3 ms·

A sample size of 1 suggests this wouldn’t happen. Humans are the most aggressive species we know of capable of mass destruction. We would (and do) certainly de

A sample size of 1 suggests this wouldn’t happen. Humans are the most aggressive species we know of capable of mass destruction. We would (and do) certainly destroy other species to get some resources in order to enrich a small but highly privileged portion of our population. However—despite our aggression—we would not destroy an alien world at the mere sight of it without any prospects for profit. Our most destructive era was probably the era of nuclear missile testing. It certainly did an enormous needless destruction of non-human (and human) habitat. This era only lasted a couple of decades and ended with a comprehensive test ban in the 1990s. Despite our capabilities we never tested these weapons of horror in space or on alien planets, and we probably never will.

krisoft 5y ago
> Despite our capabilities we never tested these weapons of horror in space I’m afraid that is not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime “The explosion took place at an altitude of 250 miles (400 km), above a point 19 miles (31 km) southwest of Johnston Atoll.” That’s roughly the same altitude the international space station flies at.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  And then there's "Project K" where the Soviets EMP'd their own population for science.
  - krisoft 5y ago
    Oh! Very interesting. I didn’t know about that one. Thank you.
- runarberg 5y ago
  Yes, you are right. I forgot about that one. Of course the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty banned those in 1963.
formerly_proven 5y ago
> It certainly did an enormous needless destruction of non-human (and human) habitat. This era only lasted a couple of decades and ended with a comprehensive test ban in the 1990s. PTBT happened in the early 60s, so almost all surface tests were conducted within the first twenty years of developing nukes. I don't think making "craters" in desert mines really qualifies as enormous destruction of habitats.
- runarberg 5y ago
  Yes the second and third decades of nuclear weapons testing were definitely more destructive then the following. The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 definitely helped slowing down the destruction by a lot. However e.g. France—a non signatory—continued detonating their nuclear bombs above ground on and around their pacific island territories well into the 70s. The environmental damage (and damage to the nearby human communities) is still very much present today. But the fact that the PTBT was signed by most nuclear states which slowed down this pointless destruction—and later the CTBT, which almost stopped it in 1997—shows that even humans with our demonstrable aggressiveness do work to limit our destruction when said destruction doesn’t contribute to the enrichment of a subset of other members of the species.

krisoft 5y ago

> Despite our capabilities we never tested these weapons of horror in space I’m afraid that is not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime “The explosion took place at an altitude of 250 miles (400 km), above a point 19 miles (31 km) southwest of Johnston Atoll.” That’s roughly the same altitude the international space station flies at.

formerly_proven 5y ago
And then there's "Project K" where the Soviets EMP'd their own population for science.
- krisoft 5y ago
  Oh! Very interesting. I didn’t know about that one. Thank you.
runarberg 5y ago
Yes, you are right. I forgot about that one. Of course the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty banned those in 1963.

formerly_proven 5y ago

> It certainly did an enormous needless destruction of non-human (and human) habitat. This era only lasted a couple of decades and ended with a comprehensive test ban in the 1990s. PTBT happened in the early 60s, so almost all surface tests were conducted within the first twenty years of developing nukes. I don't think making "craters" in desert mines really qualifies as enormous destruction of habitats.

runarberg 5y ago
Yes the second and third decades of nuclear weapons testing were definitely more destructive then the following. The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 definitely helped slowing down the destruction by a lot. However e.g. France—a non signatory—continued detonating their nuclear bombs above ground on and around their pacific island territories well into the 70s. The environmental damage (and damage to the nearby human communities) is still very much present today. But the fact that the PTBT was signed by most nuclear states which slowed down this pointless destruction—and later the CTBT, which almost stopped it in 1997—shows that even humans with our demonstrable aggressiveness do work to limit our destruction when said destruction doesn’t contribute to the enrichment of a subset of other members of the species.