31–40 of 273 posts
Who are the people that actually claimed "that a full-scale nuclear war is likely to cause human extinction?" I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. It would cause societal collapse, perhaps even an extinction of civilization, but not a literal extinction of our species.
Who are the people that actually claimed "that a full-scale nuclear war is likely to cause human extinction?" I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. It would cause societal collapse, perhaps even an extinction of civilization, but not a literal extinction of our species.
https://www.ippnw.org/statements/2006-helsinki-congress-decl...
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…
I guess its the same point that drove Xeno to demonstrate that he was so much much more rational than the average Greek his contribution to the history of thought was a set of arguments that motion was impossible. Possibly with added profit motive. Say what you like about nuclear bombs actually being real, they won't torture infinite numbers of clones of you if you don't donate to Yudowsky's AI research institute.
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…
I wrote this post, and the point is to improve discussion of societal risks. As others have pointed out, nuclear war doesn't have to kill everyone to be extremely bad and worth avoiding. I spend a lot of my time thinking about risks from nuclear and biological weapons, and downplaying these risks is not my purpose. One problem with assuming nuclear war kills everyone is that this discourages anyone from preparing for…
It also encourages lazy cynicism.
If everyone died in a nuclear war humanity got its just desserts. Mix in the West’s discomfort with death and nuclear holocaust becomes a punch line. But if our choices today will cause millions to suffer for generations, the cost becomes more tangible. The threat becomes detailed and gruesome and that makes it relatable.
I really am tired of my tech career, and don't think I would mind trying to learn subsistence farming whilst trying to avoid radiation poisoning. For more information, please consult "Nuclear War Survival Skills" by Cresson H. Kearny. https://www.amazon.com/dp/094248701X Also, FTA: "The Robock group’s models are probably overestimating the risk [of nuclear winter]." Citation needed, maybe?
The citation for "The Robock group’s models are probably overestimating the risk [of nuclear winter]." are the Reisner et al. articles I linked. My conclusion is just my opinion after reading the back and forth in the literature, but I encourage other people to go through it and come to their own conclusions!
Who are the people that actually claimed "that a full-scale nuclear war is likely to cause human extinction?" I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. It would cause societal collapse, perhaps even an extinction of civilization, but not a literal extinction of our species.
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…
Whereas if nuclear war is winnable, as Pentagon strategists have been saying since the 1950s, then first nuclear strike should probably still be on the table for certain extreme geopolitical situations.
So, the question seems pretty relevant in that it's a major determinant in terms of setting optimal military doctrine.
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…
For instance, so much of our early nuclear technology was dependent on the Shinkolobwe uranium mine in the DRC, and it's orders of magnitude better uranium purity than anything else we've found.
> Our best source, the Shinkolobwe mine, represented a freak occurrence in nature. It contained a tremendously rich lode of uranium pitchblende. Nothing like it has ever again been found. The ore already in the United States contained 65 percent U3O8, while the pitchblende aboveground in the Congo amounted to a thousand tons of 65 percent ore, and the waste piles of ore contained two thousand tons of 20 percent U3O8. To illustrate the uniqueness of Sengier's stockpile, after the war the MED and the AEC considered ore containing three-tenths of 1 percent as a good find. Without Sengier’s foresight in stockpiling ore in the United States and aboveground in Africa, we simply would not have had the amounts of uranium needed to justify building the large separation plants and the plutonium reactors [for the Manhattan Project].
~ Colonel Ken Nichols
Additionally, without the very dense energy in the easily accessible fossil fuels we've very nearly mined out, restarting an industrial revolution would be at best extremely problematic.
We've been OK so far with progress meaning we slam the door shut to independent replication of that progress in a lot of cases.