> Human civilization has been around for ~10,000 years
There have been many civilisations in that time period, almost all of which have vanished. Why should this one be different?
Re:Lessons for a Young Scientist
by AQuantized on Friday January 10, 2020 @06:10PM
(#22016609)
Even if we can derive 'more from less', the massive absolute amount that we are deriving is large enough to have significant negative ramifications, such as global heating and all that implies.
On top of that, the number of nations armed with nuclear weapons capable of igniting a conflict that could wipe out the majority of civilization in weeks continues to grow. That's certainly not a context that has been present for thousands of years; rather less than 80.
It takes a very small number of people willing to use nuclear weapons for the bad side of the prediction to come true
And 80 years is a long time for mad people to come to power - if our current worldwide political landscape is any indication, democracy may be a trigger rather than a deterrent for nuclear destruction, in the sense that it may select for progressively more extremist leaders
I can't understand this line of thinking.
Human civilization has been around for ~10,000 years, and in the past two centuries nearly every metric related to human well-being has improved (see The Rational Optimist or Enlightenment Now).
And this isn't coming at the expense of the natural world, which is better protected as the world gets more technologically advanced and wealthier (More From Less by Andrew McAfee and numerous other sources).
Why would all of this reverse so rapidly in the next 80 years?