Mutant Zombie Biker
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:39 am
Location: Sussex, England.
Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:34 pm
Controversial post: Nuclear War
It may sound insane, but I think that the "best" realistic outcome at this point, from the long-term point of view of both human and non-human life forms, is an all-out nuclear exchange. I think climate change is very close to being out of control - that we are very close to the "point of no return" where mutualy-reinforcing positive feedback mechanisms take over and send the climate into a new hot state, Paleocene/Eocene-style. That time it lasted 200,000 years. Unless something drastic happens to change the current trajectory of events, I think that's were we are heading.
Effects of a nuclear exchange on...
1) Humans alive now.
An unmitigated disaster. Most of the really serious damage will occur to large population centres and industry. A significant proportion of the global population would die in the initial exchange. More would starve in the first two or three years due to crop failures all over the world. And the remaining population would be at increased risk of dying early from radiation-related diseases. It would take several decades before the radiation faded down to levels which don't having a major impact on humans.
2) The climate.
Global warming would be stopped in its tracks for a while. Soot in the upper atmosphere would cause temperatures to drop below anything in recorded history, ice caps and glaciers would start growing again...and fast. The destruction of much of the world's industrial and population centres would also result in a drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions of all sorts, and the loss of population would lead to an increase in vegetative cover in places reclaimed by the wild. It would take about ten years for the soot to disperse. Eventually, if the reduced population continues to pump even more greenhouse gases into the air then the problem would return, but several decades of time will have been bought at the very least.
3) The rest of the ecosystem.
Most things would survive the initial exchange largely unscathed. Provided a breeding population of each species has survived somewhere, it will be able to repopulate. So apart from a few rare species which were unlucky enough to be localised in the wrong place, most of the existing biodiversity would survive. As the soot cleared, a golden age for wildlife would dawn in the places where the bombs went off, just as it has at Chernobyl. Some species would be the first to colonise the most radiated areas because of adaptations which boost their DNA repair mechanisms (e.g. birch.) In the surrounding areas, where no humans would dare to set foot, the rest of the ecosystem would not just survive, but thrive.
4) Humans in 1000 years.
Would probably be better off. Smaller global population of humans, climate less likely to be unfixably screwed up, and maybe even a society which had finally learned some lessons from its terrible past.
Overall conclusion: Of the realistic possibilities at this point in time, a global nuclear exchange is probably the best outcome, both in terms of net human suffering, and in the long-term health of "Gaia". The big losers in this scenario are humans alive today and those born in the coming decades. But exactly that same group of humans are likely to be doomed to die early anyway, aren't they? We're screwed either way. This way, many would die more quickly, and suffer less (would you prefer being vapourised or slowly starving to death?)
Effects of a nuclear exchange on...
1) Humans alive now.
An unmitigated disaster. Most of the really serious damage will occur to large population centres and industry. A significant proportion of the global population would die in the initial exchange. More would starve in the first two or three years due to crop failures all over the world. And the remaining population would be at increased risk of dying early from radiation-related diseases. It would take several decades before the radiation faded down to levels which don't having a major impact on humans.
2) The climate.
Global warming would be stopped in its tracks for a while. Soot in the upper atmosphere would cause temperatures to drop below anything in recorded history, ice caps and glaciers would start growing again...and fast. The destruction of much of the world's industrial and population centres would also result in a drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions of all sorts, and the loss of population would lead to an increase in vegetative cover in places reclaimed by the wild. It would take about ten years for the soot to disperse. Eventually, if the reduced population continues to pump even more greenhouse gases into the air then the problem would return, but several decades of time will have been bought at the very least.
3) The rest of the ecosystem.
Most things would survive the initial exchange largely unscathed. Provided a breeding population of each species has survived somewhere, it will be able to repopulate. So apart from a few rare species which were unlucky enough to be localised in the wrong place, most of the existing biodiversity would survive. As the soot cleared, a golden age for wildlife would dawn in the places where the bombs went off, just as it has at Chernobyl. Some species would be the first to colonise the most radiated areas because of adaptations which boost their DNA repair mechanisms (e.g. birch.) In the surrounding areas, where no humans would dare to set foot, the rest of the ecosystem would not just survive, but thrive.
4) Humans in 1000 years.
Would probably be better off. Smaller global population of humans, climate less likely to be unfixably screwed up, and maybe even a society which had finally learned some lessons from its terrible past.
Overall conclusion: Of the realistic possibilities at this point in time, a global nuclear exchange is probably the best outcome, both in terms of net human suffering, and in the long-term health of "Gaia". The big losers in this scenario are humans alive today and those born in the coming decades. But exactly that same group of humans are likely to be doomed to die early anyway, aren't they? We're screwed either way. This way, many would die more quickly, and suffer less (would you prefer being vapourised or slowly starving to death?)
"Whether you are interested in moksha, liberation, freedom, transformation, you name it, you are interested in happiness without one moment of unhappiness, pleasure without pain. But there is no way you can have one without the other." - UG
