Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 273 posts

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#261

Post by drran »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #212
pmachinery wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all humans aren't eradicated by nuclear war, I don't see why all memory, books, hard drives, other archives, computers, power plants, machinery, or even all contraceptives would be.

Computers and hard drives have half-life counted in years, and need energy and communication infrastructure to operate. Post-collapse, once all the computers break down, that's the end of XX-century technology. Nobody is going to make new ones, because to build and maintain machines that make computers you need working computers. Same for mining and refining necessary resources, controlling chemical processes, etc. W…

If resources are already mined, why we need to mine them again?

Simple computers are relatively easy to make with today tech. Software exists already.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#262

Post by bleepblorp »

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…

I've noticed that contemporary tech people (or at least the richer ones) have a cultural tick that leads them to deny or minimize the importance of real problems that don't involve shiny new technology. By way of examples:

Microsoft destroying YouTube-DL: Problem.

Amazon exploiting its non-tech workforce: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bitcoin's energy use: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Macs not running third party code: Problem.

Nuclear war: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Global climate change: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Future risk of AI paperclip maximizers: Problem.

Current danger of businesses operating as human-powered paperclip mazimixers: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Etc.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#263

Post by curryst »

ralfd wrote: post #237
mola wrote: post #198

This is just an argument against a straw man. Nuclear war, is bad, any mass killing is bad, any society collapse is bad. It means actual prolongated suffering for most humans. Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome, I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse. It's like the back talk against climate warming, trying to down play it as a non extinction event. Well th…

> Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome Wtf? Strong disagree. Extinction is the end. Anything else is of course preferable as it means live goes on and civilization has the chance to rise again. > I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse. That is just because because you're weak, your bloodline is weak, and you will not survive the winter without central heatin…

> That is just because because you're weak, your bloodline is weak, and you will not survive the winter without central heating and Uber Eats. But other people are more resilient.

This is just uncalled for, I don't see any reason for the vitriol.

> Wtf? Strong disagree. Extinction is the end. Anything else is of course preferable as it means live goes on and civilization has the chance to rise again.

Civilization has the chance to rise again regardless. Even if humans go extinct, I find it likely something would rise to take our place (be it an evolution of a creature that survived, or if life were to just begin anew on Earth). Whether you feel any connection to a civilization that isn't human is another question.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#264

Post by int_19h »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #212
pmachinery wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all humans aren't eradicated by nuclear war, I don't see why all memory, books, hard drives, other archives, computers, power plants, machinery, or even all contraceptives would be.

Computers and hard drives have half-life counted in years, and need energy and communication infrastructure to operate. Post-collapse, once all the computers break down, that's the end of XX-century technology. Nobody is going to make new ones, because to build and maintain machines that make computers you need working computers. Same for mining and refining necessary resources, controlling chemical processes, etc. W…

Why would we regress to pre-industrial level of technology? Even if you somehow wipe 90% of the population worldwide, this brings the population back to mid-18th century levels - which is to say, when industrial revolution was already ongoing. But that same number of people would know all the things that had to be discovered back then, and would still have a lot of machinery, and a lot of already-refined materials, to bootstrap from.

Nor is there a particular shortage of hydrocarbons to burn, with consumption reduced so much due to population loss and reduction in quality of life. Consider that US today emits more than 200x carbon into the atmosphere than it did in 1850, and that this growth has been exponential. So what we consider one year worth of reserves today, could provide energy for many decades in this hypothetical.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#265

Post by int_19h »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #124
eloff wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few things could actually make humans extinct at this point. It would take an impact like the one that produced the moon to finish us off. We're so adaptable that some of us will survive and rebuild. If we can ever get back to technological civilization without easily accessible fossil fuels is debatable, but I think we'd find a way - it would just be a lot harder and take longer. What worries me is not extincti…

Realistically, if there was a full-scale nuclear war, famine and violence would kill 90-95% of people. It would also destroy a lot of our technological capabilities. There are only a handful of silicon fabs in the world, and they have complex supply chains. It could bring us back to some kind of a technological middle age, except we'd have guns, electricity and radios.

If 90% of the population dies, we're left with around 750 million people worldwide.

Last time the world had that many people in it was around 1750. How fast could the people back in 1750 get to the present technological level, if they had all the science and engineering and exploration already figured out, and also got a bunch of machinery to kickstart things?

