6 ms·

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 f

by mola 6y ago

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 that's true, We're not killing the planet, we're not even causing human extinction, we're just building a really bad future for our children. Ofcourse people born into that future would see it as the norm, but we make decision from our view point, and the norm can be terrible when taken in to context. But I digress, my point is that the rational community seems to have a smarty pants mentality, taking all rhetoric at face value, and usually creating very serious discussions that usually just sidetrack from the important issues.

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
Spot on. In the entire scenario it seems we forget recent pandemic, and what happen few days in. In the case of nuclear war exchange there won't be any toilet paper, period. :) Joking aside, we forget how hooked we are to industrial society. Any such event would mean world without shops, internet, new version of anything... no progress... for at least one human lifetime. Back to stone age. Everything we are used to and enjoy (technology wise), would simply seas to exist, and it is questionable how long would it take to build knowledge and start a new, especially when simple necessities as food and water are only priority.
- baybal2 6y ago
  You don't need a nuclear war for all that to happen. As I once read in one defence publication, USA is only 4 biggest fertiliser complexes away from the famine, assuming the assailing party can blockade the country to prevent food importation. The same is for the biggest oil, and fuel manufacturing complexes. USA is also "just" 50 power stations away from the grid becoming useless. USA is though much, much better off than most countries on this, as its power generation is much more decentralised, thanks to largely private operation. USA has domestic capacity to manufacture small, and medium sized turbines, but largest ones used in the superplants mentioned above are made by GE Energy in France, and some even in Japan, and China. The same for big, top tier transformers for the grid.
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    Adding to this, I recommend Lewis Dartnell's The Knowledge: How to rebuild our world after an apocalypse to anyone who hasn't read it yet. It's well-researched and, among other things, shows how much modern civilization relies on artificial fertilizers, crude oil shipments, and chemicals. A breakdown of world-wide shipping would have devastating consequences for most countries.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    IIRC the EU is just a few cut powerlines on a windy day away from completely overloading and destroying most of the power grid.
    - netflixandkill 6y ago
      Overloading, sure, destroying, no. I would bet millions of Euros there have been islanding plans in place for years in the event of wide scale disconnects or voltage/frequency collapse. The aftermath wouldn't be fun but most of western Europe at least would only be enduring planned rotating blackouts at worst.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    If we've gotten to the point that an adversary can and would effectively blockade the US, destroy its infrastructure, and effectively prevent it from being rebuilt for an extended period of time, then odds are we have bigger issues than famine to worry about.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > Joking aside, we forget how hooked we are to industrial society Us city-people, yes. But there's enough people out there who are mostly self-sufficient, and there's even a bunch of urban preppers who would more than likely have a relatively easy time surviving complete industrial collapse of a nation. (I say relatively easy because it would obviously be hard and unpleasant times for everyone, but for some that would be doable)
