granola bars.
Patrick, have you read "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb? Most well known for his book "Black Swan," he extensively discusses the idea of resilience and asymmetrical effects in "Antifragile." As the title suggests, the topic is about systems (organic and organizational) that get stronger when they're stressed, rather than weaker.
This occurred to me because the opening of this post reminded me of the Pareto principle (as generally used, it would suggest that 20% of the population requires 80% of the resources), but Taleb delves much deeper into the topic, exploring how phase transitions occur (e.g., a small increase in the number of cars on the road suddenly extends commute times by a large amount), and also how considering the relative upside vs. downside of actions can aid decision-making. In other words, if there's a big potential upside and a small potential downside to a course of action, it's advisable; the opposite is equally true.
Hey Alex - I love "Antifragile" and it was a huge influence on "The Evolution of Left of Bang" (link below) where I talk about the ability to grow through disasters in the middle of the article. Absolutely recommend that book to everyone working in this field.
https://www.cp-journal.com/p/the-evolution-of-left-of-bang
What's funny about your comment is that I referenced the Pareto principle in my first draft of the article, but then cut it out during editing because I felt like I was diluting the point. Maybe that was the wrong decision! That being said, I don't think I would have done the concept justice in the way I was referencing it.
Do you think that concept applies in the case I mentioned of caring for older adults or people with disabilities during wildfires? Is it that the "downside" of focusing on that population is that people who DON'T have greater needs have delayed responses? Or, is it that the upside of addressing their needs first means reduced downside? Just trying to flesh the concept out in my head for the way I speak about it, so appreciate your inputs here!
Thanks.
Very cool! I think you made the right call in not mentioning Pareto. It's a convenient heuristic (a term I learned from you!), but it is so reductive (and has been applied - and misapplied - in so many ways) that I think your argument is stronger without it.
To your question about allocation of resources: living in a state that regularly gets walloped by natural disasters, my ground-level perspective is that there are three main challenges when it comes to assisting the population in an emergency:
1. Logistical
2. Economic
3. Informational
Sadly, Hurricane Katrina was a textbook example of what NOT to do.
1. Logistical - The authorities did not take into consideration that much of the New Orleans population did not have the transportation to evacuate (or anywhere to go), nor did they properly consider what would be needed in a mass shelter.
2. Economic - The authorities did not recognize the economic pressure on the population to resist evacuation. People were afraid to miss work or to lose their jobs, they didn't have gas money or hotel money to evacuate, they couldn't afford to prepare their homes or their personal supplies, etc.
3. Informational - After Katrina, it was found that a significant number of deaths were among older people who had lived through many hurricanes and floods, and assumed that this would be just like the others. For emergency planners, I think this is probably the toughest nut to crack, and I think that to a great extent it's a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. When officials and media treat every storm as though it's going to be devastating, and most of them turn out not to be, people stop taking the warnings seriously. I don't know how to fix the problem, but I have definitely heard a lot of frustration from business owners and residents who are tired of the hyperbole and exaggeration associated with floods and hurricanes.
So, with all that said, I think the short answer to your question is that devoting a disproportionate amount of effort to assisting the most vulnerable is definitely the right thing to do. And, in accordance with your whole left-of-bang philosophy, I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The more you can do before a storm to get people out who should be leaving, and get some basic supplies in the hands of those who can't or won't leave, the less urgency there will be afterwards.
Since my personal background and interest is in the field of creative strategy and production, I would like to see more use of narrative in this domain. For example, during WWII and the Cold War, there was a big push to encourage citizens to become more reilient - prepare for emergencies, plant gardens, etc. It wasn't just about stocking a bomb-shelter in your backyard (most people could never do that), it was about cultivating an attitude of self-efficacy. Today, we have the opposite: the general public has an attitude of entitlement and dependence that is dangerous both individually and societally. And governments aren't helping: look at the advice the EU gave a while ago - three days of food and water in case of war? How does that even make sense? A 72-hour kit is fine for a short-term emergency, or to keep you hydrated while you get off the X, but I don't think it's good to give your citizens the impression that they will be prepared for a Russian invasion if they have a few bottles of water and granola bars.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/03/27/eu-72-hours-emergency-supplies/82686345007/