A reminder for everyone: on this day in 1983, Stanislav Petrov saved the world.
It occurs to me this time around that there's an interesting relationship here - 9/26 is forgotten, while 9/11 is remembered. Do something charitable, and not patriotic, sometime today.
The research commented on and linked to in some threads below don't pass the sniff test. It claims that 50 air-burst Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons would cause a terrible nuclear winter and a new ice age. Yet neither the 3 weapons at Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, nor the 528 air and ground-burst nuclear weapons set off over the next 35 years, most having more explosive power than 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs, had observed effects on the weather. Neither did the many German and Japanese cities that the Allies burned at least as thoroughly via conventional weapons. Much more area burned in Tokyo and Dresden than in Hiroshima.
If they were talking about ground bursts of high-yield weapons, I just might give them some credibility... but 50 15-kt air-bursts?
The Castle Bravo test was a ground-burst test with a yield of 15 Mt, 1000 times the yield of the bomb used on Hiroshima. A ground burst throws much, much more dust into the air than an air burst. I'm not aware that any effect on weather was observed. Perhaps this is explained by there not having been a lot of combustible material at the site of the explosion.
"Heavy fire damage was sustained in a circular area in Hiroshima...
The probability that there is many times more mercury in your sushi than there would have been 100 years ago, is 1.0 unless that sushi came from a fish farm. Whether it's enough to call it "poisoning" is open to debate. The EPA and FDA recommend you do not eat swordfish, shark, or king mackerel, ever, because of mercury.
We've already seen minimal to no regulation, in the 1970s. WRT mercury contamination of freshwater fish it was very bad. Perhaps some of you are too young to remember when American scientists used to debate whether the recommendation to eat fish no more than once a week was conservative enough or not. Fishermen in many areas are still advised not to each the fish they catch.
It's a bit of a moot point, since without regulation, the major freshwater and saltwater fish stocks would have crashed by now anyway. This doesn't always have to be government regulation. Maine lobstermen have regulated themselves for many years - not just outside the government, but illegally (because the punishments they imposed on violators were illegal).
Harvesting of freshwater fish in the US is, so I hear, switching over to fish farming. Not so much because of poison, but because there just aren't enough wild fish.
Anyone else get hit with a sense of sheer terror as they figured the connection between this story and the anthropic principle?
This is a good opportunity to introduce your friends to LessWrong: "Hey, did you know today is the day Stanislav Petrov saved the world? http://lesswrong.com/lw/jq/926_is_petrov_day/" Chance are, they will click around.
Could 'not starting nuclear armageddon' be considered "...the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, ..." ?
If he qualifies by virtue of the above, then a campaign to give him a Nobel Peace Prize seems the thing to do.
I agree with your sentiment but respectfully disagree with the details. First, Yasser Arafat got a Nobel Peace Prize so the system is already an utter farce. And second, if it wasn't an utter farce, you could make a good case for Petrov getting an honorable mention rather than the main prize, because there are people who've spent decades working hard for peace.
A non-farce award should base its judgment on results, not effort. A peace activist who spends his entire career digging and refilling a hole, for example, should not be anywhere near the Peace Prize shortlist. Despite the little time he spent, Petrov did more for world peace than many others who have been working longer -- not that his decision was easy, anyway.
Maybe. It still comes at the cost of reduced emphasis (at the margin) by activists on thinking clearly about what results they'll actually get -- a kind of thinking definitely in short supply.
Like with FAI, world-changing activism is not a case where you want to play "A for effort", as that tends to reward groups like Bolsheviks, who undoubtedly threw a lot of effort into a world peace strategy.
Both the French and Germans massacred millions contemporaneously, which suggests that Westerners were willing to massacre millions, so long as they have a reason. It seems likely that the British would have done the same if India had sought independence through war, and thus Gandhi's push for nonviolent tactics averted a potentially tremendous loss of human life.
As for the partition, not only is a single million the highest estimate of the death toll, Gandhi was opposed to it, worked to reduce violence during it, and was assassinated in part because of his friendliness towards Muslims and desire to improve Pakistan-India relations. I do not understand why you deride his fasting, as it appears to have been the most effective tactic available to him, and did actually influence those around him rather than just accrue karma.
I agree with you that Gandhi's letter to the Jews was probably bad advice, but will also point out that Denmark had a positive experience with nonviolent resistance (whether or not that worked against the Nazis because Danes were Aryan is unknown). However, prizes must be given to humans, and thus people are judged on net rather than for lack of blemishes. I am sure you are aware of reasons for Gandhi to be given the prize, and in the spirit of ahimsa plead you to perform a calming activity then return to this discussion with a clear heart.
