4 ms·
Meteorite strike or supervolcano eruption that we could have protected ourselves against but didn't because of resources spent on nuclear war prevention. Not s
by lopmotr 6y ago
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?
- grawprog 6y agoYeah 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 not to do it. That's what makes it more terrifying than those other ones.
- lopmotr 6y agoThe 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.