7 ms·
> It is inconceivable for us to imagine a rapid regression today To the contrary, I'm finding it increasingly likely that I will see the collapse of civilizati
by lisper 5y ago
> It is inconceivable for us to imagine a rapid regression today
To the contrary, I'm finding it increasingly likely that I will see the collapse of civilization within my lifetime, and I'm 57. I see two prospective tipping points on the horizon: the collapse of democracy in the U.S. leading to nuclear war, and climate change leading to world-wide food shortages. The former seems likely within 5-10 years, and the latter within 20-30.
(And BTW, I am not feeling anywhere near as sanguine about this as the text above makes it sound.)
- FpUser 5y agoWhy would collapse of democracy in the US lead to nuclear war?
- tehjoker 5y agothey'll fight other countries to deflect from internal problems
- nine_k 5y agoDid the collapse of democracy in Russia lead to nuclear war?
- tehjoker 5y agoIt didn't which is great news, but tbh I regard the Russians as more rational than us.
- FpUser 5y agoNothing new. They were fighting other countries all along. Still not suicidal.
- lisper 5y agoNot quite sure how to answer that if it's not already obvious to you. If democracy collapses, the result will almost certainly be Donald Trump being effectively a dictator. He very nearly started a nuclear war on more than one occasion during his first administration when some checks and balances were still in place [1] [2]. Nothing could stop him if he decided to do it again during his second. [1] https://gizmodo.com/the-pentagon-worried-trump-was-about-to-start-a-nuclear-1797291605 https://gizmodo.com/the-pentagon-worried-trump-was-about-to-... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-trump-misusing-nuclear-weapons-war-china-book-n1279187 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-t...
- FpUser 5y ago>"He very nearly started a nuclear war on more than one occasion during his first administration The info in the links you've mentioned does not inspire much confidence.
- imoverclocked 5y agoThe US is a major nuclear power and is one body that actively works to counter-balance nuclear proliferation in the world.
- FpUser 5y ago>"is one body that actively works" Not true. Unless you count invading other countries under false pretenses as one. If you think Russia is interested in proliferated I have a nice bridge.
- imoverclocked 5y ago[1] "Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction is traditionally a top priority of U.S. foreign policy." I didn't say anything about Russia. [1] https://www.nti.org/countries/united-states/ https://www.nti.org/countries/united-states/
- FpUser 5y agoYour post reads as the US is the only one working on NPT. It is not. As for your reference - US based and owned org is of course totally unbiased. Color me surprised.
- imoverclocked 5y agoI would differentiate "one body" from "the one body" or "the only body." While I didn't explicitly state, "one of many," that was the implied intent. Another example of similar usage is, "I am one person." This statement does not imply I am the only person. Rather, it eludes to the fact that there are others. This is just a guess but, while looking through my post and these responses, it appears to me that you are politically charged and might be reading with a heavy confirmation bias. I welcome evidence to the contrary of any of my points. So far, I've only seen conjecture.
- FpUser 5y ago
- pohl 5y agoIf democratically-elected government disappears, something will fill that power void, and they will control that arsenal. Who knows what could happen with them.
- FpUser 5y ago>"Who knows what could happen with them." Same as with the democratic government. Dictators are not suicidal. They prefer to be left alone.
- pohl 5y agoTell the people of Ukraine right now how much Putin wants to be left alone.
- FpUser 5y agoI do appreciate your concern about Ukraine but this has nothing to do with Russia being against nuclear proliferation. If it wanted to it would have zero problems seeding those all over the places.
- pohl 5y agoI do appreciate your condescension, but no one said it had to do with something about Russia being for or against proliferation.
- kingcharles 5y agoI don't think any of those events will come to pass, but I suspect you might live long enough to see The Singularity arrive, and that might be the harbinger of doom you are seeking.
- lisper 5y agoOne could argue that this has already happened: social media is the singularity. The evil AI doesn't have to be implemented entirely in silicon. Indeed, that fact that it runs in part on human brains helps it remain stealthy.
- bsenftner 5y agoNow that is an interesting take - are you thinking an emergent hive mind is in social media, and that is controlling society? Quite interesting...
- lisper 5y agoMore or less. Human brains are an emergent property of a large number of highly interconnected neurons, so I see no reason something similar couldn't emerge from a large number of highly interconnected brains. But the thing to keep in mind is that this emergent thing is not necessarily conscious or intentional, but if it reaches the point where it self-replicates then it becomes effectively a life form that starts to undergo Darwinian evolution and thus becomes very difficult to get rid of. The point is that all this is (potentially) just a straightforward consequence of the laws of physics, not some sci-fi super-villain going "Bwahahaha! Silly humans!" in the back of data center somewhere.
- bsenftner 5y agoYes, I follow your reasoning. I buy the existence of a subtle, self perpetuating public attitude. It may emergently coordinate to the degree it is indistinguishable from an independant living entity. Once it is named, it will be seen and observed everywhere, and blamed for all manner of evils. It's the boogieman, in reality: a manifestation of all our collective fears.
- oh_sigh 5y agoI'll bet you $1M that civilization doesn't collapse within 30 years!
- lisper 5y agoI would like nothing better than to lose that bet, but I don't think my wife would approve. How about a bottle of your favorite scotch? (Which may well cost $1M 30 years from now.)
- weberer 5y agoPretty sure it was a joke since if it does collapse he wouldn't have to pay anyway.
- lisper 5y agoYou need to re-read the GP comment. He was betting that civilization would not collapse.
- wildermuthn 5y agoIf he wins the bet, he gets money. If he loses the bet, money is worthless,
- antocv 5y agoHavent you noticed that people who see dark future post and tell it more often the past 30 years, than people who think "it will all be just fine"? I remember the late 90s doom and "oh no millenium 2000" gloom predictions, and 2012 nostradamus end of the world maya calendar the end is near. I read about the 80s cold war "will go hot nuclear any time" and can be seen in movies like Terminator. US will not collapse, no nuclear war will happen, climate change is not even the biggest fuckup we are doing (cutting down the amazon is, biodiversity loss overall), but we post-pone the imminent danger from a scheduled Ice Age.
- lisper 5y agoI was pretty optimistic in 1990, but since then there is new data. Donald Trump was elected president and led a violent insurrection against the government based on a transparent lie with, so far, no negative consequences. If he runs in 2024 he will win the Republican nomination. Unless the Democrats suspend the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation, he will almost certainly be elected president again (because measures are being put in place at the state level to insure that the election is not "stolen" from him again). And I've seen the effects of climate change with my own eyes. The changes are happening with breathtaking speed. The climate where I live is already dramatically different today than it was when I moved here a mere 11 years ago. All of the data from the last 30 years is dramatically worse than the worst-case projections of 1990. Absent some really dramatic technological or political breakthrough, it is a question of when, not if, climate change destroys civilization. It might be longer than 30 years out (I certainly hope so), but it's not 100 years out, not any more.
- basementcat 5y agoTo me this may imply a sort of built-in "failsafe" against political and economic hegemonies that is a part of human nature. This may be useful to ensure that political systems do not last forever so at least some part of humanity is able to explore alternate ways to construct and operate societies.
- lisper 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]