Support NeoGAF

[IDKFA]

nuclear bombs

to the people saying they cause peace, there are many crazy world leaders out there who dont give a shit about the safety of their citizens, family or even themselves. Humans are irrational. VERY irrational. if you think that the threat of everyone in the world dying is going to stop some egomaniac fueled with power you're seriously naive. the only solution to this dilemma is to just not have them period. get rid of all of them and then there's no risk of anyone dying due to some president or prime minister who was in a shitty mood that day

I voted for nuclear bombs, but there is a very good argument as to why they could be a force for good.

For example, without nuclear bombs, the Cold War could have easily turned into WW3 and the cost of millions of lives. In fact, nukes could have prevented multiple wars over the years and saved tens of millions of people.

However, the counter argument to this is that nukes haven't done anything to prevent war and there have still been major conflicts since 1945. You could argue that the fact they haven't been used since 1945 is nothing more than luck (there have been near misses during the Cold War).

Regardless, we can't get rid of nukes now. Inventing them was opening Pandora's box. There is no going back to a nuke free world.

 

[64bitmodels]

Social media can be the worst if you dont know how to select your appropriate content. If you can, it's a wonderful tool being able to be part of hobby communities all around the world and staying in touch/not feeling alone in what you enjoy.

bingo. to say all social media is evil is a major exaggeration. Youtube has shown me so much educational and interesting content that's shaped my personality and ideas
Discord is also a great platform for memes and keeping in touch with friends in DMs.
To be fair it's shaky whether those are even considered "social medias" as much as they are a video sharing platform and chatting program with social media elements but i digress

twitter, instagram, reddit, facebook and snapchat can all go fuck themselves, though

 

[Beastclaw Raider]

bingo. to say all social media is evil is a major exaggeration. Youtube has shown me so much educational and interesting content that's shaped my personality and ideas
Discord is also a great platform for memes and keeping in touch with friends in DMs.
To be fair it's shaky whether those are even considered "social medias" as much as they are a video sharing platform and chatting program with social media elements but i digress

twitter, instagram, reddit, facebook and snapchat can all go fuck themselves, though

Totally agree, although i cant complain about facebook. I purged every groups that were just irritating me or was annoying. I'm pretty much left with groups about miniatures painting and other hobbies of mine. I think ignoring things that arent important to you and just paying attention to what is good/enjoyable for you is a lesson to be learned from social media. I struggled a lot but I've finally succeeded.

 

[22•22]

The worst invention doesn't exist. It's how whatever invention is used.


Sure, some inventions where when discovered how they could be used where intentionally steered in such a way the most likely outcome of usage wouldn't be positive unless they learned you to manage said invention.


Social media is a great example; this shiny new way of interaction most can't ignore to participate in while not knowing it's essential goal nevermind the very severe side effects.

They knew this. And here we are

Regarding social media perhaps visit Moon's channel.

Loading…

youtube.com

 

[OZ9000]

Out of these picks, I didnt select other, I'd have to select cigarettes.
Social media can be the worst if you dont know how to select your appropriate content. If you can, it's a wonderful tool being able to be part of hobby communities all around the world and staying in touch/not feeling alone in what you enjoy.

Cigarettes are killing around 500000 persons every year, and it's completely useless and has no benefits whatsoever

Speaking of bad drugs, I'd say drinking alcohol is one of the worst. Amazes me how it's legal despite killing millions both directly and indirectly, whilst LSD/Psilocybin/DMT are illegal.

 

[64bitmodels]

For example, without nuclear bombs, the Cold War could have easily turned into WW3 and the cost of millions of lives. In fact, nukes could have prevented multiple wars over the years and saved tens of millions of people.

well yeah, but WITH nuclear bombs the cold war was one of the most stressful times in human history and the amount of damage those nukes could have caused would be greater than what could happen in WW3.
I'd wager that the Cold War would overall be less of a major issue if nukes didn't exist. Even if the war broke out the US would easily be able to squash Cuba thanks to the overall size of the military.
Cuba having nukes though posed a far far far greater threat than any military retaliation though.

Let's also not forget what the US did to Japan with those weapons of mass destruction. Hiroshima these days is more known for what happened in 1945 than the actual merits of the city because the damage was that colossal.

