What are humans like?

[Chiki]

You are right. The greatest threat to humanity is ourselves. That is why it is imperative to ban nuclear weapons.

It doesn't matter if we "ban" nuclear weapons. The US and Russia aren't going to obey that ban. It doesn't even matter if the US and Russia decide to destroy all their nuclear weapons, because it'd so obviously be a lie, and because they can rebuild them in secret or during war if they wanted to.

If the greatest threat to humanity is humanity, that seems kinda pathetic, right? If our goal is to survive, we sure aren't doing that so well! We have a lot to admire ants for.

Intelligence is a blessing but it's a curse too. The world isn't black and white: you can't just assume humans are superior and say "WE'RE INTELLIGENT" without considering what intelligence is, why it's good for and what it can lead to

Edited February 21, 2014 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

Nuclear deterrence might actually be true for small scale war, but it's plain stupidity to deny that there's always the chance of humanity going extinct from a nuclear war. Just 50 years ago, Kennedy said there was a 33.3%-50 chance of a nuclear war. It obviously matters if the person with the power to start a nuclear war thought that it was likely. You'd just either have to be ignorant beyond belief or just not very sharp to not see this.

It might not be as great an issue today, but it's discomforting to know that an egotistical loon can cause the death of a great portion of humanity if he/she becomes the president of the US or Russia.

You didn't quite comprehend Esau's post, I feel.

You are right. The greatest threat to humanity is ourselves. That is why it is imperative to ban nuclear weapons.

Impossible. We need only to never use them. Instead, we should focus on perfecting nuclear reactors.

[Naughx]

Impossible. We need only to never use them. Instead, we should focus on perfecting nuclear reactors.

Nuclear Fusion > Nuclear Fission.

[Esau of Isaac]

Nuclear deterrence might actually be true for small scale war, but it's plain stupidity to deny that there's always the chance of humanity going extinct from a nuclear war. Just 50 years ago, Kennedy said there was a 33.3%-50 chance of a nuclear war.

I'm speaking from a general point of view but even in practice should we take that evaluation at face value? Nevermind that it doesn't really dispute what I said. Had there been no threat of nuclear armageddon there absolutely would have been open military conflict. The threat of nuclear conflagration is what avoided that event in the first place.

I'm not saying that nuclear weapons aren't dangerous. I am saying that they were an important deterrent that shouldn't be ignored.

[Chiki]

Nevermind that it doesn't really dispute what I said. Had there been no threat of nuclear armageddon there absolutely would have been open military conflict. The threat of nuclear conflagration is what avoided that event in the first place.

I'm not disputing this sentence:

For that matter, it's a common view that the nuclear buildup during the Cold War was one of the most primary reasons actual military conflict never arose.

That should have been clear from the very first thing I said:

Nuclear deterrence might actually be true for small scale war,

What I am disputing is this:

And with today's global economy, the notion of another World War is more than a bit preposterous.

This is not how many people think. Just look at Kennedy and Khrushchev, two men willing to risk nuclear war for the sake of measuring their penises. Khrushchev was willing to risk nuclear war just so he could put nuclear weapons aimed at America in Cuba, and Kennedy gave us the perfect example of a double standard by not wanting to remove missiles from Italy and Turkey, which were right next to the Soviet Union. The fact that this required negotiation in the first place is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if the economy is at stake and it doesn't matter if the lives of millions of people are at stake. Kennedy wouldn't really care about that. The Cuban Missile Crisis just proves this viewpoint wrong. The only thing needed to trigger another World War are two things: a lust for power and a huge ego.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Chiki

[Esau of Isaac]

Why do you feel that the Cuban Missile Crisis did not end up with any actual war? Do you feel that the looming threat of mutually assured destruction was not considered by the two leaders?

And it is how many people think. With respect to your stunning evaluation of other nations' embittered rivalries, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that an otherwise sane human beings would enter into a massive global war when each others' economies are all interdependent on one another; there's no gain to be had, such conflict is simply heading the way of the dinosaur as time goes on.

[Chiki]

Why do you feel that the Cuban Missile Crisis did not end up with any actual war? Do you feel that the looming threat of mutually assured destruction was not considered by the two leaders?

