Do you think that the world today is more fragile?
Depends on the threat. More fragile with respect to, say, disruption of trade networks. Less fragile with respect to e.g. a new pathogen.
You also have to be careful about the yardsticks you're using. Something like a 25% drop in GDP would be treated as a collapse and the end of the world in the developed countries. But in this scenario how many people will starve to death? I expect the number to be approximately zero. In a preindustrial society, on the other hand, a collapse basically meant that most people died.
the very existence of nuclear power plants
How many deaths did all the nuclear power plant accidents, etc. cause, in total?
is our optimized for the number of people that there are on the planet
What do you mean, "optimized"? Optimized for what?
Depends on the threat. More fragile with respect to, say, disruption of trade networks. Less fragile with respect to e.g. a new pathogen.
Sure, I've not specified. With respect to an extinction event that removes a substantial quota of the world population.
How many deaths did all the nuclear power plant accidents, etc. cause, in total?
Ballpark-y less than a million. On the other hand, if x% people who are operating power plants now would disappear, there would be many more accidents. The point is: how much is that percentage?
...What do you mean, "
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "