4 ms·

I think what the point of the parent is saying is that we have never witnessed the likes of something like this and that our system is more fragile than we thin

I think what the point of the parent is saying is that we have never witnessed the likes of something like this and that our system is more fragile than we think. Previous wars and other events have all been leading up to "the big one". We can see it beginning to happen in what you mentioned above or in smaller instances. Also saying that poor people can just not eat meat or seafood seems a bit distasteful; not that you might be wrong.

kamaal 10y ago
>>Previous wars and other events have all been leading up to "the big one". WW2 was quite dangerous in the sense, it put a very serious problem in front. Say you nuke a nation, the nation refuses to surrender. The issue is you need to keep nuking till you finish them off. That will not just finish off your enemies but a lot of planet along the way. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Broadcast_of_the_Imperial_Rescript_on_surrender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Broadcast_o... The key in the above statement is : "Should we continue to fight". Notice how 'continuing to fight' is an option there. This sort of stuff is scary as it is. You can't exactly defeat enemies by weapons if they refuse to give up. The only option then is continue, you then cause larger damage to the planet and biological species.