it would help reduce the probability of the greatest catastrophe in human history
So far or ever? I suppose you mean that, if it happened, it would thenbecome the worst thing that had happened so far. That’s not an unreasonable position, but maybe what happened in 10,000 BC on this graph of quality-of-life was worse:
Also, don’t forget that even if it is worse, it would only be the worst thing to happen in human history so far! If MAD-style nuclear escalation does not lead to extinction (which I don’t believe it would), then there’s always the potential for far worse things later.
I’m curious, about what you makes you decide, that this is the place to discuss whether or not a nuclear war would be a smaller or bigger catastrophe than the invention of agriculture?
Saying it’s an important sentence implies to me like changing it to less extreme wording would change whether or not one is supposed to support the letter.
It’s hard for me to understand how someone might think it’s important in that sense.
Similarly, suppose someone said that Apple is the most valuable company in history (current market cap of 2.14T), I would ask whether they knew about the East India Company that was so big it had its own armed forces of about 260,000 soldiers. They imply a bunch of different things about the shape of history. As does the claim about whether the worst catastrophe ever in history would be an all-out nuclear war, or whether something worse has happened.
So far or ever? I suppose you mean that, if it happened, it would then become the worst thing that had happened so far. That’s not an unreasonable position, but maybe what happened in 10,000 BC on this graph of quality-of-life was worse:
(This is an image from the Cold Takes blog post “Did life get better during the pre-industrial era? (Ehhhh)”.)
Also, don’t forget that even if it is worse, it would only be the worst thing to happen in human history so far! If MAD-style nuclear escalation does not lead to extinction (which I don’t believe it would), then there’s always the potential for far worse things later.
I’m curious, about what you makes you decide, that this is the place to discuss whether or not a nuclear war would be a smaller or bigger catastrophe than the invention of agriculture?
The sentence sticks out to me as not clearly true; and it seems like an important sentence.
Saying it’s an important sentence implies to me like changing it to less extreme wording would change whether or not one is supposed to support the letter.
It’s hard for me to understand how someone might think it’s important in that sense.
No, I mean important for one’s world-model.
Similarly, suppose someone said that Apple is the most valuable company in history (current market cap of 2.14T), I would ask whether they knew about the East India Company that was so big it had its own armed forces of about 260,000 soldiers. They imply a bunch of different things about the shape of history. As does the claim about whether the worst catastrophe ever in history would be an all-out nuclear war, or whether something worse has happened.
I indeed meant only “worst so far”, in the sense that it would probably kill more people than any previous disaster.