> There is a very low statistical chance of an apocalypse event occurring.
And some people assign a large enough negative utility to dying in an emergency that it makes sense for them to spend a substantial amount of money preparing for an emergency.
Yes, there is a negative utility on death. But if you spent 50% of your extra money and time on preparing for something that has a 1% chance of happening statistically you will lose. Not only the resources outlayed, but the opportunity cost associated with them.
That's not how it works. It's not rational to allocate resources to preparing for possible outcomes depending solely on the chance of that outcome happening. For example, there is maybe a ninety percent chance that I will get a splinter over the next year, but I don't allocate ninety percent of my resources preparing for this eventuality.
One rationally allocates resources so as to maximize expected utility; if an emergency has a very high negative utility, and an agent believes they can substantially minimize the utility loss by preparing thoroughly, it may work out for them to spend a fair amount of money preparing for a hypothetical emergency.
And some people assign a large enough negative utility to dying in an emergency that it makes sense for them to spend a substantial amount of money preparing for an emergency.