What are the possible outcomes concerning nuclear weapons and civilizations going into the future?

[Jay Sea]

Excerpt from On the Origin of God(s) by means of Supernatural Selection:

There appears to be three possible outcomes with respect to nuclear weapons as the future course of civilizations unfolds. The first and most desirable of which would be for the complete and total elimination of all nuclear weapons from all nations. If nuclear weapons did not exist at all, then it is simply impossible for them to ever be used.

The second possibility is for nuclear weapons to be used again at some point in the future, perhaps during the course of warfare between great powers and their satellite states, or through acts of terrorism by political or religious groups who managed to obtain nuclear devices, or the outcome of accidental firings or technical glitches further setting off an unfortunate chain of events; the number of such scenarios we could conjure up is limited only by our imaginations.

The third possibility is an interesting one, in which nuclear weapons will continue to exist indefinitely, perhaps deployed amongst future nations in strategic quantities and under similar doctrines as they do today, but are never, ever to be used again, neither intentionally during times of war nor accidentally during times of peace; those who argue in favour of the M.A.D. doctrine as an effective form of strategic deterrence, and so justifies the continued existence of nuclear weapons must implicitly accept this proposition, but does it seem plausible?

While proponents are correct to point out that nuclear weapons have been avoided thus far post World War II; that fact alone however, could hardly satisfy any critic who would be quick to remind them that the reality of wars and bloodsheds have been an inescapable part of human history since time immemorial. Nuclear weapons still remain a relatively new addition to mankind's destructive arsenal, and their true purposes have yet to endure the test of time. Could the threat of mutually assured destruction, to be made either with nuclear weapons or some futuristic weapon systems possessing even deadlier capabilities, be able to confine the dangers of actual annihilation to the realm of mere possibilities, and never to realize its full destructive potentials? Can civilizations coexist with nuclear weapons indefinitely into the future?

 

[red24]

Some idiots at Pentagon and probably elsewhere too believe they can win a nuclear war. This is the level of human intelligence nowadays. But regardless of nuclear war, which may or may not happen, humans are destroyed anyway as a species by consumerism, porn, capitalism and, like someone said in a film, the desire for more. Desire for more is hardwired into the human brain and it will lead to extinction. No need for nukes and other scapegoats. The demons are within not outside.

 

[Jay Sea]

Some idiots at Pentagon and probably elsewhere too believe they can win a nuclear war. This is the level of human intelligence nowadays. But regardless of nuclear war, which may or may not happen, humans are destroyed anyway as a species by consumerism, porn, capitalism and, like someone said in a film, the desire for more. Desire for more is hardwired into the human brain and it will lead to extinction. No need for nukes and other scapegoats. The demons are within not outside.

Is the desire for more always a detrimental influence on human psychology and behaviour? For example, what if someone desires more knowledge? More peace? More tolerance? Perhaps there is a purpose to this desire as it provides a motive for making positive changes? And even if such desires are purely selfish in nature, what is the relevance of self-control?

 

[red24]

Knowledge acquisition was always a byproduct of the advances in warfare. The nowadays electronic computer only appeared because of the Manhattan Project, whose purpose was obviously the atomic bomb, and the purpose of the nowadays AI race is probably the desire to either manage a preemptive nuclear first strike, or to control the population in order to conduct counter intelligence operations against China. Yes, in theory, one can desire more knowledge, practically man will always want just more power. So the desire for more is not itrinsically good because its object is never good, always evil.

Self-control, in theory, might exist. Practically it does exist only as a result of the fear of other people's reactions. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

 

[Jay Sea]

Knowledge acquisition was always a byproduct of the advances in warfare. The nowadays electronic computer only appeared because of the Manhattan Project, whose purpose was obviously the atomic bomb, and the purpose of the nowadays AI race is probably the desire to either manage a preemptive nuclear first strike, or to control the population in order to conduct counter intelligence operations against China. Yes, in theory, one can desire more knowledge, practically man will always want just more power. So the desire for more is not itrinsically good because its object is never good, always evil.

Self-control, in theory, might exist. Practically it does exist only as a result of the fear of other people's reactions. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

if one does not have any "desires for more", perhaps one could be satisfied with just what one has. To the very interesting point you raised that the desire for more is not intrinsically good, what if the object that one desires more of is "goodness" itself? what if one desires more good? Does that make one's "desire for more" at least a facilitator of good?

Fear is a powerful motivator for many, an effective form of social control that keeps all the "sheep" inline, but is fear really the only factor that motivates self-control? What about the anticipation of receiving future rewards by controlling oneself in the present moment?

