Nice, thanks for further looking into this, I think it’s really important to get more clarity on this, and looking at simple models based on base rates is super useful. Some random thoughts and reactions while reading:
what else changed since WWII:
wealth of a nation is predominantly not in agriculture and natural resources, but in high tech industry → conquering land much less relevant
a lot of time passed in which countries learned about how to co-exist peacefully/productively in a globalized world
That said, while a 27% reduction in the chance of war is nice, it’s not a big enough effect to fully explain the Long Peace.
I thought even without a reduction you can “explain” the long peace.
Long-term gains from success in war can be larger than temporary disruptions in trade.
quote mentions “disputes”, not war. I associate disputes with less intense confrontations to war, so I expect that disruptions in trade due to a war will be much bigger
However, [the democratic peace theory is] less relevant here because it can’t help explain the lack of Great Power conflict. The USSR was not a democracy, and today neither China nor Russia are. So democratic peace theory cannot explain why the Cold War stayed cold, and doesn’t provide any reason to be hopeful about the possibility of maintaining peace in the 21st century.
but maybe it contributes to the global shunning of war, e.g. China and Russia are probably still dependent on democratic allies who communicate strong preferences for peace
I think there’s about a 1% chance of an extinction-level war before 2100.
I think using the assumption of the power law distribution not breaking down above multiple billion dead people is fairly unlikely for the reason you gave and personally downdate this estimate by ~ an order of magnitude
Nice, thanks for further looking into this, I think it’s really important to get more clarity on this, and looking at simple models based on base rates is super useful. Some random thoughts and reactions while reading:
what else changed since WWII:
wealth of a nation is predominantly not in agriculture and natural resources, but in high tech industry → conquering land much less relevant
a lot of time passed in which countries learned about how to co-exist peacefully/productively in a globalized world
That said, while a 27% reduction in the chance of war is nice, it’s not a big enough effect to fully explain the Long Peace.
I thought even without a reduction you can “explain” the long peace.
Long-term gains from success in war can be larger than temporary disruptions in trade.
quote mentions “disputes”, not war. I associate disputes with less intense confrontations to war, so I expect that disruptions in trade due to a war will be much bigger
However, [the democratic peace theory is] less relevant here because it can’t help explain the lack of Great Power conflict. The USSR was not a democracy, and today neither China nor Russia are. So democratic peace theory cannot explain why the Cold War stayed cold, and doesn’t provide any reason to be hopeful about the possibility of maintaining peace in the 21st century.
but maybe it contributes to the global shunning of war, e.g. China and Russia are probably still dependent on democratic allies who communicate strong preferences for peace
I think there’s about a 1% chance of an extinction-level war before 2100.
I think using the assumption of the power law distribution not breaking down above multiple billion dead people is fairly unlikely for the reason you gave and personally downdate this estimate by ~ an order of magnitude