CarlShulman comments on Existential Risk - Less Wrong

28 Post author: lukeprog 15 November 2011 02:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (108)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: kilobug 15 November 2011 05:01:18PM 8 points [-]

"Destroy the world" can mean many things. There aren't nearly enough nuclear weapons to blast Earth itself, the planet will continue to exist, of course.

The raw destructive power of nukes may not be enough to kill most of humanity, yes. Targeted on major cities, it'll still kill an enormous amount of people, an overwhelming majority of the targeted country for industrial (ie, urban) countries.

But that's forgetting all the "secondary effects" : direct radioactive fallouts, radioactive contamination of rivers and water sources, nuclear winter, ... those are pretty sure to obliterate in the few next years most of the remaining humanity. Maybe not all of us. Maybe a few would survive, in a scorched Earth, without much left of technological civilization. That's pretty much "destroy the world" to me.

Comment author: CarlShulman 15 November 2011 10:54:27PM *  5 points [-]

This survey's median estimates rate nuclear war as ten times as likely to kill a billion people in the 21st century as to cause human extinction: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf

Comment author: steven0461 15 November 2011 11:29:54PM 2 points [-]

How many of the respondents had any specific expertise on nuclear wars?

Comment author: CarlShulman 15 November 2011 11:33:39PM 3 points [-]

A handful, who had given presentations to the rest of the group with discussion. Also climate folks.

Comment author: steven0461 15 November 2011 11:36:12PM 1 point [-]

Do you know anything about what their estimates were?

Comment author: CarlShulman 15 November 2011 11:49:55PM 0 points [-]

Not broken out.