 

[red24]

In theory, yes, it would. But I have yet to see a man who actually wants "the good" in itself. Being selfish is as human as having 2 legs. It is a whole different question if being selfish is good or evil and I dont want to divagate, but afaik, people's core motivation is always their own comfort. And because of the current state of affairs, the quest for comfort is anything but the quest for a pure "goodness".
But yes, in an ideal world the desire for more would manifest in both aspects, good and evil.

 

[Jay Sea]

In theory, yes, it would. But I have yet to see a man who actually wants "the good" in itself.

Which brings us to a very interesting question about what "good" is, can it be defined? is it relative or absolute? Is it objective or subjective? Just a small number of questions one could ask

 

[red24]

Good is absolute. However, humans are not absolute and do not have access to absolute concepts or states. However I feel that I am not mentally equipped to discuss these things. I never was good at philosophy.

 

[Jay Sea]

Good is absolute. However, humans are not absolute and do not have access to absolute concepts or states. However I feel that I am not mentally equipped to discuss these things. I never was good at philosophy.

philosophy need not be left to the "experts", in my humble view philosophy is simply the process of thinking about problems that intrigues the mind. If only the "experts" are allowed to think, then I fear this world is truly lost

 

[red24]

Moses'laws for example are absolute. I can't think of an instance where murder, perjury or sleeping with a married woman or with someone else's woman can be classified as good. I do not think I am a true Christian, and that is 100% not the point, as there may be other instances of Moses' laws from a completely different culture or paradigm, but who say equivalent things, my point here is that certain things are evil regardless of any circumstance. Same thing can be said about good, I can't find a positive counterpart for this, but, lets say, for example, to feed someone who is hungry cannot be classified other than good, and so on. There are instances of absolute good or evil, that was my point. Of course these are practical examples, not theoretical ones. Theory is always more difficult than practice.

 

[Jay Sea]

Good is absolute. However, humans are not absolute and do not have access to absolute concepts or states. However I feel that I am not mentally equipped to discuss these things. I never was good at philosophy.

if "good" is absolute in the sense that there could be nothing better, then perhaps one should be very careful about using that word, most often I hear people describing things to be "good" when that thing almost certainly could be better, as a simple example, a "good" friend may not necessarily be the "best" friend.

 

[red24]

I see your point. I don't have an answer right now.
There might be a a thing but that is merely semantics. For example, if you have 3 women in a room, the most beautiful from those 3 women is not necessarily beautiful 'per se'. In this regard, the relative superlative can be weaker than the word without superlative.
I can't see the same logic aplied to the comparative though but like i said I don't have an answer now. The only possible answer would be not semantic but ontological, and that would be that we do not have access on this earth to the full manifestation of an attribute, like "good". But that seems even as I say it pretty shallow and honestly, useless and even despicable, as I feel no need for something that I have no access to, to begin with.

 

[Jay Sea]

Moses'laws for example are absolute. I can't think of an instance where murder, perjury or sleeping with a married woman or with someone else's woman can be classified as good. I do not think I am a true Christian, and that is 100% not the point, as there may be other instances of Moses' laws from a completely different culture or paradigm, but who say equivalent things, my point here is that certain things are evil regardless of any circumstance. Same thing can be said about good, I can't find a positive counterpart for this, but, lets say, for example, to feed someone who is hungry cannot be classified other than good, and so on. There are instances of absolute good or evil, that was my point. Of course these are practical examples, not theoretical ones. Theory is always more difficult than practice.

Seems very reasonable to classify certain acts to be evil regardless of any circumstances, and to classify certain acts to be good regardless of any circumstances. But how does one deal with the problem (if it is a problem at all in your view), that other people might come to different ways of classifications?

For example, the story of Robin Hood, who stole from the rich and gave them to the poor, while the rich might classify stealing to be evil under all circumstances, the poor who benefited might not necessarily consider theft to be evil regardless of circumstances

My imagination is unfortunately lacking, but I think those more talented here could surely come up with some scenarios concerning murder, perjury or adultery that would make their classifications interesting? Murder especially since we are on a site called "sanctioned suicide" afterall

 

[red24]

I don't class suicide as murder to begin with. Suicide does not harm others.

In terms of the existence of different opinions, well, that is a very different subject and it takes a whole different and likely endless conversations, but (1) I do believe my own opinion as being true and I do not doubt it, and , (2) In terms of community values, like, murder is an action that touches not 1 person but at least 2, hence, by induction, a community. => There should be a standard agreed otherwise, there is no law at all as a concept, if anyone has its own law, there is no law at all, so law necessarily must be 1 for all.