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    I agree partially, even those people in rural areas depend on fuel, machine parts, technology, books, cleaning provision and most importantly medicine and medical attention. Just imagine, dying because of simple cuts as you do not have antibiotics, or after few years, having issue with tooth decay, food poisoning... communication wise probably those that would remain would go back to good old radio wave, and what when all parts burn out... there wouldn't be anymore China or Amazon to order spear part, how many people know how to make diode, transistor or resistor DIY? I am not saying it is not doable, but thinking about people who got crazy during pandemic just because they were in quarantine for few weeks, and then multiplying that on a bunker environment for few years until long term fallout from nuclear power plants settles down simply does not seems as a feasible for 99.999% of people. Probably only pockets of people would survive at the end Also question is in what form and how badly would be long term DNA damage for human offspring. Nature would find a way, as it always does, not sure about humans. Literally, it could be as a ancient story of flood but this time with fire...
formerly_proven 6y ago
> It's like the back talk against climate warming, trying to down play it as a non extinction event. It's quite similar to invoking freedom of speech in order to defend a position -- "Oh, it's not _literally illegal_ to say this? That sure sounds like a compelling argument to me"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
It's no strawman. Fiction often depicts nuclear wars as near-extinction events with very few human survivors. Going by similar topics, it's safe to assume many people consider this a realistic scenario beyond just fiction. The real strawman is in your comment though. Who said nuclear war wouldn't be bad, just because it likely won't cause human extinction? Most people agree that regular wars are bad, and there never was any threat of extinction with them. > But I digress, my point is that the rational community seems to have a smarty pants mentality No, the rational community has a rational mentality. One can be against war without claiming it would be the end of the world. Hitting your toe is also not the end of the world but you probably still consider it a bad thing to happen.
- scotty79 6y ago
  I don't see anywhere in the article that it's no a near extinction event. Just it's not exactly an extinction event. The article mentions that most human would die just from food production capacity collapse. Just not exactly all of us.
ralfd 6y ago
> 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 heating and Uber Eats. But other people are more resilient.
- mola 6y ago
  Our winters here are pretty easy, and we don't have uber eats. But seriously, my very near ancestors were strong, they survived the holocaust. Their life were miserable, with lingering effects even after the holocaust. I don't wish anyone to go through anything similar just to prove they're strong. I agree that when things are tough giving up will kill you. But we should definitely not strive for tough times, these scar you and generations to come. We should work for a future where we don't need to be extremely tough. We have the means and wits for that.
- curryst 6y ago
  > 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.
tylerjwilk00 6y ago
Seriously!? Thank Darwin we had ancestors with thicker skin and stronger will. Nobody wants nuclear war or to live in the aftermath of it. However, should it ever happen I intend to do everything in my power to survive. Early humans endured terrible hardships so we had the privilege of building great comfortable societies. It's our duty to the future to keep carrying the flame.
- mola 6y ago
  Yes, seroiusly. It's our duty to not deteriorate back to the stone age. Why is planning for doom a better avenue than actively working to avoid doom and make the world more sustainably comfortable?
vagrantJin 6y ago
Humans are hard bastards to kill. The biggest and best tool is the one between our ears and the capability to draw a blank expression in the midst of hell is undoubtedly our best asset. It would take much more than nuclear weapons to wipe out humanity. We are the cockroaches of the mammals. The virus of kingdom animalia.
MinusGix 6y ago
It argues against a 'straw man' that I personally have talked with people that think that nuclear war would certainly destroy all of humankind. As well, its not arguing against the nuclear war being Super-Bad, the conclusion even talks about an idea for making nuclear war less dangerous so that it is less likely to kill off as many people. > Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome, I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse. I do happen to disagree with this, but that is a personal decision and I understand why you would prefer that.

by mola 6y ago

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago

Spot on. In the entire scenario it seems we forget recent pandemic, and what happen few days in. In the case of nuclear war exchange there won't be any toilet paper, period. :) Joking aside, we forget how hooked we are to industrial society. Any such event would mean world without shops, internet, new version of anything... no progress... for at least one human lifetime. Back to stone age. Everything we are used to and enjoy (technology wise), would simply seas to exist, and it is questionable how long would it take to build knowledge and start a new, especially when simple necessities as food and water are only priority.

baybal2 6y ago
You don't need a nuclear war for all that to happen. As I once read in one defence publication, USA is only 4 biggest fertiliser complexes away from the famine, assuming the assailing party can blockade the country to prevent food importation. The same is for the biggest oil, and fuel manufacturing complexes. USA is also "just" 50 power stations away from the grid becoming useless. USA is though much, much better off than most countries on this, as its power generation is much more decentralised, thanks to largely private operation. USA has domestic capacity to manufacture small, and medium sized turbines, but largest ones used in the superplants mentioned above are made by GE Energy in France, and some even in Japan, and China. The same for big, top tier transformers for the grid.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Adding to this, I recommend Lewis Dartnell's The Knowledge: How to rebuild our world after an apocalypse to anyone who hasn't read it yet. It's well-researched and, among other things, shows how much modern civilization relies on artificial fertilizers, crude oil shipments, and chemicals. A breakdown of world-wide shipping would have devastating consequences for most countries.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  IIRC the EU is just a few cut powerlines on a windy day away from completely overloading and destroying most of the power grid.
  - netflixandkill 6y ago
    Overloading, sure, destroying, no. I would bet millions of Euros there have been islanding plans in place for years in the event of wide scale disconnects or voltage/frequency collapse. The aftermath wouldn't be fun but most of western Europe at least would only be enduring planned rotating blackouts at worst.
- jjk166 6y ago
  If we've gotten to the point that an adversary can and would effectively blockade the US, destroy its infrastructure, and effectively prevent it from being rebuilt for an extended period of time, then odds are we have bigger issues than famine to worry about.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> Joking aside, we forget how hooked we are to industrial society Us city-people, yes. But there's enough people out there who are mostly self-sufficient, and there's even a bunch of urban preppers who would more than likely have a relatively easy time surviving complete industrial collapse of a nation. (I say relatively easy because it would obviously be hard and unpleasant times for everyone, but for some that would be doable)
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  I agree partially, even those people in rural areas depend on fuel, machine parts, technology, books, cleaning provision and most importantly medicine and medical attention. Just imagine, dying because of simple cuts as you do not have antibiotics, or after few years, having issue with tooth decay, food poisoning... communication wise probably those that would remain would go back to good old radio wave, and what when all parts burn out... there wouldn't be anymore China or Amazon to order spear part, how many people know how to make diode, transistor or resistor DIY? I am not saying it is not doable, but thinking about people who got crazy during pandemic just because they were in quarantine for few weeks, and then multiplying that on a bunker environment for few years until long term fallout from nuclear power plants settles down simply does not seems as a feasible for 99.999% of people. Probably only pockets of people would survive at the end Also question is in what form and how badly would be long term DNA damage for human offspring. Nature would find a way, as it always does, not sure about humans. Literally, it could be as a ancient story of flood but this time with fire...

formerly_proven 6y ago

> It's like the back talk against climate warming, trying to down play it as a non extinction event. It's quite similar to invoking freedom of speech in order to defend a position -- "Oh, it's not _literally illegal_ to say this? That sure sounds like a compelling argument to me"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

It's no strawman. Fiction often depicts nuclear wars as near-extinction events with very few human survivors. Going by similar topics, it's safe to assume many people consider this a realistic scenario beyond just fiction. The real strawman is in your comment though. Who said nuclear war wouldn't be bad, just because it likely won't cause human extinction? Most people agree that regular wars are bad, and there never was any threat of extinction with them. > But I digress, my point is that the rational community seems to have a smarty pants mentality No, the rational community has a rational mentality. One can be against war without claiming it would be the end of the world. Hitting your toe is also not the end of the world but you probably still consider it a bad thing to happen.

scotty79 6y ago
I don't see anywhere in the article that it's no a near extinction event. Just it's not exactly an extinction event. The article mentions that most human would die just from food production capacity collapse. Just not exactly all of us.

ralfd 6y ago

> 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 heating and Uber Eats. But other people are more resilient.

mola 6y ago
Our winters here are pretty easy, and we don't have uber eats. But seriously, my very near ancestors were strong, they survived the holocaust. Their life were miserable, with lingering effects even after the holocaust. I don't wish anyone to go through anything similar just to prove they're strong. I agree that when things are tough giving up will kill you. But we should definitely not strive for tough times, these scar you and generations to come. We should work for a future where we don't need to be extremely tough. We have the means and wits for that.
curryst 6y ago
> 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.

tylerjwilk00 6y ago

Seriously!? Thank Darwin we had ancestors with thicker skin and stronger will. Nobody wants nuclear war or to live in the aftermath of it. However, should it ever happen I intend to do everything in my power to survive. Early humans endured terrible hardships so we had the privilege of building great comfortable societies. It's our duty to the future to keep carrying the flame.

mola 6y ago
Yes, seroiusly. It's our duty to not deteriorate back to the stone age. Why is planning for doom a better avenue than actively working to avoid doom and make the world more sustainably comfortable?

vagrantJin 6y ago

Humans are hard bastards to kill. The biggest and best tool is the one between our ears and the capability to draw a blank expression in the midst of hell is undoubtedly our best asset. It would take much more than nuclear weapons to wipe out humanity. We are the cockroaches of the mammals. The virus of kingdom animalia.

MinusGix 6y ago

It argues against a 'straw man' that I personally have talked with people that think that nuclear war would certainly destroy all of humankind. As well, its not arguing against the nuclear war being Super-Bad, the conclusion even talks about an idea for making nuclear war less dangerous so that it is less likely to kill off as many people. > Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome, I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse. I do happen to disagree with this, but that is a personal decision and I understand why you would prefer that.