I consider blaming the Holocaust on Ghandi to be utterly absurd. I don't know what the cause of your problem with Ghandi is but that claim is just... odd. Ghandi couldn't have pulled that off if he tried.
Which is exactly what Ghandi suggested, yet the inclusion of this point suggests you think that it somehow makes Ghandi look good. ???
No, it is just part of what makes your ridicule look petty. Ghandi recommending others do what worked for him is an example of misplaced other optimising. Given that he was just a popular figure in an entirely unrelated country and the advice he gave was no more futile than anything else they could have tried to prevent the Nazi's doing what they did the advice he gave is not especially relevant.
The Peace Prize has a very poorly defined mission.
Some third world activist who leads a social movement earns a lot of warm fuzzies, but probably doesn't affect the world very much (let's say Maathai).
Someone who pursues a naturally partisan and controversial goal peacefully probably produces a lot of conflict, but less conflict than they would have if they were violent about it. (Gandhi)
Some dictator or lunatic who mellows out and murders less than usual probably has a very large beneficial effect on the world, compared to his usual murder rate (Arafat and the Israelis).
The leader of a very large country, like the United States or the Soviet Union, can have a greater positive influence on the world just by being a fraction of a percent nicer than the average person, than the leader of a small country, or a private individual, can have by being an amazing saint (Obama).
And some random person in the right place at the right time may have a very large effect in terms of sheer scale, but be questionable in terms of genuine virtue (Petrov).
If about 60% of people, in Petrov's situation, would have done what he did, is it better to give the prize to him, or to some activist who has spent her whole life tirelessly struggling for freedom despite adversity?
I'm not a big fan of the Nobel committee's decisions, but given the pressures they face and the confusion of their task I don't think they've done a ridiculously inadequate job.
I'm not a big fan of the Nobel committee's decisions, but given the pressures they face and the confusion of their task I don't think they've done a ridiculously inadequate job.
Hypothetically, if Nobel had been a sociopath and instituted a "Nobel War Prize" or "Nobel Deadly Conflict Prize" with an equally poorly defined mission, how inadequately would you judge their work had they given the award to exactly the same recipients as were actually awarded the Peace Prize?
...The 2004 prize went to Wangari Maathai "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". She was reported by the Kenyan newspaper Standard and Radio Free Europe to have stated that HIV/AIDS was originally developed by Western scientists in order to depopulate Africa.
The 1989 prize was awarded to the 14th Dalai Lama. This wasn't well-accepted by the Chinese government, which cited his separatist tendencies. Additionally, the Nobel Prize Committee cited their intention to put pressure on China.
The 1945 prize was awarded to Cordell Hull as "Former Secretary of State; Prominent participant in the originating of the UN". Hull was Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
As a Republic
I'm imagining your various organs in line for the polls. Most of 'em vote for your brain.
ETA: aw, you changed it.
Thanks for the reminder! In honor of this, I donated to the "Against Malaria Foundation". Not all of us have the chance to save the world, but every human life saved is precious! :)
I don't know whether to upvote you as being absolutely hilarious or downvote you for shameless trolling.
The instructions on donating on that page are dead, but they seem to have pointed to the Association of World Citizens, which takes checks by mail for Petrov. Unfortunately, their site is dead and I see little in google for the past month, so I'm not sure it's possible any more to donate to Petrov.
No, I don't see it as good, I guess I was misunderstood.
I'm considering two alternative scenarios:
Everyone here seems to automatically see scenario 1 as worse than scenario 2. But I have the impression that this is mostly a cached thought. Did people really think it through, compare the scenarios?
A lot of comments here pointed out that the climate problems of 1 would be terrible. The thing is though, what are the climate problems of scenario 2? Both of them are unknowns, we don't know for sure.
Scenario 2 is the status quo scenario, just let the world run as it is, it certainly will be better than the so-terrible scenario 1. Maybe it will, maybe not.
Why not? How do you know this? AFAIK once there is a global warming chain reaction it may well be the end of all forests the Amazon including and the end of most agriculture. What are we going to eat afterwards?
I'm not claiming that 1 would be better, I'm just questioning the reasoning of choosing 2 over 1 without providing the burden of proof.
At the end it boils down to the basic question of rationality: How do you know what you know?
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.
Of course scenario 1 is not automatically better than scenario 2. But as the only difference between them as defined is that scenario 1 involves nuclear war and climate problems, I think ArisKatsaris is right in sticking you with the burden of proof.