Warren Buffet on mankinds 'ultimate problem'

[warpus]

I think it's a matter of time, really. You can't expect humans to have nuclear weapons forever and never use them, unfortunately.

We've used them many times already.. and all we've done is destroyed 2 cities and a couple fish.

Total annihilation of the enitre planet is not very likely.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I disagree. In the past, the population of the world was much more sparse and not concentrated so much in some very high density areas. On person now days can kill a heck of a lot more people with a relatively simple act as opposed to many years ago. As seen by 9/11, one person (or one group) can have a huge impact on the world, and can be very destructive.

And with death and violence, even if it is only by a relative few, comes disorder, paranoia, and further destruction.

This seems a far cry from the destruction of the entire planet, which is what Buffet is suggesting. I don't deny that it's easier to be destructive today than in the past, but there are few today who see any benefit in destroying the very planet they depend on for survival.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Total annihilation of the enitre planet is not very likely.

That would be true only if nothing ever changed.

 

[tomsnowman123]

We've used them many times already.. and all we've done is destroyed 2 cities and a couple fish.

Total annihilation of the enitre planet is not very likely.

Two cities and many, many lives. I think the longer we have them, the more likely we aer to use them. Somebody, somewhere, will one day trigger a nuclear attack.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

This seems a far cry from the destruction of the entire planet, which is what Buffet is suggesting. I don't deny that it's easier to be destructive today than in the past, but there are few today who see any benefit in destroying the very planet they depend on for survival.

I think it'll be gradual, like popcorn starting to pop. First one or two, then another round, then some more over here, some over there, and before you know it, its the 'end of the world' as far as our civilization is concerned. I dont think Buffet is talking about the physical destruction of planet earth, or even human extinction.

 

[IglooDame]

I think it'll be gradual, like popcorn starting to pop. First one or two, then another round, then some more over here, some over there, and before you know it, its the 'end of the world' as far as our civilization is concerned. I dont think Buffet is talking about the physical destruction of planet earth, or even human extinction.

The article talks about the "end of the planet" and such, I get the sense that 'annihilation' means zero human beings left.

Individuals can indeed cause much more death and destruction these days (and more and more in the future I'd think), but that does not translate to nuclear armageddon.

 

[Urederra]

Wow. I would rate the probability that a small group of chosen men and women sent on the Moon blow themselves up insanely higher than the probability of Earth being wiped out by nukes.

Humans can not live confined for too long.

But we only send the mentally sane ones, like me

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Annihilation ?
No way.
In any case someone woll forget to nuke New Zeeland, or Greenland, and the whole civilizaition-thing will start again...
Even a really nasty bioweapon will probably kill less than 99% of world population.
The only way to destroy all humans is to destroy his planet, and it will take a while until we get enough antimatter...

 

[silver 2039]

Two cities and many, many lives. I think the longer we have them, the more likely we aer to use them. Somebody, somewhere, will one day trigger a nuclear attack.

I almost triggerd one tonight. I have 2 nukes in range of Miami and New Orleans and for a minute I was tempted to nuke them, but I decided to wait and amass a larger stockpile before nuking the US. I've also moved my submarines closer to the US coastline...

Wait...are we talking about real life?

At any rate this old man is a fool. Why waste sleepness nights over a nuclear annihlation. Sure it might happen, but it is unlikley, at any rate, and besides there a hundered other terrible things that could destroy the world. No sense in worrying about all of them.

 

[tomsnowman123]

At any rate this old man is a fool. Why waste sleepness nights over a nuclear annihlation. Sure it might happen, but it is unlikley, at any rate, and besides there a hundered other terrible things that could destroy the world. No sense in worrying about all of them.

I agree. Worrying to much seems a waste of the brighter side of life. For instance, a plane could come crashing down on my house right now, killing me. But it's out of my control, and worrying never does anything except make me feel sick.

 

[IglooDame]

I agree. Worrying to much seems a waste of the brighter side of life. For instance, a plane could come crashing down on my house right now, killing me. But it's out of my control, and worrying never does anything except make me feel sick.

He's got 30 billion dollars to contribute - methinks "no sense worrying about something that's out of my control" doesn't really apply to him.

 

[JerichoHill]

indiviudual probabistic events are not cumulative.

Thus, if there is a 1/1,000,000 of someone using a nuke today, there is still a 1/1,000,000 chance of using the nuke tomorrow if it doesn't happen.

