5 ms·

When I think about human intelligence, my mind always arrives at these scientists. How can, then, some of the smartest people on Earth be involved in something

When I think about human intelligence, my mind always arrives at these scientists. How can, then, some of the smartest people on Earth be involved in something as stupid as this. Many scientists realise the grave consequences of their stupidity, after the fact. Both Sakharov and Oppenheimer realised this, but it was too late. The genie was out. The mirage of power, respect, titles, prizes and access to unlimited resources for their experiments is too strong to resist, I guess. :Carrot Then there's the patriotism thing - do right for you country, protect it from the enemies. Fear. :Stick This is how the devil works, after all :). Beware of the stupid as he knows not what the implications of his activities are. Be scared of the smart working for the stupid, as he very well knows the implications, but is too weak to resist the temptation. He has sold his soul.

dominotw 12y ago
It is not as simple as that . Watch this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUP7zJ0CwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUP7zJ0CwU
mikeash 12y ago
It's your classic Prisoners' Dilemma. (No surprise, since game theory was largely developed to analyze nuclear war.) You're stuck with another guy. You're both better off if you both cooperate. But individually you're better off if you betray the other guy. In that situation it's really, really hard to arrange cooperation. The US and USSR would have been better off if they could have put a halt to the madness. But if one stopped, that gives huge incentives for the other to betray. The thing is, betraying the other is the rational thing to do. It's the worst outcome, but it comes from purely rational actions.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  And hilariously, whenever it is tested the whole thing falls flat. Because humans cooperate by instinct. Kennedy was told again and again to escalate until the Kremlin backed down. Eventually he had enough and basically showed "rationality" the door. Thus the Cuban Crisis ended without the cold war going hot.
MrZongle2 12y ago
How can, then, some of the smartest people on Earth be involved in something as stupid as this. Isn't that what is happening now, with some of the bright people who work at the NSA?
RexRollman 12y ago
Intelligence does not equal wisdom.
IkmoIkmo 12y ago
Well consider the following question, is it crazy to call Nuclear Weapons one of the biggest peace-keeping phenomena of all time? It appears that because of MAD, sovereignty between Nuclear armed countries is pretty much ensured. I mean I'm scared to death by Nuclear weapons (intellectually scared, similar to say Global Warming being a gigantic threat), but I can't help but wonder if these things don't prevent a WW3, and force conflicts to be resolved diplomatically, through economic sanctions, cyberwar, through export of ideology or comparatively smaller 'cold war' type conflicts. e.g. Yemen today is essentially Iran fighting Saudi Arabia for a bit of regional influence in a way without Iran & ally Russia/China actually fighting with Saudi & ally US/West. Conflicts that are all preferable in scale to an all out WW3, which wouldn't happen (on paper) because of MAD due to Nuclear Weapons.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  The question is, what are the fighting for. Nukes makes zero sense if it is a resource war, and those are the oldest ones there is. A influence war also has little use for nukes, as you want those friendly to you to live and thrive afterwards. As best i can tell the only time using nukes "make sense" is when faced with a enemy that is committed to your total elimination, and that are completely unified in this goal.

dominotw 12y ago

It is not as simple as that . Watch this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUP7zJ0CwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUP7zJ0CwU

mikeash 12y ago

It's your classic Prisoners' Dilemma. (No surprise, since game theory was largely developed to analyze nuclear war.) You're stuck with another guy. You're both better off if you both cooperate. But individually you're better off if you betray the other guy. In that situation it's really, really hard to arrange cooperation. The US and USSR would have been better off if they could have put a halt to the madness. But if one stopped, that gives huge incentives for the other to betray. The thing is, betraying the other is the rational thing to do. It's the worst outcome, but it comes from purely rational actions.

digi_owl 12y ago
And hilariously, whenever it is tested the whole thing falls flat. Because humans cooperate by instinct. Kennedy was told again and again to escalate until the Kremlin backed down. Eventually he had enough and basically showed "rationality" the door. Thus the Cuban Crisis ended without the cold war going hot.

MrZongle2 12y ago

How can, then, some of the smartest people on Earth be involved in something as stupid as this. Isn't that what is happening now, with some of the bright people who work at the NSA?

RexRollman 12y ago

Intelligence does not equal wisdom.

IkmoIkmo 12y ago

Well consider the following question, is it crazy to call Nuclear Weapons one of the biggest peace-keeping phenomena of all time? It appears that because of MAD, sovereignty between Nuclear armed countries is pretty much ensured. I mean I'm scared to death by Nuclear weapons (intellectually scared, similar to say Global Warming being a gigantic threat), but I can't help but wonder if these things don't prevent a WW3, and force conflicts to be resolved diplomatically, through economic sanctions, cyberwar, through export of ideology or comparatively smaller 'cold war' type conflicts. e.g. Yemen today is essentially Iran fighting Saudi Arabia for a bit of regional influence in a way without Iran & ally Russia/China actually fighting with Saudi & ally US/West. Conflicts that are all preferable in scale to an all out WW3, which wouldn't happen (on paper) because of MAD due to Nuclear Weapons.

digi_owl 12y ago
The question is, what are the fighting for. Nukes makes zero sense if it is a resource war, and those are the oldest ones there is. A influence war also has little use for nukes, as you want those friendly to you to live and thrive afterwards. As best i can tell the only time using nukes "make sense" is when faced with a enemy that is committed to your total elimination, and that are completely unified in this goal.