You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

VoiceOfRa comments on Reducing Catastrophic Risks, A Practical Introduction - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: RyanCarey 09 September 2015 10:39PM

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

Comments (9)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 11 September 2015 01:51:22AM *  0 points [-]

You're talking mostly about slowing growth or difficulties in rebuilding. But my question is different: given the death of ~10% of the population, why would the civilization collapse at all?

Let's make it a bit more concrete. Assume the Yellowstone supervolcano unexpectedly blows up. Much of North America is rendered temporarily uninhabitable, there are a few years without summer leading to crop failures all around the world with consequent famines. Let's say 10-20% of the people on Earth die within, say, three years.

Given this scenario, why would humanity devolve? No knowledge is lost. Most everyone is much poorer, but that's not a big deal on the "back to stone age" level. We can still build machinery and computers, we can generate electricity, etc. etc.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 14 September 2015 03:27:18AM 2 points [-]

Given this scenario, why would humanity devolve? No knowledge is lost. Most everyone is much poorer, but that's not a big deal on the "back to stone age" level. We can still build machinery and computers, we can generate electricity, etc. etc.

Agreed, we could probably recover from a natural disaster, or even a war. On the other hand improperly handling the current migrant crisis in Europe may very well ultimately be as disastrous as Emperor Valens' decision to let the Visigothic refugees fleeing the Huns settle south of the Danube.