5 ms·

They didn't have nukes or climate change back then. Human nature + escalating technology is the scary formula we are exploring today.

ekianjo 9y ago
The plague killed way more people than nukes ever did, and there was no way to stop it until people understood what spread it. Of course technology has bright sides as well. Without medicine and many other discoveries we would not be where we are today.
- mcherm 9y ago
  > The plague killed way more people than nukes ever did No one is worried about the number of people who have ALREADY been killed by nukes, they are worried about the number of people who might be in the future. But I suppose I fundamentally agree with you. I think we may have more to fear from scientifically engineered diseases than we do from nuclear weapons.
  - thinkingemote 9y ago
    Exactly. Every people in their own time considers their time as the most important, crucial and urgent. they consider past times as less important. If you observe this then you can see that in the future people will look back at now and think the same. history tells us the same thing. it's human nature to think that doom and gloom now is much worse than before, simply because we are in this moment and without perspective.
    - croon 9y ago
      But that's not what GP was saying. We, today, have the ability to dictate what others tomorrow over- or under-appreciate as doom and gloom. Whether there is a cognitive dissonance is irrelevant, but what actually happens is very much only avoidable going forward, not looking back.
    - amrrs 9y ago
      In the same context, The debate between Malcolm Gladwell and Matt Riddley is an interesting one http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/progress http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/progress
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    The problem would be even higher by a seemingly dormant disease agent, which first infects nearly all of humanity and then wents time delayed into action. Nobody suspects the flue.
- pizza 9y ago
  The variance of the fat-tailed distribution of casualties of nuclear warfare post-M.A.D. is much higher than during WW2, and is may be more prone to inadvertent unintended catastrophe than an epidemic now that we can research them, but that's also unforeseeably variable.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  > The plague killed way more people than nukes ever did Yeah, but without bacteria we wouldn't be where we are today. Whatever that means. I would not identify rather specific technologies accelerating the reach of the dysfunctional into "technology in general", just like I wouldn't lump together the bacteria that caused the plague and those that live in my stomach.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Yesterday's risks were exogenous. Few were existential. Today's are engogenous. Several are existential.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Erm, endogenous. Edit window expired.
ajuc 9y ago
They had climate change, and it was one of the main reasons "barbarians" migrated, and Rome had fallen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Ancient_Rome#Environmental_issues_and_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Ancient_Rome#Enviro...

ekianjo 9y ago

The plague killed way more people than nukes ever did, and there was no way to stop it until people understood what spread it. Of course technology has bright sides as well. Without medicine and many other discoveries we would not be where we are today.

mcherm 9y ago
> The plague killed way more people than nukes ever did No one is worried about the number of people who have ALREADY been killed by nukes, they are worried about the number of people who might be in the future. But I suppose I fundamentally agree with you. I think we may have more to fear from scientifically engineered diseases than we do from nuclear weapons.
- thinkingemote 9y ago
  Exactly. Every people in their own time considers their time as the most important, crucial and urgent. they consider past times as less important. If you observe this then you can see that in the future people will look back at now and think the same. history tells us the same thing. it's human nature to think that doom and gloom now is much worse than before, simply because we are in this moment and without perspective.
  - croon 9y ago
    But that's not what GP was saying. We, today, have the ability to dictate what others tomorrow over- or under-appreciate as doom and gloom. Whether there is a cognitive dissonance is irrelevant, but what actually happens is very much only avoidable going forward, not looking back.
  - amrrs 9y ago
    In the same context, The debate between Malcolm Gladwell and Matt Riddley is an interesting one http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/progress http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/progress
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  The problem would be even higher by a seemingly dormant disease agent, which first infects nearly all of humanity and then wents time delayed into action. Nobody suspects the flue.
pizza 9y ago
The variance of the fat-tailed distribution of casualties of nuclear warfare post-M.A.D. is much higher than during WW2, and is may be more prone to inadvertent unintended catastrophe than an epidemic now that we can research them, but that's also unforeseeably variable.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thinkfurther 9y ago
> The plague killed way more people than nukes ever did Yeah, but without bacteria we wouldn't be where we are today. Whatever that means. I would not identify rather specific technologies accelerating the reach of the dysfunctional into "technology in general", just like I wouldn't lump together the bacteria that caused the plague and those that live in my stomach.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Yesterday's risks were exogenous. Few were existential. Today's are engogenous. Several are existential.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Erm, endogenous. Edit window expired.

ajuc 9y ago

They had climate change, and it was one of the main reasons "barbarians" migrated, and Rome had fallen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Ancient_Rome#Environmental_issues_and_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Ancient_Rome#Enviro...