This doesn't disprove my point. The fact that they were willing to risk so much for so little is proof of the fact that they care less about mutually assured destruction than we do. It's trivially true that they cared about it for the sake of themselves and their family. But it's also true that they don't care as much as we do if they were willing to risk a lot.

it's a bit presumptuous to assume that an otherwise sane human beings would enter into a massive global war when each others' economies are all interdependent on one another; there's no gain to be had, such conflict is simply heading the way of the dinosaur as time goes on.

No gain to be had, lol. People aren't robots: they don't calculate what they have to gain and lose in terms of material value. Gain and loss are subjective things to us, and easily influenced by ego and bias. For example, I could have applied to a bunch of national scholarships if I wanted to and could have gained thousands and thousands of dollars, but I chose not to because I didn't want to bother my professors with recommendation letters and bother writing essays. It was not an optimal choice but I was influenced by subjective factors.

The point I'm going to make now, though, shows how silly your point is. A nuclear war may have nothing to do with gain and loss at all if it's started based on false information or something else. Back in 1995 we came extremely close to nuclear war during the Norwegian rocket incident due to an accident. As long as people have power over such decisions, there's always a chance it could occur.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Chiki

[Esau of Isaac]

This doesn't disprove my point. The fact that they were willing to risk so much for so little is proof of the fact that they care less about mutually assured destruction than we do. It's trivially true that they cared about it for the sake of themselves and their family.

The fact that they didn't actually come to war proves that they care more about mutually assured destruction than was needed to cause a global war.

No gain to be had, lol. People aren't robots: they don't calculate what they have to gain and lose in terms of material value. Gain and loss are subjective things to us, and easily influenced by ego and bias. For example, I could have applied to a bunch of national scholarships if I wanted to and could have gained thousands and thousands of dollars, but I chose not to because I didn't want to bother my professors with recommendation letters and bother writing essays. It was not an optimal choice but I was influen

People don't need to be robots to be functioning and capable of evaluating what is not good for them and their people. I'm not arguing that leaders don't have ego and bias, I am arguing that a person who comes to lead a nation is capable of understanding that doing something which actively hurts them and the people they lead is in all likelihood not going to happen. Who cares if some insane person could possibly do it? I'm not arguing it's impossible, I'm arguing it's very unlikely. And given the great lack of war between great powers in the intervening decades as economic globalization became a reality, I'd argue my take is a bit fairer than the idea that we are always one step away from annihilation.

The point I'm going to make now, though, shows how silly your point iis. A nuclear war may have nothing to do with gain and loss at all if it's started based on false information or something else. Back in 1995 we came extremely close to nuclear war during the Norwegian rocket incident due to an accident. As long as people have power over such decisions, there's always a chance it could occur.

Accidents have actually happened more than once which led to tense situations of uncertainty. I never argued that the threat of MAD was an airtight ideology, simply that it was ultimately beneficial to the continued peace to reach the globalization we have today.

I mean, do you think Kruschev would have shown as much restraint with the absence of the possibility of nuclear annihilation? If not, doesn't that mean that the possibility of another massive war in that case was higher? I mean you don't think he would have desired more peace in a situation where his opponent was less able to harm him and his people, do you?

[FionordeQuester]

In my opinion, people are generally good, but are, unfortunately, in general, woefully in-equipped to deal with all of the problems and temptations of the world, hence why so many of them either give up, kill themselves, let themselves lose their way, silence their compassion, or otherwise feel worthless. They WANT to be good, but they have no idea where to start on both worldly and spiritual issues. And of course, that's not including those who are raised into doing evil.

I will say though that I take solace in the fact that for every Nazi army, there's an equally dedicated police force. For every Ted Bundy, we have a Fred Rogers. For every Osama Bin Laden, we also have a Mahatma Ghandi. And for every Josef Stalin, we have a Martin Luther King.

Edited February 21, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Naughx]

In my opinion, people are generally good, but are, unfortunately, in general, woefully in-equipped to deal with all of the problems and temptations of the world, hence why so many of them either give up, kill themselves, let themselves lose their way, silence their compassion, or otherwise feel worthless. They WANT to be good, but they have no idea where to start on both worldly and spiritual issues. And of course, that's not including those who are raised into doing evil.

