Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction? • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#11

Post by codekilla » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

What is the point of writing a post like this? I feel like there is an impetus in the 'rational' tech press to want to downplay threats like nuclear war, and emphasize dubious threats like AGI.

I really don't care if nuclear war doesn't kill every single human instantly. So what? Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse....full stop. Should we forget about disarmament?....guess not every single person theoretically dies....as in the AGI apocalypse fantasy land scenario....so let's not worry too much.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#12

Post by lwigo » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:52 PM UTC

ghostcluster wrote: post #5

Between the Kuwaiti oil fires of the first gulf war, and many more country-sized forest fire events, we've learned that Nuclear Winter is not a likely scenario. In fact, the very scientists who coined the term in the 1980s have backed away from it. Nuclear war would be awful, and certainly the radioactive fallout would be bad, and the damage to thriving historical cities, not to mention the human toll. But extinction…

I dunno if I would describe the supply chain as "resilient" -- I honestly think we just got lucky that things so far haven't been worse.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#13

Post by dmarchand90 » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

I'm not sure I agree with the arguments against this article. Obviously we want to avoid it as much as possible but it's still interesting from a philosophical point of view to know it will not be the extinction of all human life. For me it seems very likely there will be some nuclear conflict at some point in the next 10,000+ years, and it's nice to know some fragment of humanity will survive

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#14

Post by reitzensteinm » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

codekilla wrote: post #11

What is the point of writing a post like this? I feel like there is an impetus in the 'rational' tech press to want to downplay threats like nuclear war, and emphasize dubious threats like AGI. I really don't care if nuclear war doesn't kill every single human instantly . So what? Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse.... full stop . Should we forget about disarmament?....guess not every single p…

Humanity will survive. You, dear reader, will not.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#15

Post by austhrow743 » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

codekilla wrote: post #11

What is the point of writing a post like this? I feel like there is an impetus in the 'rational' tech press to want to downplay threats like nuclear war, and emphasize dubious threats like AGI. I really don't care if nuclear war doesn't kill every single human instantly . So what? Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse.... full stop . Should we forget about disarmament?....guess not every single p…

Civilisation can be rebuilt. Focus on existential threats over far more likely civilisation collapse threats is done by those who view unrealised potential as loss. So it’s 7 billion humans vs the trillions that could exist if we keep spreading and growing and start colonising other planets.

Here’s a good review/summary by a rationalist of a book on the topic by someone who if not a rationalist (I don’t actually know) was at least instrumental in starting the effective altruism movement which is rationalist adjacent.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/04/01/book-review-the-precip...

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#16

Post by gcheong » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

Not sure extinction would be worse than the amount of suffering living through a full scale nuclear war would entail.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#17

Post by save_ferris » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

ghostcluster wrote: post #5

Between the Kuwaiti oil fires of the first gulf war, and many more country-sized forest fire events, we've learned that Nuclear Winter is not a likely scenario. In fact, the very scientists who coined the term in the 1980s have backed away from it. Nuclear war would be awful, and certainly the radioactive fallout would be bad, and the damage to thriving historical cities, not to mention the human toll. But extinction…

To be fair, large grocery store chains were beginning preparations as far back as December 2019, which gave them time to cut out less-essential SKUs and increase production for more essential products. Big businesses with contacts in China had plenty of heads up before the disease went global.

Depending on the radioactive exposure caused by a nuclear war, the impact on the supply chain could theoretically be much more catastrophic than a pandemic. If major water supplies or agricultural infrastructure were tainted, for example, the results would be devastating.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#18

Post by analog31 » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

codekilla wrote: post #11

What is the point of writing a post like this? I feel like there is an impetus in the 'rational' tech press to want to downplay threats like nuclear war, and emphasize dubious threats like AGI. I really don't care if nuclear war doesn't kill every single human instantly . So what? Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse.... full stop . Should we forget about disarmament?....guess not every single p…

It adds to our growing collection of factoids. Not everything needs to be useful. At least the article arrived at its conclusion without any Bayes theater.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#19

Post by 2Xheadpalm » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

Extinction of the human race, maybe not BUT it would be the end of life on planet Earth as we know it. It would be a shame if extinction is not the outcome, any species _stupid_ enough to attempt to dominate its political and national 'ego' in such a manner deserves elimination from the gene pool of possible species choices.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#20

Post by merpnderp » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

ghostcluster wrote: post #5

Between the Kuwaiti oil fires of the first gulf war, and many more country-sized forest fire events, we've learned that Nuclear Winter is not a likely scenario. In fact, the very scientists who coined the term in the 1980s have backed away from it. Nuclear war would be awful, and certainly the radioactive fallout would be bad, and the damage to thriving historical cities, not to mention the human toll. But extinction…

Given how much crop land would be ruined, it is likely that global starvation would end most of humanity and not much of civilization would survive. Sure there would be people wondering around a hundred years later, but they might not know how to read, write, speak real languages, or reason abstractly. 99% of humans starving would make for some crazy times.