This is a fascinating read, however I tend to agree mostly with the end and the conclusions rather than the approach. I think that the question posed somehow cannot be answered by a natural-science based approach, that it’s one to be approached best by the tools of history or maybe IR rather than power distributions, as a eras change, even between WWI, WWII and 2022, and big wars are quite sui generis events. A parameter that I would like to see in such an analysis would be how much more interconnected our world is at present and that it may get in the future. Here’s two examples from the present: a) the energy situation affecting Europe, and the economic effects of the Ukraine war, and b) internet use—imagine if a rogue country had in its tactics to cut internet supply or attack nuclear facilities or hospitals through cyberwarfare. Or, imagine worse, if the AI you mentioned is linked to the internet and some state hackers decide to hack them, without knowing for example how crazy the AI would go if hacked (ok, i’m stretching it a bit here).
I think more useful a more useful lead from your article is the mention of the democratization and the turning of the tide with citizens not willing to fight in really big and protracted wars (i guess the extinction war would have to escalate a bit before it reaches doomsday point, even though I wouldn’t rule out the accidental escalation that would lead to the nuclear winter in like a week or so—I can even see a quick escalation over Taiwan or sth, i hope i’m just naive).
Anyway, this was just a ramble, I apologise for this, the key takeaway from the above that I’d love to discuss with you is that I don’t think that power-laws can say much about a war leading to human extinction. On the contrary, history and perhaps psychology (the decisions of those a) deciding politics b) creating weapons and c) using weapons) could be more useful guides.
Hi Haris, thanks for this. I agree that it’s useful to tackle such complicated questions from a variety of approaches.
I’ve written a little bit about interconnectedness and democratization here. I agree they exert some influence on the likelihood of conflict. I do think that the pacifying effects of interconnectedness are somewhat overrated. The economic costs of going to war against any given trade partner are usually small relative to a country’s total GDP and the potential gains, material and symbolic, from fighting.
And while I find the evidence for a democratic peace surprisingly strong, it has limited bearing on the possibility of a major war this century because China and Russia are not likely to democratize.
Maybe I didn’t explain myself well regarding the interconnectedness, I don’t mean bilateral trade (which is what you mention in your linked article) but just the fact that the world we live in is much more brittle in the sense that a black swan event such as a rogue state attacking the internet may have potentially extinction-scale consequences. In other words, before say WWII any war simply couldn’t spread to the level of threatening world extinction as there weren’t enough nuclear weapons or there were enough third parties either too far away for the conflict or otherwise uninterested to commit their populations to the death. Whereas now, with cyberwarfare, biological warfare and nuclear, it is envisageable that at least one of the Great Powers will regard the whole of the Earth as the War theatre. I hope this explains my idea a bit better.
As democratization, again, I guess as callous as it sounds, the situations currently in Iran and Russia may prove to be good case studies.
Dear friends,
This is a fascinating read, however I tend to agree mostly with the end and the conclusions rather than the approach. I think that the question posed somehow cannot be answered by a natural-science based approach, that it’s one to be approached best by the tools of history or maybe IR rather than power distributions, as a eras change, even between WWI, WWII and 2022, and big wars are quite sui generis events. A parameter that I would like to see in such an analysis would be how much more interconnected our world is at present and that it may get in the future. Here’s two examples from the present: a) the energy situation affecting Europe, and the economic effects of the Ukraine war, and b) internet use—imagine if a rogue country had in its tactics to cut internet supply or attack nuclear facilities or hospitals through cyberwarfare. Or, imagine worse, if the AI you mentioned is linked to the internet and some state hackers decide to hack them, without knowing for example how crazy the AI would go if hacked (ok, i’m stretching it a bit here).
I think more useful a more useful lead from your article is the mention of the democratization and the turning of the tide with citizens not willing to fight in really big and protracted wars (i guess the extinction war would have to escalate a bit before it reaches doomsday point, even though I wouldn’t rule out the accidental escalation that would lead to the nuclear winter in like a week or so—I can even see a quick escalation over Taiwan or sth, i hope i’m just naive).
Anyway, this was just a ramble, I apologise for this, the key takeaway from the above that I’d love to discuss with you is that I don’t think that power-laws can say much about a war leading to human extinction. On the contrary, history and perhaps psychology (the decisions of those a) deciding politics b) creating weapons and c) using weapons) could be more useful guides.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris, thanks for this. I agree that it’s useful to tackle such complicated questions from a variety of approaches.
I’ve written a little bit about interconnectedness and democratization here. I agree they exert some influence on the likelihood of conflict. I do think that the pacifying effects of interconnectedness are somewhat overrated. The economic costs of going to war against any given trade partner are usually small relative to a country’s total GDP and the potential gains, material and symbolic, from fighting.
And while I find the evidence for a democratic peace surprisingly strong, it has limited bearing on the possibility of a major war this century because China and Russia are not likely to democratize.
Dear Stephen,
Maybe I didn’t explain myself well regarding the interconnectedness, I don’t mean bilateral trade (which is what you mention in your linked article) but just the fact that the world we live in is much more brittle in the sense that a black swan event such as a rogue state attacking the internet may have potentially extinction-scale consequences. In other words, before say WWII any war simply couldn’t spread to the level of threatening world extinction as there weren’t enough nuclear weapons or there were enough third parties either too far away for the conflict or otherwise uninterested to commit their populations to the death. Whereas now, with cyberwarfare, biological warfare and nuclear, it is envisageable that at least one of the Great Powers will regard the whole of the Earth as the War theatre. I hope this explains my idea a bit better.
As democratization, again, I guess as callous as it sounds, the situations currently in Iran and Russia may prove to be good case studies.
Best Wishes,
Haris