I don’t see the point in a paranoid option.
The network is designed to not lose data. If the design needs tweaking to ensure this is robust, that will happen.
Obviously no system can ever be 100% though, even with a paranoid option. We have “the thing we never thought of”, and “the thing we thought would never happen” to thank for that.
So as is standard practice, if you want to dramatically improve your data security, you need backups that are independent, held on separate systems, in separate locations, regularly tested etc.
@janitor has also said this, and I think it is the only sensible alternative really. Bumping up chunk redundancy is a very poor substitute IMO.
Maybe David will one day convince us that decentralisation is just as good, but it still has single points of failure at this point (protocols, code, compiler etc). One day that may change, but until then, I think I’ll be keeping backups of data I don’t ever want to lose.