Thats interesting. Indeed new tech led to new weapons and potentially more deadly conflicts. But conflicts comparable to or worse than ww1 already occurred we

Thats interesting. Indeed new tech led to new weapons and potentially more deadly conflicts. But conflicts comparable to or worse than ww1 already occurred well before mechanised weaponry: in china, the mongol invasions, the colonisation of the americas, and so on. MAD was mostly posturing, with few close encounters. In effect there was more anxiety than death. Also i agree that there are far more single points of failure. Your example with fertilisers sounds plausible and logical. Both due to logistics and also due to losing farming skills. Yet somehow we suffer less from famine. Now theres more anxiety over it happening rather than it actually happening. The pattern i see is that yes the risks are real and plausible but the odds of them occurring are slim. And almost always (almost because i dont know of a specific counter example) technology only posed a risk due to politics rather than the tech itself. There is no single example i am aware of technology posing an existential threat on its own - but at the same time we never created autonomous machines and software before at this level. No matter what i do i keep getting back to the idea that the only danger is us. Our emotions, politics and instincts. I feel conflicted.