I think it's important to have accurate models of the world, in order to make sound decisions. I don't think playing a macabre Pascal's Wager with nuclear armag

I think it's important to have accurate models of the world, in order to make sound decisions. I don't think playing a macabre Pascal's Wager with nuclear armageddon benefits no one. It would be an unmitigated disaster. There would be incalculable suffering. But all this talk of ending humanity as a species is not at all scientifically founded. If anything, I think this raises the stake of responsible earth stewardship (same thing with climate change). If you believe you are well and truly fucked, fatalism kicks in and you mentally check out. But if you believe that you will most likely survive, and the amount of suffering you experience will be affected by your decisions, all of a sudden you have ethical skin in the game. Why reduce nukes 90% if that 10% still glasses the planet? There is no qualitative change. But if a 90% reduction is the difference between 8B and 1B deaths, de-armament is now approachable, has real stakes, and makes a real impact.