In terms of Robin Hood, or, to generalize, Leon le Professionel, or any ethical hacker, or anyone who breaks the laws for a greater good, well, it is a very long discussion but basically, a wrong law should be replaced by a right law. That is the way that wrongs can be righted. To bypass a wrong law and to find ways of ignoring it it is poetic and romantic and heroic, but it does not solve the core issue. Which is, the wrong law still exists. The people still accept it. And Robin Hood is still an outlaw. Because he is an exception, the one who can afford to bypass the wrong law because he is either a superman, a hero or madman, but the other 99% still accept the despicable law that makes Robin Hood an outlaw and by this, they are denying his acts and his nature. There is more to this but like I said is a very long issue. Yes, Robin Hood seems right but he is still a thief because the rich still exist, and they should not exist. His acts are temporarily and they do not restore balance. He is a hero but his acts are still desperate.
Dostoievsky has a thorough explanation in "The great inquisitor" from the "Karamazov Brothers" about the nature of power. So does Etienne de la Boetie in " Discours sur la servitude volontaire"


Theft is still theft because society considers that the rich peoples'gold is rich people's gold. In a right world, Robin Hood would not be a thief cause the filthy rich would not exist. His acts do not change the world.

...I am aware of moral relativism, but I disagree with it. For example, I doubt murder can be classed as good in any reference system tbh. Also I do not support the death penalty.

 

[theboy]

maybe

 

[Jay Sea]

I don't class suicide as murder to begin with. Suicide does not harm others.

So many interesting and engaging points here, I hope others will join in this conversation and share some perspectives,

Suicide and murder are, as you rightly put, not classed as the same thing, and they are distinguishable on many basis, one being that suicide refers to the killing of oneself, while murder refers to the killing of another.

I suspect what you mean by "harm" refers to the causing of death to another? If through the act of suicide one causes their family and friends to suffer mental distress or a nervous breakdown, surely that would also qualify as some form of "harm"?

...I am aware of moral relativism, but I disagree with it. For example, I doubt murder can be classed as good in any reference system tbh. Also I do not support the death penalty.

I am receptive to your point, although I did think of some interesting cases that might encourage one to more carefully consider the moral relativism of "murder". I am reminded of a story I heard, that of a truck carrying flammable fuel lost control and crashed on the side of the road, the truck quickly caught on flames, the driver (X) is still alive, conscious, but trapped in his seat, his legs jammed by the metal debris and he has no possible way of getting out other than cutting off his own legs. X is in a lot of pain and agony as he is getting burned alive in the cabin, another driver (Y) arrives at the scene and he happens to have a gun, X asks to be shot by Y as he would rather die quickly by gunshot than suffer a painful death.

Assuming that X must either 1) die a slow and painful death being burned alive, or 2) get shot by Y and die instantly,

If Y does what X asks: shoots and kills him, can Y's actions be classified as "murder" in your view?

There should be a standard agreed otherwise, there is no law at all as a concept, if anyone has its own law, there is no law at all, so law necessarily must be 1 for all.

This to me is one of the most interesting points, I suppose the natural question is: what should this common set of law be, who should decide what it is, and what should be done to those who disobeys them?

 

[red24]

To your truck on fire scenario. The situation is what we define as euthanasia. That is not technically murder as it answers a request from another person to be killed. However, the mental consequences upon the person commiting the killing would be the same as in a case of murder. Also, technically, taking another life, even if legally would not bear any consequence, is equivalent to murder ontologically. Anyway, I cannot imagine a mental escape from the conseqences of having killed another human. So, while legally may not be classified as murder, and may be classified as an act of pity or of goodness, the conseqences would be the same.

To the legal system question. Very difficult answer. Who will answer it will he remembered as a founding father. I do have several ideas but none are practical, and all would require such change in the collective mind of humanity that they are more science fiction than actual answers. I will return with an answer.

To the psychological harm caused by suicide. That is trickier, and probably personal to each case. I will think of an answer.

 

[red24]

Primo, psychological harm done to the others should not have precedende on one's decision to commit suicide because this is akin to borderline .. lets say, emotional abuse, "faute de mieux", ( in lack of a better term) not as in, someone abuses you, 'cause he DOES NOT but as in... you LET someone else's emotions DICTATE your own. Yes I am being selfish, harsh and extremely reckless, but I do believe that one's emotions have precedence over another person's. Because, if, for example, is it generally accepted nowadays that a woman can tell a man that he must not be needy, and ask for more love than he should ask, then one is entitled to put his own emotions above anyone else's. I do believe this. Independence goes both ways, or none. So yes, harm it is, but not unacceptable.

