It's not an argument not to do it. I'm just pointing out that it isn't enough to make the world a better place, you need to have a plan ready for how to keep it that way or we just get captured again.
If the risk could be reduced 10-100X it may be worth consideration. I could imagine one of the crazier/more desperate countries trying this in order to get ahead long term (North Korea?).
Maybe at least one book about what to do after you dropped tons of bombs and killed thousand of civilians would help to prevent the usual collapse of civilizations and rising of warlords. But of course I do understand that there is more money to make with a collapsed nation.
If you can (non-violently) convince everyone on earth to suffer massive setbacks in health and material comforts, then by all means go ahead. In the meantime, something that has a chance of actually happening should be pursued, even if it isn't "simple" by some arbitrary measure.
Yes, thanks :) That's what I was thinking of, and ought to have mentioned it. It was on HN within the past week or so.
And yes, that could be a great outcome. But sadly enough, I suspect that the situation will get a lot worse before the US, at least, does anything substantial.
Yes. They should consider a given plan and look at the costs and the benefits. Kinda like when they drop bombs. Be it normal bombing, the fire bombing of Kyoto, or using nuclear bombs.
It is a decent point that something short of military action would be advisable, because if this goes on long enough then eventually it's going to look like a pretty attractive option.
If that scenario ever comes to pass, I think the only thing it will push richer countries to do is to invade the third world country culpable and kill anyone poisoning the atmosphere. Problem solved, cheaply.
reply