561
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
561 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
918 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wouldn't necessarily be convinced of that. I'd put that in a similar category as climate change. It might catastrophically ravage the world, but I think humans would survive. It's not the same punctuated event as nuclear fission. If a crazy person got control of nukes early in, they could wreak havoc on the world. Initial blasts kill tons of people, radiation would likely not be fully understood and fallout changes the global landscape before humanity can realistically react. Contrast that with global warming and microplastics, we know (we as in humanity in the broader sense) these are issues. It might need to get to the catastrophic ravaging before enough people are convinced, but eventually it will happen. And the intervening time won't cause humans to go extinct. Sure billions might die, but not all.