Secundo, it depends on the case. It is STRICTLY PERSONAL. It is the only instance where there is not possible to generalize. If I work in a bakery I do what many bakers did before me. If I enhance Einstein's law I am but one on a long list of workers who starts with an unknown egyptian scribe or one of Hammurabi's aids, and goes through L'Hospital, Lobacevski and Planck, but I am not doing something essentialy different from what the first unknown scribe or the lonely Turing did, i.e. reading some secret physics law in an apple and trying to write it. The apple is the same.

If I commit suicide, this is as personal as it gets. Noone can claim precedence in theory and my act is both untransmissible and unexplainable. Like love. LOVE and death share the same mystery. They are as opposite as beauty and despair. As life and death. As your love and a whore. As being beautiful and being ugly. As life and death. They are extreme opposite and they deny each other with passion. Like God and Lucifer. But they do share one thing. They are PERSONAL.

 

[Edpal247]

No, they can not exist forever with nukes. Someone will get dumb and 3/4 of the planet will ctb whether they want to or not.

 

[DarkRange55]

Excerpt from On the Origin of God(s) by means of Supernatural Selection:

There appears to be three possible outcomes with respect to nuclear weapons as the future course of civilizations unfolds. The first and most desirable of which would be for the complete and total elimination of all nuclear weapons from all nations. If nuclear weapons did not exist at all, then it is simply impossible for them to ever be used.

The second possibility is for nuclear weapons to be used again at some point in the future, perhaps during the course of warfare between great powers and their satellite states, or through acts of terrorism by political or religious groups who managed to obtain nuclear devices, or the outcome of accidental firings or technical glitches further setting off an unfortunate chain of events; the number of such scenarios we could conjure up is limited only by our imaginations.

The third possibility is an interesting one, in which nuclear weapons will continue to exist indefinitely, perhaps deployed amongst future nations in strategic quantities and under similar doctrines as they do today, but are never, ever to be used again, neither intentionally during times of war nor accidentally during times of peace; those who argue in favour of the M.A.D. doctrine as an effective form of strategic deterrence, and so justifies the continued existence of nuclear weapons must implicitly accept this proposition, but does it seem plausible?

While proponents are correct to point out that nuclear weapons have been avoided thus far post World War II; that fact alone however, could hardly satisfy any critic who would be quick to remind them that the reality of wars and bloodsheds have been an inescapable part of human history since time immemorial. Nuclear weapons still remain a relatively new addition to mankind's destructive arsenal, and their true purposes have yet to endure the test of time. Could the threat of mutually assured destruction, to be made either with nuclear weapons or some futuristic weapon systems possessing even deadlier capabilities, be able to confine the dangers of actual annihilation to the realm of mere possibilities, and never to realize its full destructive potentials? Can civilizations coexist with nuclear weapons indefinitely into the future?

There appears to be three possible outcomes with respect to nuclear weapons as the future course of civilizations unfolds.

At least three.

The first and most desirable of which would be for the complete and total elimination of all nuclear weapons from all nations.

Opinion. Maybe we need them for diverting an asteroid...

If nuclear weapons did not exist at all, then it is simply impossible for them to ever be used.

False. They didn't exist in 1940, but were used less than 5 years later,

…destructive potentials? Can civilizations coexist with nuclear weapons indefinitely into the future?

Problematic, but I hope they can.

Knowledge acquisition was always a byproduct of the advances in warfare. The nowadays electronic computer only appeared because of the Manhattan Project, whose purpose was obviously the atomic bomb, and the purpose of the nowadays AI race is probably the desire to either manage a preemptive nuclear first strike, or to control the population in order to conduct counter intelligence operations against China. Yes, in theory, one can desire more knowledge, practically man will always want just more power. So the desire for more is not itrinsically good because its object is never good, always evil.

Self-control, in theory, might exist. Practically it does exist only as a result of the fear of other people's reactions. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Knowledge acquisition was always a byproduct of the advances in warfare.

Often, not always.

The nowadays electronic computer only appeared because of the Manhattan Project, whose purpose was obviously the atomic bomb,

No, it came more from calculating artillery tables.

and the purpose of the nowadays AI race is probably the desire to either manage a preemptive nuclear first strike, or to control the population in order to conduct counter intelligence operations against China.

What??? So civilian AI doesn't even exist???

