3 ms·

It’s great to recognise what we’ve achieved as a species. And maybe the arc of history has historically bent towards justice. What’s different about this momen

It’s great to recognise what we’ve achieved as a species. And maybe the arc of history has historically bent towards justice. What’s different about this moment in time versus any other in human history is that we face not one but two known existential risks. Climate change is the sort of knotty long-term vs short-term, private vs public, incentives problem that we as a species excel at fucking up. In addition to that, we have a new cold war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states that haven’t previously had them and have different ideas about using them. If you’ve read any accounts of nuclear near-misses from the last Cold War, you’ll know that “there was never any real danger” is the wrong conclusion to draw. Respectfully, I don’t understand the case for optimism at all. The fact that the vast majority of people are good (and I believe that they are) has little bearing on it.

xupybd 4y ago
It was the same with the last cold war. They were convinced over population would destroy the earth and Russia and America would start throwing Nukes around.
- randcraw 4y ago
  Unfortunately, the worst days of the cold war were appreciably less likely than we are now to immolate all of mankind. In 1963, the two nations capable of global annihilation were run by “company men” who acted with caution and tons of input from myriad experts who knew the real cost of global war all too well. Those bureaucrats understood that their rash act would end their “life at the top” in a heartbeat, even if they survived nuclear armageddon. But today's strongmen/ dictators who control nuclear weapons have shown far less cluefulness or concern than their forebears for the very plausible dangers of committing a single stupid blunder that could end life on Earth. Hard to be upbeat given that, regardless of appeals to rational technical optimism.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    There are more players now but I don't think the cold war Soviets were as stable as you're arguing here. We've had mad men with nuke since we've had nukes. The more time we spend in that situation the higher the chances someone uses them but I think we're far safer now than times such as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets had their nukes on a dead man switch. That was insane and could have killed billions accidentally.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
8note 4y ago
To which countries that have different idea about using them? So far there's only two camps - the US who has used them on civilians on purpose, and everyone else who have not used them. Most countries aiming for them want them to prevent American(and maybe Russian ones too now) invasions like what happened in Iraq.

xupybd 4y ago

It was the same with the last cold war. They were convinced over population would destroy the earth and Russia and America would start throwing Nukes around.

randcraw 4y ago
Unfortunately, the worst days of the cold war were appreciably less likely than we are now to immolate all of mankind. In 1963, the two nations capable of global annihilation were run by “company men” who acted with caution and tons of input from myriad experts who knew the real cost of global war all too well. Those bureaucrats understood that their rash act would end their “life at the top” in a heartbeat, even if they survived nuclear armageddon. But today's strongmen/ dictators who control nuclear weapons have shown far less cluefulness or concern than their forebears for the very plausible dangers of committing a single stupid blunder that could end life on Earth. Hard to be upbeat given that, regardless of appeals to rational technical optimism.
- xupybd 4y ago
  There are more players now but I don't think the cold war Soviets were as stable as you're arguing here. We've had mad men with nuke since we've had nukes. The more time we spend in that situation the higher the chances someone uses them but I think we're far safer now than times such as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets had their nukes on a dead man switch. That was insane and could have killed billions accidentally.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

8note 4y ago

To which countries that have different idea about using them? So far there's only two camps - the US who has used them on civilians on purpose, and everyone else who have not used them. Most countries aiming for them want them to prevent American(and maybe Russian ones too now) invasions like what happened in Iraq.