Are you asserting in the cases of Petrov and Arkhipov that events would not have turned into full scale war or that you think it is likely that additional events in the chain could have prevented that? If the first, I’m curious as to your logic. If the second, how proximate a cause do you need before you think you can speak of someone saving the world?
So: zero is my rounded estimate. The argument the destruction of civilisation would have ensued if Vasili Arkhipov had acted otherwise seems flimsy and insubstantial to me—and similarly for the other claimants. It all adds up to less than 0.5.
Are you asserting in the cases of Petrov and Arkhipov that events would not have turned into full scale war or that you think it is likely that additional events in the chain could have prevented that?
Self-evidently the destruction of the world requires the first and not the second. My estimate is based on the joint probability—and not on the consideration of just one factor or the other. So: since neither factor is insignificant, I reject the dichotomy.
how proximate a cause do you need before you think you can speak of someone saving the world?
It would usually be better to give probability estimates than to crudely divide the population into “saviours of the world”—and “everyone else”.
Petrov himself didn’t have the authority to launch a counterstrike, nor would his word have been sufficient for it—the system was designed to require multiple sources reporting a launch. Petrov did do something valuable anyway: he exposed a flaw in the Soviet early-warning system.
Because there has not yet been a potential disaster that bad, or because more than one person was important to the disaster being averted?
We do have enough nuclear weapons to kill all humans, and there is some chance of them all simultaneously being detonated—so I would not endorse the first clause. The second clause is not the only alternative, though: consider also the case where the probability of disaster per unit time is small.
We do have enough nuclear weapons to kill all humans
It’s not clear this is the case, actually, despite it being a part of the common culture. Nuclear winter style scenarios are possible, but even then it’s not clear that all humans would die.
Zero times: that has never happened.
Are you asserting in the cases of Petrov and Arkhipov that events would not have turned into full scale war or that you think it is likely that additional events in the chain could have prevented that? If the first, I’m curious as to your logic. If the second, how proximate a cause do you need before you think you can speak of someone saving the world?
So: zero is my rounded estimate. The argument the destruction of civilisation would have ensued if Vasili Arkhipov had acted otherwise seems flimsy and insubstantial to me—and similarly for the other claimants. It all adds up to less than 0.5.
Self-evidently the destruction of the world requires the first and not the second. My estimate is based on the joint probability—and not on the consideration of just one factor or the other. So: since neither factor is insignificant, I reject the dichotomy.
It would usually be better to give probability estimates than to crudely divide the population into “saviours of the world”—and “everyone else”.
Petrov himself didn’t have the authority to launch a counterstrike, nor would his word have been sufficient for it—the system was designed to require multiple sources reporting a launch. Petrov did do something valuable anyway: he exposed a flaw in the Soviet early-warning system.
Because there has not yet been a potential disaster that bad, or because more than one person was important to the disaster being averted?
We do have enough nuclear weapons to kill all humans, and there is some chance of them all simultaneously being detonated—so I would not endorse the first clause. The second clause is not the only alternative, though: consider also the case where the probability of disaster per unit time is small.
It’s not clear this is the case, actually, despite it being a part of the common culture. Nuclear winter style scenarios are possible, but even then it’s not clear that all humans would die.
OK. I was really just trying to say that I agreed that there was some chance of a rapid violent end of humanity.
Nuclear winter → reglaciation → meteorite strike—or whatever scenario you prefer.