A recent book called Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb suggests that “Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, there is no word for the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile. Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better”. I wonder how this applies to the design of nuclear reactors? How does this hypothesis compliment and/or contradict the Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) approach? It seems that safety engineers have a strong need to control systems to ensure safety, but maybe being too controlling actually creates fragile systems that are more susceptible to catastrophic failures that are impossible to predict.