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#266

Post by int_19h »

baybal2 wrote: post #145
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…

> Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse....full stop. Each China, and India has more people, and potentially more troop , than USA, and Russia combined. As I wrote before, the next third power in any massive war has an extreme incentive to stay neutral, to take the lead, or may well be land, after. You think that Xi, and Modi will stay still at the opportunity to do the biggest land grab in histo…

It's often assumed that, in an all-out nuclear exchange, everybody gets it, even if they haven't launched themselves yet. Because if you go down, you want all your potential opponents to be on the same level.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#267

Post by flexie »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #124
eloff wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few things could actually make humans extinct at this point. It would take an impact like the one that produced the moon to finish us off. We're so adaptable that some of us will survive and rebuild. If we can ever get back to technological civilization without easily accessible fossil fuels is debatable, but I think we'd find a way - it would just be a lot harder and take longer. What worries me is not extincti…

Realistically, if there was a full-scale nuclear war, famine and violence would kill 90-95% of people. It would also destroy a lot of our technological capabilities. There are only a handful of silicon fabs in the world, and they have complex supply chains. It could bring us back to some kind of a technological middle age, except we'd have guns, electricity and radios.

Let's say 95 percent are killed. That still leaves around 400 million people. Let's say 95 of scientists are killed.

That might still leave around 4-500,000 scientists worldwide and millions of engineers, millions of medical doctors, tens of millions of technicians of different kinds. Sure, many of them will be in odd places like New Zealand, South Africa or Argentina. But that's likely where most survivors would be as well.

Just for comparison, until the 1940s the US and Europe produced around 10-20,000 doctorates per year. At no point back then did we have more scientists worldwide than we would have after 95 percent of scientists were killed today. And unlike back then, the surviving scientists would have knowledge of every scientific knowledge produced afterwards, either as personal memory or in books and databases.

It's quite possible the internet would survive as well. After all, it's designed for that kind of events. Thousands of libraries would survive. Millions of machines, vehicles, airplanes, computers, components etc. would survive. Wikipedia, the 100 most important scientific journals, the US patent organization database can easily be on a laptop and libraries around the world are making copies all the time.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#268

Post by Supermancho »

greedo wrote: post #252
Supermancho wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course neither side would use all their active warheads on the opposing country; they would save some for other nations Nor would all of those warheads will detonate, land on target (some will hit and target the ocean) or launch successfully. > But full scale nuclear war would eliminate North America, I doubt it. Maybe you're being hyperbolic here, to whit. If you eliminate the top 20 US ports, the aircraft carr…

True, perhaps 10% might fail. But I think you're underestimating how many targets there are across the US. Both military bases as well as industrial targets. First strike targets would hit Montana and Kansas as both have Minutemen ICBM silos. Omaha would be wiped out since Offut AFB is next door. Louisiana has shipbuilding that would get nuked, as does Wisconsin. If you learn about SIOP, and accept that the Soviets h…

> First strike targets would hit Montana and Kansas as both have Minutemen ICBM silos

80s Russia is not really a good predictor. I simply disagree with both the reasoning and conclusion which has radically changed with technology and revelations about capability between all nations.

I think this kind of proliferation scenario vastly overestimates how many targets any country will bother to target. Aiming at neighbors makes a lot more sense than attacking countries overseas in full scale nuclear war today.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#269

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #254
goatlover wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the Southern Hemisphere isn't targeted? Fallout will mostly effect the northern hemisphere, and if there isn't a nuclear winter (or a milder one than projected), then the damage will be largely economic to those nations. But their infrastructure and ability to grow food would remain intact. I suppose refugees and the political vacuum created would be significant problems.

IIRC the nuclear winter would not be as bad as once predicted, you could see a 10 celsius drop. That would still be enough to greatly reduce crop yields though. If you couple reduced crop yields with millions of hungry refugees, economic instability and general chaos... Who knows. Unlikely to result in human extinction, but very painful for everyone no doubt. I do think it seems unlikely that people would nuke Austra…

Regarding at least Australia for not being nuked:

Have you ever heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap ?

While that is only one target, and in the middle of nowhere at that, do you still think so? For me that looks like a very valuable target to disrupt the operations of anyone who operates from there.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#270

Post by lopmotr »

grawprog wrote: post #251
lopmotr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meteorite strike or supervolcano eruption that we could have protected ourselves against but didn't because of resources spent on nuclear war prevention. Not sure why you added the "within a few hours" qualifier or "intentionally human driven". Have you already thought of something that takes longer, is done by humans accidentally, or is natural? Is it climate change? Does that already answer your question?

Yeah pretty much, because there is nothing else that compares in that way. Climate change is long and drawn out, meteors and disasters are acts of nature. There is nothing else so swiftly and completely destructive that is entirely driven by humans and their choice as to whether they should destroy or not. That's the thing about nuclear war, unlike all those other things, it really comes down to a few humans deciding…

The suddenness is a problem because there isn't enough time to adapt? Implying that we'll adapt to climate change? Watch out for heresy there ;)

But asteroid or comet impacts. Comets in particular can come so fast and undetectably that we won't have time to react. We could prevent a comet impact if a few humans decided to build such a defense system, and we might be wiped out if those few humans decide not to do it. Sounds equivalent to nuclear war.

Post reply on HN