3 ms·
>and start back up it willn't be back up to and not even in the direction where we are today. The surviving population will be afflicted with a lot of decease,
by trhway 5y ago
>and start back up
it willn't be back up to and not even in the direction where we are today. The surviving population will be afflicted with a lot of decease, even several generations later. The minority capable of at least some level of being productive wouldn't be able to provide for and care for all the disabled/ill in their communities. Thus communities successfully surviving in say 100 years will have very different social "norms", at best at the level of hunter-gatherers of 20K+ years ago.
- edgyquant 5y agoThis is a huge logical leap and not backed up by any actual data
- ben_w 5y agoWhy do you expect that? Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both rebuilt, cancer levels in those cities in people conceived after the bombs is indistinguishable from places that weren’t nuked: https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki
- paulryanrogers 5y agoMuch dirtier and more powerful bombs have been developed since 1945.
- ben_w 5y agoWhile explicitly high-fallout weapons have been made, most of the more powerful bombs are less dirty, both because fusion boosting is inherently so, and because the maximum destruction radius is a different function of altitude than fallout, so destroying a city is incompatible with poisoning it.