You can make a better argument for the existence of guns since they aren't able to cause damage on the same scale that a nuke is capable of, and guns have positive effects since combat with them can be fun as seen with airsoft rifles, lightgun games, NERF guns, and laser tag, not to mention the endless first/third person shooters out there

I can't see the fun in anything about nukes unless you're some psychopath who enjoys the death of millions or an egomaniac who gets off on the power to do whatever you want. Maybe speculating on the damage they cause or the science behind them is interesting, but otherwise there isn't anything fun about the usage of nukes themselves. Even as a guy who likes gore and bloodshed, i despise nukes

 

[winjer]

nuclear bombs

to the people saying they cause peace, there are many crazy world leaders out there who dont give a shit about the safety of their citizens, family or even themselves. Humans are irrational. VERY irrational. if you think that the threat of everyone in the world dying is going to stop some egomaniac fueled with power you're seriously naive. the only solution to this dilemma is to just not have them period. get rid of all of them and then there's no risk of anyone dying due to some president or prime minister who was in a shitty mood that day

We have had Mao and Stalin, with nuclear weapons.
These are the 2 biggest mass murderers in human history, ahead of even Hitler.
Even these two psychopaths never used nuclear weapons. And mind you, hey had plenty of conflicts where they could have used them. But they never did use them.
And it was because of nuclear weapons, that the USA, western Europe, China and USSR never engaged in direct confrontation.
Considering how very antagonistic these countries were to each other, a third World War would be a certainty. And this one would probably make WW2 and WW1 seem like a warmup.
I'm absolutely certain that it was the fear of mutual assured destruction that prevented WW3 and biggest death tool of any war, in the whole of human history.
And it's not just a WW3 that was prevented. If it wasn't for nukes, several wars between Pakistan and India would have already occurred. But because the stakes are so high, they just o some posturing and minor skirmishes on the borders.
Yes, the fear of nuclear war is terrible, but the certainty of full open conventional war, with modern weapons is much, much worse.

EDIT: and if Ukraine had not given away it's nukes, you can be sure that Russia would never have invaded.

 

[64bitmodels]

I'm absolutely certain that it was the fear of mutual assured destruction that prevented WW3 and biggest death tool of any war, in the whole of human history.

How long will that fear hold up? We dont know whats going through any of these leaders minds. Why should they care about the well being of all these other people? They have the money and resources to leave before the retaliating nuke even strikes. There's always gonna be some dude who wants to see the world burn even if it kills everyone they love in the process

 

[OZ9000]

How long will that fear hold up? We dont know whats going through any of these leaders minds. Why should they care about the well being of all these other people? They have the money and resources to leave before the retaliating nuke even strikes. There's always gonna be some dude who wants to see the world burn even if it kills everyone they love in the process

Unless they decide to leave the planet, there is no safe haven from our current day nukes.

 

[64bitmodels]

Unless they decide to leave the planet, there is no safe haven from our current day nukes.

motherfucking jeff bezos decided to fly up to space for shits and giggles. they can go anywhere & not be affected

 

[winjer]

How long will that fear hold up? We dont know whats going through any of these leaders minds. Why should they care about the well being of all these other people? They have the money and resources to leave before the nuke even strikes. There's always gonna be some dude who wants to see the world burn even if it kills everyone they love in the process

But it's not just one person with the finger on a button. There is a whole chain of command, even a mad leader can be overruled by a lower rank officer.
This happened a couple of times during the cold war.

We have had nuclear weapons for nearly 80 years. And nuclear weapons were only used once in war.
And remember that the Cold War was the time in history when countries were ever that much antagonistic. And still, no one used them, not even Stalin or Mao.

 

[winjer]

One example, the Soviet-Sino of 1969. Both sides had mobilized a total of 1.5 million men at the borders. Several skirmishes occurred and a few hundred people died.
But it never escalated into full open conventional war, because both countries had nukes. And both were afraid of mutual assured destruction.

Had it not been for nukes, there would have been a full scale war.
Two of the countries with the biggest population in the world at the time. China had more men power, but Russia had more advanced weaponry.
This war would probably reach several millions in casualties. Probably surpassing WW1 in death toll.
Just consider that the Chinese Civil war of 1928-1937 reached 7 million dead. Soldiers and civilians.

