The goal of space?
Or of energy capture and conversion in defeat of entropy, that’s achieved through field (space, scope, breadth, diversity) of resource availability?
Sustainability = persistence vs decay.
Simpler=less fragile due to external shocks and changes.
Safer(positiva) is an odd term for anything in the universe, but also means less fragile (negativa).
Your example applies, yes.
If we construct from first principles those properties we use to describe causality are consistent across the physical, biological, sentient, and cooperative.
It’s this consistency across domains that falsifies false, and half-truth claims that cause error, bias, or deceit by suggestion, association, inference, deduction.
This is why we work with such precise terms in P-Law: Every word we use we define as an ordinal measure of a spectrum (dimensions), constructed from first principles that survive falsification by tests of consistency across domains, forming and equilibrium between limits, between (-)demand, (=) persistence, (+) supply, and (!=) collapse.
It’s not obvious to readers or even those following us that everything we say is constructed from differences in charge that equilibrate sufficiently sustainable energy capture to resist decay back into the quantum background, and from there into entropy by expansion of space.
We’re just as strictly constructing as math, but by ordinal rather than cardinal terms, specifically because cardinality isn’t a meaningful measure when there is no reducible quantity, only triangulation of more than less than equal to(marginally indifferent) and not equal to(marginally different).
Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212