this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
73 points (97.4% liked)
Science
13257 readers
72 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's very straightforward math based on the article you posted. It's not saying that a nuclear war wouldn't be bad, or shouldn't be avoided. Of course that should be avoided.
My issue is with the people who insist that humanity as a species is at risk from nuclear war. That's the part that's wrong.
Keep in mind that the 5 billion figure is literally just from food insecurity and famine during and following nuclear winter.
More people would die in the explosions directly, and more would die from the resulting fires + building collapses + radiation fallout + infrastructural collapse.
Given that most targets are population centers and military targets (often both), it doesn't look good.
But yeah I mean there probably would be some survivors.
This is literally the whole point I'm making. I really don't get the downvotes, it seems perfectly straightforward.
Yeah, especially in the southern hemisphere, a few centuries later we might have slightly different genetics through rapid evolution via population collapse but we'd probably be back developing with a bit more accurate folk knowledge and probably actually a lot of remembered tech.
It'd be terrible to the people it happened to but barely a blip in the life history of the planet from the first evolution to the last lifeforms leaving or dying.