The issue I have is convergence vs divergence. When a new modality emerges, a normally convergent trend can be disrupted when a new divergent utility frontier e

The issue I have is convergence vs divergence. When a new modality emerges, a normally convergent trend can be disrupted when a new divergent utility frontier emerges Here are a few examples: the rate of deaths in wars was roughly stable for hundreds of years until WW1 and WW2, due to the advent of tech so new that it upset many of the stable equilibria that minimized the excess death of wars. The rate of transportation deaths was very small all throughout history until the advent of the car. Even now, 130 years after its invention 1/100 deaths in the US are due to traffic fatalities. My general point is, the vast superintelligence of intra and international systems tends towards a banal equilibrium UNTIL a massively disruptive technology is introduced which massively incentivizes one side. The level of potential hazard and collateral damage is proportional to the benefit offered to the winning party. The moment the US invented the nuclear bomb, they used it on citizens, who all died solely because their deaths weren't quite 100% orthogonal to the US' interests, and the nuke has only not been used since because the equilibrium was balanced due to the technology's proliferation to opposing sides faster than it became necessary again.