Why Is It Whenever Someone Is Asked About The Future

[Hygro]

Mathematically though I dont believe the odds ever actually start improving, your chances dont actually rise by the math you just have a "better" chance because you keep trying and therefore are never out of it. Probability in terms of independent events never reach that 1/1 sure thing status like he was suggesting, that is the trap gamblers get themselves into when they think a certain machine is "due" or the roulette wheel is "due" to land on black. Nuclear war might happen eventually, but the odds of it arent steadily approaching a sure thing status where its guaranteed to occur.

Like I said though I could be totally off base, as good as I am at math probability was never my strong suit.

Let me ask you:

what are your odds that you will roll a "6" on a 6-sided die. Now what are the odds one of your rolls will be a 6 if you rolled your dice a million times?

Thats how the stats/logic of contre's point works.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Who needs flying cars when you have monorails? Or skyways?

 

[Glassfan]

Who needs flying cars when you have monorails? Or skyways?

You really need flying cars to pick up hookers, fly sidebyside with dealers to buy your narcotics, and to buzz eagles, condors, and other endangered birds.

Also, you can drop stuff on those silly pedestrians.

p.s. -except in LA, nobody walks in LA.

 

[emzie]

Fair enough, like I said probability was never a favorite of mine. Either way, its such a tiny probability I dont think its really one to worry about approaching 1 status. We'll all be dead or off the planet by the time it wanders up to there.

I used to think like that as well, but let me see if I can convince you otherwise.

As others explained, it's not that the risk increases with each passing year, but with a larger subset of years, the odds are higher the rare event will happen. It's the difference not in buying lottery tickets on consecutive days for a month, but buying 30 tickets on one day.

Let's assign a chance that nuclear weapons are used in anger in any given year. For the ease of calculation, let's put that at 1-in-100. So there's a 1% chance in any given year of a nuke going being used in anger.

So what are the odds that in the next 100 years? 1-.99^100 = .6339 or in other words, if the odds are 100-to-1 against a nuke being used in a year, there's a 63.39% chance that your grandkids will either see it or read about it on whatever wikipedia is in 2112.

 

[El_Machinae]

The only time a risk doesn't asymptotically reach towards '1' is when a risk is increasingly mitigated as time goes by. If progressive steps are taken to reduce the odds of disaster, so (e.g., )1% chance this decade, 0.5% next decade, 0.25% next decade, etc., then the risk never actually approaches one

 

[warpus]

As someone who has taken a lot of stats in University, I can confirm that contre's math is mostly correct

I am also half asleep though, so don't listen to me

 

[emzie]

The only time a risk doesn't asymptotically reach towards '1' is when a risk is increasingly mitigated as time goes by. If progressive steps are taken to reduce the odds of disaster, so (e.g., )1% chance this decade, 0.5% next decade, 0.25% next decade, etc., then the risk never actually approaches one

Yeah, this thread has inadvertently convinced me to take a much harder line on non-proliferation.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Yeah, this thread has inadvertently convinced me to take a much harder line on non-proliferation.

It's convinced me to buy lottery tickets for the next 30 years

 

[Disgustipated]

non-proliferation is a pipe dream. It's unethical to deny countries like Iran the bomb. They deserve the bomb just as much as we do. What gives white man authority over the bomb? Things will be better when Iran has the bomb. It's like Americans having lots of guns. We are far safer society with the number of guns we have, almost no one gets shot... Okay, bad example.

I know my post seems contradictory, but I see us only being able to delay other countries getting the bomb, eventually everyone will have one. And like the gun situation in the U.S., someone will eventually use one. Nuclear war is inevitable. But I expect it will be a limited nuclear engagement between small countries (most likely Iran and Israel), and have no real effect on the U.S. Regionally it will be devastating, however. I just don't see a large scale nuclear war between world powers happening any time soon.

 

[Dachs]

non-proliferation is a pipe dream. It's unethical to deny countries like Iran the bomb. They deserve the bomb just as much as we do. What gives white man authority over the bomb? Things will be better when Iran has the bomb. It's like Americans having lots of guns. We are far safer society with the number of guns we have, almost no one gets shot... Okay, bad example.

I know my post seems contradictory, but I see us only being able to delay other countries getting the bomb, eventually everyone will have one. And like the gun situation in the U.S., someone will eventually use one. Nuclear war is inevitable. But I expect it will be a limited nuclear engagement between small countries (most likely Iran and Israel), and have no real effect on the U.S. Regionally it will be devastating, however. I just don't see a large scale nuclear war between world powers happening any time soon.

At least you explicitly state that your opinion is purely based on feelings and intuition. Many people here can't bring themselves to do that.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As to nuclear holocaust: Which so far has been neglected is that an abolishment of nuclear weaponry has a statistically speaking increasing chance, too (edit: well El_Machinae actually went that direction, but to spell it out can't hurt).

As to why flying cars and nuclear holocaust are so popular predictions: Because they are already so popular and people pick that up and repeat it (which hints to a lack of imagination as already has been stated). Why are they so popular in the first place? I'd say movies and the cold war.

 

[IAM]

NUkews can not be judged on statistics that don't include human involvement. The questions about NUkews should center around 'What weapon has man made that is superior to all other weapons that has not been used?' The only reason why I don't say with 99.99% certainty that NUkews will be used is if something prevents them like: super volcano, global doom meteor strike or more likely a superior weapon system. A superior weapon system may be super viruses and like NUkews they will bring a new error <or era> in weapon destruction. Forget, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the new paradiigm will be GEE (Global Extinction Event).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@IAM
You can't predict human involvement in such a large scale without ignoring its actual nature. Or rather, you can, as you do, but than it is merely a gut feeling.

 

[Hygro]

I'm with contre again, I'm now more convinced now that I think about it, too. We have to denuclearize. Maybe this is why we haven't met aliens, they all invented nukes well in advance of space colonization.

 

[Save_Ferris]

You really need flying cars to pick up hookers, fly sidebyside with dealers to buy your narcotics, and to buzz eagles, condors, and other endangered birds.

Also, you can drop stuff on those silly pedestrians.

p.s. -except in LA, nobody walks in LA.

People walk in L.A. Isn't that the food truck capital of the world or something?
Maybe it's only at night, it's like that in hot cities.

 

[Leoreth]

It's unethical to deny countries like Iran the bomb. They deserve the bomb just as much as we do.

Exactly. That is, not at all. Nice that you realize this.

 

[Cutlass]

You really need flying cars to pick up hookers, fly sidebyside with dealers to buy your narcotics, and to buzz eagles, condors, and other endangered birds.

Also, you can drop stuff on those silly pedestrians.

p.s. -except in LA, nobody walks in LA.

Flying streetwalkers?

 

[timtofly]

You really want the FAA checking you for nukes everytime you attempt to get into this flying car?

 

[emzie]

You really want the FAA checking you for nukes everytime you attempt to get into this flying car?

I'd prefer it to the TSA.

 

[Core Imposter]

The only time a risk doesn't asymptotically reach towards '1' is when a risk is increasingly mitigated as time goes by. If progressive steps are taken to reduce the odds of disaster, so (e.g., )1% chance this decade, 0.5% next decade, 0.25% next decade, etc., then the risk never actually approaches one

For God's sake thank you. I was banging my head on the wall wailing that nobody teaches 5th grade math anymore.