I will say though that I take solace in the fact that for every Nazi army, there's an equally dedicated police force. For every Ted Bundy, we have a Fred Rogers. For every Osama Bin Laden, we also have a Mahatma Ghandi. And for every Josef Stalin, we have a Martin Luther King.

I don't know... Alot of people got a flawed morality, many of middle-eastern populace are fine with executing/jailing homosexuals because of religion.

[FionordeQuester]

I don't know... Alot of people got a flawed morality, many of middle-eastern populace are fine with executing/jailing homosexuals because of religion.

How well do you know those people? You live in Canada, don't you? So I'm guessing you don't quite know all the facts when it comes to the Middle East.

[dondon151]

I don't know... Alot of people got a flawed morality, many of middle-eastern populace are fine with executing/jailing homosexuals because of religion.

don't worry, fionordequester thinks it's okay to massacre people because of religion.

blah's response to my previous post was a non sequitur, so i assume that he concedes the point.

[eclipse]

Please don't turn this into a mudslinging thread.

[Wen Yang]

Human beings are the most vile, selfish, cruel, and horrible creatures that has ever walked the earth. We are parasites to the planet, and will likely keep greedily squeezing every bit out of the planet till it dies and takes us with it. We've driven so many other species to extinction it isn't funny.

And frankly? I'm glad we are that way, since otherwise chances are we probably wouldn't even exist nowadays.

[FionordeQuester]

EDIT: I did have a point here...but then I realized I was wrong.

Edited February 21, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[blah the Prussian]

It doesn't matter if we "ban" nuclear weapons. The US and Russia aren't going to obey that ban. It doesn't even matter if the US and Russia decide to destroy all their nuclear weapons, because it'd so obviously be a lie, and because they can rebuild them in secret or during war if they wanted to.

If the greatest threat to humanity is humanity, that seems kinda pathetic, right? If our goal is to survive, we sure aren't doing that so well! We have a lot to admire ants for.

Intelligence is a blessing but it's a curse too. The world isn't black and white: you can't just assume humans are superior and say "WE'RE INTELLIGENT" without considering what intelligence is, why it's good for and what it can lead to

We are also the only species not threatened in any way by another species. Ants, on the other hand... If we lacked intelligence, we would have gone extinct in the Ice Age. Nuclear destruction is not assured, as myself and Essau said. In fact, it is much less likely than it was during the Cold War. At this point, with everyone so dependent on each others economies, no one has any reason to go to war. The only real threat is Iran, and Isreal seems to have them in check.

[dondon151]

paleontological evidence suggests that some time near the beginning of human history, there was a population bottleneck that narrowly drove the human population to extinction.

[Phoenix Wright]

Nuclear Fusion > Nuclear Fission.

We are quite a ways away from replicating nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission, on the other hand, we are much closer to 'perfecting.' All it'll take is some money and a couple decades.

dondon, that was most likely due to a natural disaster, not another species (if your post was in reply to blah).

[dondon151]

dondon, that was most likely due to a natural disaster, not another species (if your post was in reply to blah).

i don't understand why you felt the need to point this out. natural disasters are relevant to this discussion.

[Phoenix Wright]

because his point was that no other species is a threat to us. this was also why i put the aside, "if your post was in reply to blah."

[dondon151]

because his point was that no other species is a threat to us. this was also why i put the aside, "if your post was in reply to blah."

he said more than just that:

If we lacked intelligence, we would have gone extinct in the Ice Age.

implying that environment was not a challenge.

[Esau of Isaac]

We are quite a ways away from replicating nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission, on the other hand, we are much closer to 'perfecting.' All it'll take is some money and a couple decades.

dondon, that was most likely due to a natural disaster, not another species (if your post was in reply to blah).

While I'm not well-versed in the actual science of nuclear fusion like most people, I've read some pretty interesting articles that are excited about recent experiments in which scientists were capable of receiving more energy in output than input in a fusion reaction.

Now where's my damn flying car :S

[blah the Prussian]

paleontological evidence suggests that some time near the beginning of human history, there was a population bottleneck that narrowly drove the human population to extinction.

Yes, and that was back at the time of cavemen. It is almost impossible for that to happen now.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes, and that was back at the time of cavemen. It is almost impossible for that to happen now.

No it isn't.

[blah the Prussian]

No it isn't.

How would it happen now?