Visualizing Antifragility

When reading  Antifragile by Nassim Taleb, I tried to make a visual representation of  his descriptions of antifragility. It helps me to picture things to  better understand them, so I did this with his concepts.
Here I am going to write down what I build in my head.

Fragile, Robust and Antifragile

The three main functions going through the book are fragile, robust and antifragile.
Fragile  objects have low resistance to stress and will break fast, robust  objects break less fast and antifragile objects become stronger over  time when exposed to stress.

Fragile objects lose strength very fast, robust objects take more time and antifragile objects get stronger over time

So,  I got some nice diagrams going, but what I asked myself was: can an  antifragile thing be destroyed? Sure it can! But then what makes it much  different to the others? Is it just the upwards slope?
Basically, if  the slope is positive, the object is antifragile. If the slope is  negative it is fragile and if the slope is 0 then the object could be  described as perfectly stable. Thus I came to the following visual  representation.

Fragility, robustness and antifragility thrown together

The  ability antifragile thus is not just represented by another graph, but  simply by the positive slope of strength over time. It is explained that  the strength will increase over time while the object is subjected to  stress. Same for the fragile, robust and antifragile object is, that it  will break all the same if the stress is over the current threshold. If  it wouldn’t, the object would just be indestructible and antifragility  would not be necessary.
So how is the relationship between stress, damage and antifragility? Can we get closer to this ability?

Phoenix & the Machine

One  of the examples occurring in the book is the one of the phoenix that is  neither robust nor fragile nor antifragile. The rebirth of the phoenix  makes it a special case in the relationship of fragility and  antifragile.
This is how I see the strength over time for a phoenix.

As  the phoenix grows older it will get weaker, accumulate damage if you  will and finally die. The death itself will bring forth its own rebirth.  I apologize beforehand if the narrative is different, but as I  understand the Phoenix will come back as good as new, so the same as  before.
Over long term, the phoenix is thus perfectly robust  regarding his live. Death and rebirth viewed over a long time thus just  form an infinite long horizontal line.
The phoenix reminded me on the  function of a machine. Performing a task to the most possible ability,  the machine slowly wears down until it falls under the accepted  tolerance. By repair and change of tools, the machine is brought back to  its former potential.
Obvious differences: the machine doesn’t die.  Not even in metaphorical sense. There is a certain amount of damage that  is worth repairing and if that amount is too high, the machine is  thrown away, recycled or easily said: dead. 
The other difference is  the Theseus’ paradox of the machine, that doesn’t affect the phoenix,  because the Phoenix rebirths himself without outside help. But is the  machine still the same machine if every single part is replaced? And can  the machine then be properly compared?
 

Neither the phoenix nor  the machine is antifragile, but his ability for rebirth is similar to  what we are looking for at the heart of antifragility. 
So let’s look at another example.

Human & Technology

The  ability of humans to adapt is inherently antifragile. Otherwise Taleb  didn’t have to write his book. One of the multiple antifragile abilities  is that of muscle adaptation to stress, which is easy to picture since  the upcoming trends of multiple fitness styles. 
The muscle is  subjected to stress by working out. Afterwards it is supplied with  sufficient nutrition and given some rest, and it grows stronger. As is  known in strength training, the initial progress is very fast and then  slows down while approaching a possible maximum amount of muscles. 
I  am aware of the multiple influences of nutrition, kind of training,  training frequency, execution, rest, age, ect. So I just keep it easy  for an example of antifragility.
 

Antifragility is included in  the cycle of stress, destruction, repair and overcompensation. In  comparison to the phoenix, we can see that this example has two  differences to: The stress never fully destroys and the regeneration  overcompensates.
Since the total destruction was also no part in the  robustness of the machine, it can be crossed out for being a necessary  condition for applied antifragility.
Thus for me, the ability to overcompensate is the core function of antifragility.
This  effect can be seen in the relationship of humanity with technology:  starting with simple sticks, humans were able to further craft more  complicated tools to enable a more adaptability to their surroundings  and soon live in every environment of the world, and even in space.
The  steps of technology implementation, adaption and a phase of rest while  encountering new problems drives the human species to ever further  strength.So  is this symbiosis of humanity and technology prone against any danger?  Not at all: as we remember, the recovery from death only works for the  phoenix. A damage high enough to wipe out the majority of the population  could therefore throw back humanity to a level from where it can’t  recover, or where its strengths are so diminished that humanity is  overtaken by another, more able, species.
But is the increasing  strength even worth it? While humanity can survive more dangerous  encounters, it is also subjecting itself and its surroundings to more  destruction. The question for me would be, if this is proper stress that  can force humanity to more adaption.
So while humanities problems in  the world increased and its impact on earth grew bigger, the possible  dangers for it also went down. While a single plague, slight temperature  change, political indifferences or geological event could easily bring  down half of humanity a few centuries ago, an event right now for the  same impact may be still as possible, but has to be of higher impact.

• Volcano eruption vs Super volcano eruption
• Crusade/Conquest vs Nuclear war
• Unusual long winter vs Global warming
• Plague vs Global biological warfare
• Rough sea vs Tsunamis
• Assassins vs Global terrorism

While  this doesn’t mean that humanity is in less danger then before, it just  means that is definitely increased its strength against impacts. A big  increase in survivability will be the step of humanity to become an  interplanetary species. While this will certainly bring more problems  with it, like the possibility of interplanetary war, asteroid terrorism,  ect. It will make humanity be a lot less fragile to global  catastrophes.