The expected value is 1 after 1,000,000 days Just because this is true doesn't mean it happens (before or after)

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Curiously enough, the chance of it having happened after 1,000,000 days is then 63%. *goes to calculate a limit function*

 

[Sidhe]

Curiously enough, the chance of it having happened after 1,000,000 days is then 63%. *goes to calculate a limit function*

I wouldn't bother it isn't a simple function, it's far to complex to calculate the odds, at least without a super computer. Maybe WOPR could help Let's play thermo nuclear war?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Bother the function. I'm observing the interesting point that a 1-in-N function has an expected value of 1 after N days, whereas the odds of it having occurred at least once within N days are about 63%. (It's 65% for N=10 and doesn't change much, being 63.2% for N=10³°.) That's an odd number, almost like a counterpart to e.
Working out the limit is tricky though.

 

[Sidhe]

Bother the function. I'm observing the interesting point that a 1-in-N function has an expected value of 1 after N days, whereas the odds of it having occurred at least once within N days are about 63%. (It's 65% for N=10 and doesn't change much, being 63.2% for N=10³°.) That's an odd number, almost like a counterpart to e.
Working out the limit is tricky though.

Bother away sounds interesting I'd like to see where e comes in here.

A lifetime limit should suffice, selfish but pertinant

 

[Ayatollah So]

That's an odd number, almost like a counterpart to e.

Yes, it's 1 - 1/e. Or in other words the probability of an event NOT happening in N trials of 1/N probability, approaches 1/e as N approaches infinity. And in 2N trials, the probability of it never happening is 1/(e^2). Etc. Good old exponential decay.

I like El_Mac's math better. Continually drive down the probability per year, and the probability of it happening at least once need not approach one with increasing time.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I think it'll be gradual, like popcorn starting to pop. First one or two, then another round, then some more over here, some over there, and before you know it, its the 'end of the world' as far as our civilization is concerned. I dont think Buffet is talking about the physical destruction of planet earth, or even human extinction.

I think Buffet is a victim of 1950's-1960's paranoia over nuclear war.

There is actually some serious think tank discussion these days over a far more likely scenario for the complete destruction of the Earth. That is called ecophagy. Ecophagy is the theory that self-replicating consumptive nanites will eventually be let loose upon the world and consume the entire biomass of Earth. There have been serious discussions over what we should do to prevent this disaster. Mind you, self-replicating nanites, or even just plain nanites, haven't even been invented yet, but that hasn't stopped the think tanks.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like El_Mac's math better. Continually drive down the probability per year, and the probability of it happening at least once need not approach one with increasing time.

Thanks. I originally noticed this when discussing the probability of death (people would argue "even if you cure aging, eventually something would have to get you"). If you continually decrease the probability of death (through increased safety measures, and control over your environment), the eventual chance of dyiing doesn't approach one.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The article talks about the "end of the planet" and such, I get the sense that 'annihilation' means zero human beings left.

I think thats mostly the writer of the article getting carried away. Buffets a smart man, I doubt very much he thinks we'll literally blow the planet up.

Individuals can indeed cause much more death and destruction these days (and more and more in the future I'd think), but that does not translate to nuclear armageddon.

True, there could be just a limited exchange here and there, tit for tat strikes. But I think its more likely that it wont stay limited. Their use wont be seen as 'unthinkable' anymore. Armegeddon could sneak up on us gradually, instead of happening all at once in a cataclysmic moment, as we normally think of it.

I think Buffet is a victim of 1950's-1960's paranoia over nuclear war.

Well, I sure as hell cant speak for Buffet, but I caught the second half of the Cold War 'paranoia' about nuclear war (although when two adversaries arm themselves to the teeth with enough nuclear firepower to end the world many times over, Im not sure what exactly is paranoid about fearing their eventual use). I feared it then for a different set of reasons than I fear it now. We now live in a world where private entities can purchase nuclear technology, components, delivery systems etc, on the black market. Remember Khan in Pakistan? His network was just a tip of the iceberg that came into view. That being the case, I dont see how we can possibly avoid a nuclear conflict at some point in the relatively near future. As time goes on it'll just get easier and cheaper to acquire them, because as nuclear technology continues to spread around the globe, there'll be more sellers in the market.

There is actually some serious think tank discussion these days over a far more likely scenario for the complete destruction of the Earth. That is called ecophagy. Ecophagy is the theory that self-replicating consumptive nanites will eventually be let loose upon the world and consume the entire biomass of Earth. There have been serious discussions over what we should do to prevent this disaster. Mind you, self-replicating nanites, or even just plain nanites, haven't even been invented yet, but that hasn't stopped the think tanks.

Ive heard of that, its the Grey Goo theory. Thats definitely a possible scenario at some point, and its good that there are a few think tanks working on it, but IMO, the nuclear threat to humanity is a real and present danger. If we dont solve that problem somehow in the next couple of decades, there aint gonna be no nanites!