this is part of an argument I've made before: Steve Pinker, etc. are naive to say that there is a secular decline in war because of our nature. we might be shifting CURVE of war: reducing likelihood of medium & large wars, and increasing the risk (from 0%?) of INSANELY HUGE oneshttps://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1153765033949745152 …
-
-
3/ ...at least, given a mere 50-70 years of data. Ties into the economist concept of "picking up pennies in front of the steamroller". Perhaps our QoL has been so good over the last few decades because we're not averaging a sample that includes all the expected outcomes ?
Show this thread -
4/ As Clarkhat used to say: "gigadeaths are coming".
Show this thread -
5/ Anyway, I'm structuring my life for antifragility, so that I'd have a decent chance of doing OK in a Lincoln level war (3% of US population murdered) or even a deca-Lincoln war (30% killed). Real estate near me isn't that expensive. Wouldn't you like to be my neighbor?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What's his rationale for choosing 1945 as his beginning point, though? Isn't it just cherry-picking? Why not century by century or something?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.