 

[IDKFA]

motherfucking jeff bezos decided to fly up to the moon for shits and giggles. they can go anywhere & not be affected

Jeff Bezos has never been to the moon.

Who is "they". Do you mean billionaires and world leaders?

 

[22•22]

Jeff Bezos has never been to the moon.

Who is "they". Do you mean billionaires and world leaders?

They all saw the bigger earth and it's other continents.

Lol the moon.

I'm tired but if my memory serves me correct you'll have some fun

 

[IDKFA]

They all saw the bigger earth and it's other continents.

Lol the moon.

What? That's just made it more confusing

Is this satire, or do you believe the moon is fake?

I'm only asking because I know a guy who really believes the moon and the universe are fake.

 

[22•22]

What? That's just made it more confusing

Is this satire, or do you believe the moon is fake?

I'm only asking because I know a guy who really believes the moon and the universe are fake.

Moonmap

I don't believe anything. I just go which what resonates.

 

[64bitmodels]

There is a whole chain of command, even a mad leader can be overruled by a lower rank officer.
This happened a couple of times during the cold war.

what about more autocratic/dictatorial governments like north korea?

 

[winjer]

what about more autocratic/dictatorial governments like north korea?

But the USSR during Stalin and Brezhnev and Mao's communist China were as autocratic, if not more, than Current North Korea.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

The one that can end everything or big chunks of countries/cities in a blink of an eye. It's a matter of time before some rogue country/dictator/nutter gets a nuke off as that tech scales down and proliferates. It's pretty scary how many missing nukes and shit there are.

 

[Scotty W]

Atheism

 

[Ionian]

is Gaf considered Social Media?

Forums are social media, people share their lives. And pics. Thus social.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Atheism

I don't think that needed to be invented.

People are born atheist.

 

[Nameless King]

Social Media is up there. I feel like we became less social when they took over for forums. Still think sites like GAF are king when it comes to actually talking to others, a sense of community.

I suppose you could say forums count but I feel like they are way different with the anonymity factor. I'd say Reddit is closer to what I consider to be more social media.

 

[MaestroMike]

Places with high religious participation have fewer deaths of despair​

The loss of social capital, as well as opioids, explains rising middle-aged mortality​

Feb 27th 2023

In 2015 Anne Case and Angus Deaton published a landmark paper on death rates in America. The economists found that mortality had been rising among middle-aged whites, thanks to a surge in drug overdoses, alcohol-related illness and suicides—causes they deemed “deaths of despair”.

Other scholars have asked whether this category is useful. One study by Congressional researchers in 2019 found that 70% of the rise in deaths-of-despair rates came from drugs alone. It also showed that the rise in mortality did not coincide with increasing economic malaise or self-reported unhappiness. Were these untimely deaths really evidence of anguish, or merely the result of a raging opioid epidemic?

A new paper by Tyler Giles of Wellesley, Daniel Hungerman of Notre Dame and Tamar Oostrom of Ohio State bolsters the case that deaths of despair stem in part from weakening social ties. It shows that mortality from these causes among middle-aged whites stopped falling around 1990—well before the rise in opioid use.

What changed at that time? The authors studied attendance at religious services. They found that states with more participation had fewer deaths of despair, and that the faster religious attendance fell in a state, the more such deaths rose. A paper in jama in 2020 also showed that of 110,000 health workers, those who went to services were less likely to die from these causes.

This pattern does not prove that religious participation wards off deaths of despair. But the authors tried to isolate the impact of religion by studying blue laws, which banned commerce on Sundays to encourage churchgoing. Whenever a state repealed a blue law, religious attendance tended to plummet, creating a natural experiment. And sure enough, deaths of despair rose unusually quickly in the few years following these repeals. Although legalising alcohol sales on Sundays may account for some of this trend, the biggest increase in mortality came from suicides.

Strikingly, the study found that private prayer was not linked to lower deaths of despair. This suggests that the risk reduction stems not from belief, but rather from the interpersonal connections that organised religion provides. Although secular groups like charities or labour unions also produce such “social capital”, the jama authors say that faith-based networks provide unusually potent protection.

Places with high religious participation have fewer deaths of despair

The loss of social capital, as well as opioids, explains rising middle-aged mortality

www.economist.com