 

[Jay Sea]

I'm glad to see some new posts

There appears to be three possible outcomes with respect to nuclear weapons as the future course of civilizations unfolds.

At least three.

I would be most interested to hear your thoughts on additional possible outcomes

The first and most desirable of which would be for the complete and total elimination of all nuclear weapons from all nations.

Opinion. Maybe we need them for diverting an asteroid...

I have heard of theories about this, but also heard of those who criticize this theory as been scientifically unsound, so unless there is research literature backing this up, it seems speculative at best. Although it does bring up a very interesting question as to whether there exists any beneficial utility associated with nuclear weapons at all?

If nuclear weapons did not exist at all, then it is simply impossible for them to ever be used.

False. They didn't exist in 1940, but were used less than 5 years later,

This is a rather amusing comment, as I thought the context of my earlier paragraph had made it rather obvious that what I meant to say is that one cannot "use" something that doesn't exist, but yes, as you've pointed out, nukes were not used in 1940 because they did not exist then, but shortly after coming into existence some 5 years later, they were used against Japan in a very real sense.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Somewhat unrelated, but I think if humanity is inevitably or at least very likely to have a nuclear conflict, it would be better for it to occur sooner rather than later.

A nuclear war today would likely wipe out 90-99% of humanity, but give it another 100, 200 years of development and continued proliferation, that percentage will grow closer and closer to 100%. Even if there was all out nuclear war today, it's very likely humanity would survive and ultimately recover, even if it takes a long time. But that won't be true forever as technology grows and proliferation continues.

Who knows, maybe a non-fatal nuclear apocalypse could even be a great lesson for humanity as a whole when we come out of it the other end.

 

[DarkRange55]

I'm glad to see some new posts


I would be most interested to hear your thoughts on additional possible outcomes

I have heard of theories about this, but also heard of those who criticize this theory as been scientifically unsound, so unless there is research literature backing this up, it seems speculative at best. Although it does bring up a very interesting question as to whether there exists any beneficial utility associated with nuclear weapons at all?



This is a rather amusing comment, as I thought the context of my earlier paragraph had made it rather obvious that what I meant to say is that one cannot "use" something that doesn't exist, but yes, as you've pointed out, nukes were not used in 1940 because they did not exist then, but shortly after coming into existence some 5 years later, they were used against Japan in a very real sense.

Elimination, use in war, and never used again = 3.
Used to nuke asteroids would be a fourth.

If you have time, you nudge the asteroid by blasting material from one side, and generate recoil.
Even the tiny Hiroshima nuke was ~4000 times as powerful as the DART impact...

Nuclear weapons probably have been the single greatest tool for peace. (Not saying this is forever). Nuclear weapons are the only reason that the Cold War did not become a hot war and the only reason that China has not taken Taiwan yet and the only reason that the Middle East has not formed some grand coalition to fuck up Israel and why India and Pakistan haven't had a full scale war. But I think it was Einstein or someone who was saying that its very unfortunate that we have to live in a world that requires that. What's really fascinating is that up until about midway through the Vietnam War, some in power still actively considered the use of tactical low-yield nuclear weapons to be a solid option. Amazing…

 

[Jay Sea]

Nuclear weapons probably have been the single greatest tool for peace. (Not saying this is forever). Nuclear weapons are the only reason that the Cold War did not become a hot war and the only reason that China has not taken Taiwan yet and the only reason that the Middle East has not formed some grand coalition to fuck up Israel and why India and Pakistan haven't had a full scale war. But I think it was Einstein or someone who was saying that its very unfortunate that we have to live in a world that requires that. What's really fascinating is that up until about midway through the Vietnam War, some in power still actively considered the use of tactical low-yield nuclear weapons to be a solid option. Amazing…

Out of curiosity...

when you say nuclear weapons are the ONLY reason, do you mean that they are the MAIN reason, or do you actually mean that they are the only reason (i.e. there are NO other reasons to explain why the Cold War did not become a hot war, or that China has not taken Taiwan, etc...)

 

[DarkRange55]

Out of curiosity...

when you say nuclear weapons are the ONLY reason, do you mean that they are the MAIN reason, or do you actually mean that they are the only reason (i.e. there are NO other reasons to explain why the Cold War did not become a hot war, or that China has not taken Taiwan, etc...)

Some who say only may think only, others may think main.
I think main.

While nuclear deterrence plays a significant and perhaps the most crucial role, various factors typically interact in complex geopolitical situations, and reducing these complexities to a single cause might oversimplify the reality. These include, but are not limited to, political, economic, diplomatic, geographic and military considerations.

Thank you for catching the error!