Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

steven comments on 9/26 is Petrov Day - Less Wrong

101 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 September 2007 04:14PM

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

Comments (66)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: steven 26 September 2007 05:24:22PM 5 points [-]

Is it your actual opinion that nuclear war between the US and USSR would have destroyed the world (or human civilization), or was that just a figure of speech? The distinction seems worth upholding.

Comment author: mbh007 27 September 2010 05:35:14AM 1 point [-]

I'd say its fact. Considering we employed the Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine during the Cold War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Comment author: Jimmc 29 September 2010 07:39:08PM 6 points [-]

This is actually not that relevant. The only question is whether humanity could survive a Nuclear Winter...

Comment author: robertskmiles 13 September 2012 10:27:07PM *  10 points [-]

He didn't say "Wipe out humanity", he said "destroy the world". I'd say a global thermonuclear conflict would do enough damage to call the world destroyed, even if humanity wasn't utterly and irrevocably annihilated.

If I smashed your phone against a wall, you'd say I'd destroyed it, even if it could in principle be repaired.

Comment author: RavenChair 30 September 2012 03:26:55PM 5 points [-]

The answer here falls to semantics. 1. Yes, it's probably just meant as a figure of speech; in which case, it's acceptable. 2. He said "world" and not "planet". "World" can be defined as a sphere of human influence; in which case, it's also accurate. So, yes, he kept the world from being destroyed.