Not only that, but terrorism has thrown a spanner into the concept of MAD.

A suitcase nuke goes off in downtown New York. Who did it? Sure, *some* country will get the blame, but it's not necessarily the right one. There might not even be *right country* since a terrorist organization is an ideal that crosses borders, not a country in itself.

Yeap. Something like that.

---

Added on May 24, 2010, 10:01 pmOkay, this isn't really an archive or an ark in the strictest sense, but a doomsday seed bank is already in existence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

This post has been edited by VMSmith: May 24 2010, 10:01 PM

Yes, that's what I meant. The commies were cold blooded but rational. Can't say the same about the fundamentalists.

This might sound batsh*t crazy but in the larger scheme of things, wouldn't preventing a full scale nuclear war only delay that destruction-rejuvenation cycle that might propel humanity to the next stage? If the survivors make it thru the nuclear winter that is.

Thanks for the seed bank reference... I think I saw it on National Geographic.


This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 24 2010, 10:13 PM

There's a lot more people asking this than you might think. The doomer forums I lurk at especially, have quite a few people wondering if a fast crash (from anything, not just global nuke warfare) might be better for the human race in the long run.

This post has been edited by VMSmith: May 24 2010, 10:13 PM

Yeah, how not to think like that when people appreciate the absolute mess we've created for ourselves. Its tough to decide where a better future lies - continue our present path and hope people come to their senses soon enough or let some nutjob be the unspoken villain that humanity desperately needs to reboot itself.

I think people will not come to their sense even after a holocust. As I have cited Confucius ideal never did get practise. It is only practise at your convinence. Imagine there is any road accident in a kampung. Who you think will crowd around to make a big fuss out of an injured chicken. Chinese, who know confucious teachings, will choose to apply "you die your business" and speed off.

the Russian and US have perfected the art of MAD, there are death man switch in their nuclear arsenal to automatically take revenge when the military and political leadership is wipe out. this death man switch does not increase the chance of nuclear war but decrease it because it let the generals be more calm when making decision during the shot windows when ICBM and bomber is detected and when the bomb hit, since revenge is assured so they can be more calm to decide if this is a false alarm, and not escalated to situation.

well the nuclear winter will be really hard to survive, simulation model show that there will be no food production for several years. even after the smoke clear and temprature return to normal the ozone will be depleted and UV radiation will increase 200% on earth surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

This post has been edited by robertngo: May 25 2010, 11:47 AM

Hey, that is why the kiasu stock pile the underground bunkers. They forgot the need to keep stock on skilled people. They come out of the aftermath. They had the existing knowledge stored in hard disk. They cant make a simple bolt and nut. They may not even know where to find nickel cadmium to power their PC.

This post has been edited by faceless: May 25 2010, 12:01 PM

if there is a nuclear winter scenario, the biggest problem will be to restart food production and try not to get cancer from the increased radiation, there are a project to store the world's knowledge under the swiss alps along with all the device required to read those information. but that will not be usefull in the first few years as the need is more to survival.

Yes Robert. Iam sure before comming out of the bunkers they will ensure it is safe to come out. Their food supply would also cater more to encounter any incontingensies.

True what you say. The guy who says "you die your business" will only make it his business when he ends up with 20 stitches on his head after running over the chicken. Pain is our biggest teacher and if we don't learn, its often becoz the pain isn't big enough. And if the pain of nuclear war isn't big enough, then extinction at our own hands will be the logical end.

Wow, we had come to an end already? Geezzz I was just begining to have fun.

Of course we haven't come to an end. Nuclear war belum lagi mah....

What I mean is we had the answer to the questions we seek where this topic is concern.

HABIS CERITA

This post has been edited by faceless: May 25 2010, 04:01 PM

Well, we haven't discussed if it is possible to close the tech/wisdom gap without resorting to a nuclear war. Confucius, Lao Tze and all other moral teachers have tried to no avail so I have to ask, if people cannot learn from good advice, is the pain of trial and error the only option we have to close that gap?

How about going to the root of this stubbornness ... what are the reasons behind it? Did it play a role in the survival of our species or did we survive in spite of it?


This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 25 2010, 05:10 PM

Wow, you stil got more to say. Yuppiee, looks like the fun can continue.

The unwillingness to heed good advise had to with who want to start being a good samaritian. If you were just walking along beside or behind the good samaritian what would you have commented in your heart? To be honest, I would say "Stupid A-hole". I wonder how many will soil their hands and offer help. This self seeking mentality is a major factor contributing to our survival.

This brings us to the study of the evolution of social behaviour. The classic question posed: Why would an individual "engage in a potentially deleterious interaction - such as those denoted by spite and altruism - since Darwinian theory placed individual fitness at a premium for evolutionary success. At the very least, and individual engaging in altruistic acts is spending time which could be better used courting females or gathering resources; at worst, it could incur injury (or even death) without any tangible reward in exchange."

In other words, why be good when we can be having selfish fun?

A biologist named W. D. Hamilton attempted an answer and came out with a formula on kin selection ( c < rb ) where c = cost to the doer, r = relatedness between actor and recipient, b = benefit to the recipient.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch8/chap8.htm

The formula seems to support the Dawkins' "selfish gene" concept that proposes people are many times more likely to kelp kin than strangers. My question with Hamilton's formula is what happens when r = 0 which is the good samaritan scenario. If the resultant c < 0, then why isn't everyone stumbling over themselves helping out strangers? Helping strangers being one of the by-products of closing the tech/wisdom gap.

I've yet to read the concept of reciprocal altruism and "The Prisoner's Dilemma" in social evolution theory. Perhaps that'll explain the missing link.

You can easily google up on The Prisoner's Dilemma and read up on it. It's not that hard a concept to grasp...

The Earth will not rest in peace so long Kim Jong Ill still walks this planet.

even more trouble if he kick the bucket and not yet establish a successor, if the country decent into a bloody power struggle it will be even more dangerous to the world.

Why you like to quote a mat salleh? Why you cant say, as the old chinese saying goes "the closer relation the better for butchering". The poor Hamilton just realised it when the chinese knew is ages ago and handed the knowledge down through a prose.

human action cant be put into mathematical fomula. You have brought up r=0 as a weakness. Likewise r=∞ will also cause it to fail. Parents, in general, are overly protective of their offsprings. There are isolated cases like Malaysians being well know for raping their own daughters.

This post has been edited by faceless: May 26 2010, 02:01 PM