No posts to display.
I got 44. Six faces is too much.
It is hard to tell in advance what is important. Quite a few innovations that were promised to change everything turned out to have much more limited value.
>Within a decade we should know a lot about the genetic basis of intelligence
I don't see any reason for it. So far, all knowledge in this ar...(read more)
I don't think it is reasonable to portray Paleolithic tribe as dictatorship. When the best weapon is pointed stick, and every man is has skill to use it, minority simply can't rule by force.
If we define "progress" as "less slavery, less torture, more freedom" as in top comment, then yes it went in reverse.
Whether there is "universal progess" in described sense depends on which start and end points do we choose. If take say from Middle Ages to today, then there is. If from Paleolithic to the height of Roman Empire, then trends would be exactly opposite, a march from freedom to slavery. So growth of pe...(read more)
First, it is not. Idea that this Cold War doctrine was suicidal (for the Europeans) madness is rather popular, I think more than the opposite.
Second, given that exactly zero states were attacked by US for trying to make nukes, I wouldn't call this the most important reason. As for third-world poli...(read more)
The article makes a good point: USA can lose very much in case of such war. If the world sees that nukes can destroy enemy army without turning whole country into a blasted radioctive wasteland like scaremongers say, then non-proliferation is a lost cause and US military might suddenly turns into a ...(read more)
If interstellar travel (and astroengeneering) is impossible, that is enough to explain Great Filter without additional assumptions.
First, this map mixes two different things: human extinction and collapse of civilization. It has a lot of risks that cannot cause the former such as resource depletion, and has things like "disjunction" box that I would call not a risk but a desirable future.
Second, it mixes x-risks with things ...(read more)
I don't think that so high estimate for first statement is reasonable.
Also, link now leads to bicameral reasoning article.