It is a bit strange to worry about the safety of (a small subset of) people several hundred generations down while at the same time ignoring the possibility that Earth may not be hospitable to humans within two generations.
from the "Personal thoughts" section of the document:
> An analysis of the likely number of deaths over 10,000 years due to inadvertent intrusion should be conducted. This cost should be weighted against that of the marker system.
i'm curious re: where you're coming from with "ignoring the possibility that Earth may not be hospitable to humans within two generations" – I feel like that's outside the scope of this document. also, couldn't the same be said about any plan with a long enough timeline?
Right, I wasn't clear - my thought was in fact outside the scope of the document. I meant that it is strange to devote a large amount of resources to this document (which may prevent a few deaths in 10k years), while we might have already exceeded the carrying capacity of Earth (global climate change being the most imminent threat, but not necessarily the only one) and thus not have anyone to be around in 10k years.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best? I don't think the people planning for nuclear waste containment are ignoring the possibility of an inhospitable Earth in storing nuclear waste- it just makes good sense (to me at least) to make sure that a radioactive substance be as well-marked and stored as possible for whatever comes next.
