3 ms·

Yes, because humans are apes. We grow up in a world where are lead to believe that our leaders are leading because they are smarter than we are and that they a

Yes, because humans are apes. We grow up in a world where are lead to believe that our leaders are leading because they are smarter than we are and that they actually have a plan for everything. While not entirely untrue, our leaders (if you can call them that) are nevertheless dumb apes like you and me. Will the dumb apes start nuclear armageddon? Improbable, so far. But implausible? Not completely.

smt88 5y ago
This is a nonsensical non-answer. Humans are apes, but the other apes couldn't produce nuclear weapons (or even a knife). If we're different enough from other apes to produce nuclear weapons (and everything else we've created), we're different enough that any analogy to how they would use them is nonsense. To put it another way: our relationship to apes is as relevant to our propensity for nuclear war as our relationship to dogs or bananas.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  > Humans are apes, but the other apes couldn't produce nuclear weapons (or even a knife). What does that prove? The heart of my answer is that there's no reason to believe we are better than other organisms to the extent that we wouldn't do something irrational, no matter how drastic. If a close ancestor of ours can potentially smack a button that launches nuclear missiles out of some misguided simian impulse, unless there's evidence demonstrating otherwise, this is all the reason you need to believe that this is also true of humans to a non-zero degree. We are by no means debugged as a species despite all the forking and rebasing we've done since Australopithecus. > If we're different enough from other apes to produce nuclear weapons (and everything else we've created), we're different enough that any analogy to how they would use them is nonsense. I have no idea what "different enough". If we are "different enough", then what's with all the fighting and the tribalism? > To put it another way: our relationship to apes is as relevant to our propensity for nuclear war as our relationship to dogs or bananas. The human and chimpanzee phenotypes share substantially more attributes than do dogs and bananas. I wouldn't have used the word "ape" if I thought something more genetically distant like a banana would have sufficed.

smt88 5y ago

This is a nonsensical non-answer. Humans are apes, but the other apes couldn't produce nuclear weapons (or even a knife). If we're different enough from other apes to produce nuclear weapons (and everything else we've created), we're different enough that any analogy to how they would use them is nonsense. To put it another way: our relationship to apes is as relevant to our propensity for nuclear war as our relationship to dogs or bananas.

ravenstine 5y ago
> Humans are apes, but the other apes couldn't produce nuclear weapons (or even a knife). What does that prove? The heart of my answer is that there's no reason to believe we are better than other organisms to the extent that we wouldn't do something irrational, no matter how drastic. If a close ancestor of ours can potentially smack a button that launches nuclear missiles out of some misguided simian impulse, unless there's evidence demonstrating otherwise, this is all the reason you need to believe that this is also true of humans to a non-zero degree. We are by no means debugged as a species despite all the forking and rebasing we've done since Australopithecus. > If we're different enough from other apes to produce nuclear weapons (and everything else we've created), we're different enough that any analogy to how they would use them is nonsense. I have no idea what "different enough". If we are "different enough", then what's with all the fighting and the tribalism? > To put it another way: our relationship to apes is as relevant to our propensity for nuclear war as our relationship to dogs or bananas. The human and chimpanzee phenotypes share substantially more attributes than do dogs and bananas. I wouldn't have used the word "ape" if I thought something more genetically distant like a banana would have sufficed.