3 ms·

The collapse of civilization and the destructive power of nuclear weapons is hyperbole now..?

by randmeerkat 6y ago

627467 6y ago
The collapse of civilization can't be a hyperbole. What people especulate that maybe bring it about can be.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  Yeah, I phrased that poorly. I meant to say that the the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the likelihood of full out nuclear war causing the total collapse of civilization is considered hyperbole now..?
  - 627467 6y ago
    According to the post, yes. To state that such event may lead to total collapse wouldn't be a new idea at all. It's the mainstream hypothesis since the cold war. To challenge those ideas by articulating the opposite (that it may not lead to total collapse) it's new (to me at least) and good food for thought. Can't cite anything, but I'm pretty sure that the nimble investment in nuclear energy that society has made as a whole in the past decades were fueled by fear of total collapse as if it's impossible for humans to play with fire without completely obliterating ourselves. And considering the new(ish) challenges we have (climate and others) I find it helpful to think that past demons/fears can be managed in a constructive way.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> The collapse of civilization and the destructive power of nuclear weapons is hyperbole now..? No, extinction as a consequence is. Modern civilisation as we know it will collapse. This was spun, by some people, into nuclear war will end humanity. That’s hyperbole.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  Hmm, it still seems advisable to do everything humanly possible to avoid nuclear conflict. _If_ I survived such a conflict, I’d probably wish I hadn’t.
  - solveit 6y ago
    > everything humanly possible Does this include, say, accelerating climate change? This isn't an idle hypothetical, nuclear reactor technology is similar enough to nuclear weapons technology that any country with a reactor can produce crude nuclear weapons in a matter of months. Hard decisions exist and must be made. At some point we must quantify risks.
    - neuronic 6y ago
      But they won't be made unless someone is ready to bear the consequences. Those are decisions which have no all-positive outcome. Just a single point: climate change will devastate many of our coastal areas and that's where a huge portion of our economy, culture and populations are based. Displacement (migration) and economic collapse are inevitable here since the next 150 years will see nearly all sea trade ports in big trouble. And shipping is absolutely at the backbone of our economy - most stuff you use comes from another continent. Sure, you can leave New York City or Hamburg and setup shop farther inland but... it's not like this will happen overnight and then we have new coastal lines ready for new ports and sea trade and everyone can send iPhones around the planet again. Don't even try to move the shipping volume of sea trade to air freight btw.

The collapse of civilization and the destructive power of nuclear weapons is hyperbole now..?

627467 6y ago

The collapse of civilization can't be a hyperbole. What people especulate that maybe bring it about can be.

randmeerkat 6y ago
Yeah, I phrased that poorly. I meant to say that the the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the likelihood of full out nuclear war causing the total collapse of civilization is considered hyperbole now..?
- 627467 6y ago
  According to the post, yes. To state that such event may lead to total collapse wouldn't be a new idea at all. It's the mainstream hypothesis since the cold war. To challenge those ideas by articulating the opposite (that it may not lead to total collapse) it's new (to me at least) and good food for thought. Can't cite anything, but I'm pretty sure that the nimble investment in nuclear energy that society has made as a whole in the past decades were fueled by fear of total collapse as if it's impossible for humans to play with fire without completely obliterating ourselves. And considering the new(ish) challenges we have (climate and others) I find it helpful to think that past demons/fears can be managed in a constructive way.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> The collapse of civilization and the destructive power of nuclear weapons is hyperbole now..? No, extinction as a consequence is. Modern civilisation as we know it will collapse. This was spun, by some people, into nuclear war will end humanity. That’s hyperbole.

randmeerkat 6y ago
Hmm, it still seems advisable to do everything humanly possible to avoid nuclear conflict. _If_ I survived such a conflict, I’d probably wish I hadn’t.
- solveit 6y ago
  > everything humanly possible Does this include, say, accelerating climate change? This isn't an idle hypothetical, nuclear reactor technology is similar enough to nuclear weapons technology that any country with a reactor can produce crude nuclear weapons in a matter of months. Hard decisions exist and must be made. At some point we must quantify risks.
  - neuronic 6y ago
    But they won't be made unless someone is ready to bear the consequences. Those are decisions which have no all-positive outcome. Just a single point: climate change will devastate many of our coastal areas and that's where a huge portion of our economy, culture and populations are based. Displacement (migration) and economic collapse are inevitable here since the next 150 years will see nearly all sea trade ports in big trouble. And shipping is absolutely at the backbone of our economy - most stuff you use comes from another continent. Sure, you can leave New York City or Hamburg and setup shop farther inland but... it's not like this will happen overnight and then we have new coastal lines ready for new ports and sea trade and everyone can send iPhones around the planet again. Don't even try to move the shipping volume of sea trade to air freight btw.