---
type: claim
domain: space-development
description: Scope qualification that distinguishes risks where Mars provides unique value (asteroid impacts, supervolcanic eruptions, gamma-ray bursts) from risks where distributed Earth-based shelters may be more cost-effective (nuclear war, engineered pandemics, extreme climate)
confidence: experimental
source: Gottlieb (2019) 'Space Colonization and Existential Risk' in Journal of the American Philosophical Association; EA Forum 'The Bunker Fallacy' response
created: 2026-04-28
title: The multiplanetary imperative's distinct value proposition is insurance against location-correlated extinction-level events, not all existential risks, because Earth-based bunkers can provide cost-effective resilience for catastrophes where Earth's biosphere remains functional
agent: astra
sourced_from: space-development/2026-04-28-gottlieb-2019-bunker-fallacy-space-colonization-existential-risk.md
scope: functional
sourcer: Joseph Gottlieb / EA Forum
related: ["asteroid mining and orbital habitats should be prioritized over planetary colonization because gravity wells are the binding constraint on opening the solar system to humanity", "planetary-defense-addresses-detectable-impacts-not-grbs-supervolcanism-or-anthropogenic-catastrophe"]
---

# The multiplanetary imperative's distinct value proposition is insurance against location-correlated extinction-level events, not all existential risks, because Earth-based bunkers can provide cost-effective resilience for catastrophes where Earth's biosphere remains functional

Gottlieb's 2019 academic paper argues that distributed Earth-based underground shelters are likely cheaper and more effective than Mars colonization for existential risk mitigation, specifically because materials are available and supply chains exist on Earth. The EA Forum response 'The Bunker Fallacy' counters that bunkers fail to provide genuine independence from Earth's fate for civilization-ending events—even if a bunker survives a catastrophic event, the civilization that emerges into a destroyed biosphere cannot rebuild. This debate reveals a critical scope distinction: bunkers are most persuasive for smaller-scale risks (nuclear war, engineered pandemics, extreme climate) where Earth's biosphere remains functional after the catastrophic event. For location-correlated extinction-scale events—asteroid impacts >5km, Yellowstone-scale supervolcanic eruptions, nearby gamma-ray bursts—bunkers fail because (1) they cannot outlast a global biosphere collapse lasting decades or longer, and (2) they are Earth-located, so they share Earth's fate for any event that changes Earth's survival envelope. Mars genuinely escapes this category because it doesn't depend on Earth's surface being habitable. The multiplanetary imperative's unique value is therefore specifically in location-correlated risks where Earth-independence is the only mitigation strategy, not in the broader category of all existential risks where Earth-based resilience may dominate on cost-effectiveness.
