Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order

[jacob]

The comment was in context for this forum and the internet generally. I dont know what this forum thought decade ago but the internet doomsphere has certain (quite specific) themes that change gradually with time and the ones of ten years ago mostly didnt happen in sense of touching those doom-speculators personally or at all.

Historically doom is real but often unexpected in form.

Okay, in that sense, let me rephrase and say there's a strong tendency (bias) for humans to overrate what's right in front of them this week (this includes TV and internet forums) and underrate what's faraway or last week. There's also a strong tendency to construct one single narrative (preferably personal) around the former and ignore the latter. Technical specialization also matters a lot as it increases the "size" of the lens one is using. Software people think AI is the most important change factor in the world; engineers in general think it's technology, astronomers think giant meteorites, and so on. This again to a point where an expert's layman knowledge or lack of interest in some other field can lead them to dismiss it entirely, e.g. before COVID, political scientists and journalists didn't pay much attention to infectious diseases.

Expertise provides a good antidote to narratives. Expertise is usually quite accurate and useful, but what's lacking is heuristic for evaluating expertise and removing the "size" bias. Transdisciplinary knowledge provides a good antidote for that problem. These two inoculations remove a lot of "random surprises" from the world.

See e.g.

My #2 concern is a repeat of the Spanish Flu (H1N1 (standard flu) mutation or similar like H5N1 (bird flu)) that causes a cytokine storm or something equally deadly. Normally the flu kills 1 in 1000 and that mostly babies and the very old, whereas the Spanish flu killed the healthiest part of the position at a 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 ratio. With today's air transport, such an outbreak would quickly "touch" most people in recurring waves over a period of several months to a year or so. If 1/3 gets infected and death rate is 20%, we're talking 500 million dead on a world basis (20M in the US) and there would be nowhere to hide unless you're willing and capable of staying out of human contact for 12-24 months! There would be lots of secondary effects. First, people would argue that it's not happening. Most would keep going out to work and to shop because they need to. After it's officially a thing (expect governments to hide the fact for a while to prevent panic), people will stay home. This affects the operation of power plants, water treatment plants, etc. Certainly some people will be ordered into their possible deaths. It will also be hard to bury people at that rate of bodycount .. and again, it will be hard to find people willing to do that. After it all blows over, world population will be down by 5% or so of the healthiest people (15-45 year olds). This means less consumers, less need for offices, factories, and capital assets; higher demand for workers. Wages will rise and the stock market will utterly tank; prices on cyclicals will rise high ... non-cyclicals will go down. There will be nowhere to hide. Solution ... N95 or better masks. Lots of handwashing. Avoid people as much as possible. Work from home.

There's nothing remarkable about this prediction from 2017. All I got wrong was the lethality rate but the rest was textbook based on history. Any expert in public health could have told you this story. If there's anything that is remarkable, it's putting it up as my #2 concern instead of dismissing it as irrelevant. This did require drawing on a few different fields that are not part of the normal interdisciplinary part of the map.

[ducknald_don]

The UK published a risk register in 2017 which includes the risk of disease outbreaks.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... r_2017.pdf

Sadly it din't include the risk that the government would be inept in the face of the outbreak.

[jacob]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... r_2017.pdf

Sadly it din't include the risk that the government would be inept in the face of the outbreak.

There is a high probability of a flu pandemic occurring, but it is impossible to predict when, or exactly
what it would be like. [...] Consequences may include [statistics].

Translation: "It's too abstract to worry about". History books and old newspaper articles are good at turning difficult concepts like fractions and distances ("it can't happen here because it's too far away") into concrete narratives. That's what I used above figuring that politicians and voters overall insight and behavior hadn't improved or changed much over the past 100 years. Even in scenario planning or wargaming, personal impact remains at an abstract level. IIRC, nobody in the CladeX exercise were personally impacted. They didn't meet on zoom; nobody wore masks; nobody died. It's the little details...

[prudentelo]

Well, COVID did not kill "killed the healthiest part of the position at a 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 ratio," so it was not a right prediction statistically, though narrative is similar.

Have you ever predicted nuclear war? Notice this narrative isn't present. If it was, would we act differently? With what affect on chances of such war?

Maybe it gets too close to politics.

[Campitor]

Have you ever predicted nuclear war?

I'm not answering for Jacob but just adding my 2 cents. In my opinion, any nation using a thermonuclear weapon would face a likewise retaliation and worldwide condemnation. What happens from there depends on the leadership in each country and their attitude towards mutual and global extinction.

From my reading of published CIA memoirs and interviews of retired Russian politicians, spies, and military generals, there's very little appetite to initiate a thermonuclear exchange at all levels of government even when they perceive a threat to be existential. I think China would probably fall into the same mindset. At least in Russia and the USA, no single person can initiate a thermonuclear attack. There's no single user mechanism to launch a nuclear weapon.

To get around the nuclear issue, both Russia and the USA have developed bombs/missiles/ballistics that can kill a lot of people without a nuclear payload, for example the "All Bombs" weapons: US version = Mother of All Bombs and Russian Version = Father of All Bombs.

[jacob]

Have you ever predicted nuclear war? Notice this narrative isn't present. If it was, would we act differently? With what affect on chances of such war?

Yes, but it's pretty far down the list in terms of concerns although I do know how far I live from the closest primary and secondary targets (I'll die.) The nuclear narrative is present in the European newspapers I read. It's mostly phrased in terms of "scary stuff that happens if a nuke is dropped where I live". Militarily speaking they could be used, especially once someone sets a precedent. I think this is something that could be normalized.

However, it can be argued that Hiroshima sized nukes are not that different(*) from thermobaric weapons that have been developed by the US, Russia, China, India, Spain, and the UK and which have been deployed by Russia in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Syria; by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq; and by the UK in Afghanistan and Syria. They're widely used because they're unregulated and don't carry the stigma of nukes. They also have the "benefit" of not being radioactive, but DU rounds are and also in common use.

(*) For example, Hiroshima had a yield of 16kt whereas the MOAB that the US dropped in Afghanistan in 2017 had a yield of 11kt. Thermobaric weapons are generally smaller but they're still very large compared to ordinary explosives.

Thus overall, there's no good reason for major powers to engage in a MAD nuclear exchange or even use nukes during military adventures since equally effective replacements already exist.

Currently, enthusiasm is likely curbed because nukes have a very scary image in the minds of the general population and a lot of treaties regulating their use, while a similar effect can now be achieved with other means. The only reason to use nukes would therefore be "political" to "send a scary message". I suspect this is also why they're brought up during political conflict like e.g. NK-US and now Russia-Europe.

Add: Campitor beat me to basically the same point.

[prudentelo]

If they are smart, people tend to avoid dangers they worry about. Be greedy when others fearful, fearful when others greedy, etc.

Today we are fearful about viruses, but not fearful about nuclear bombs.

Sixty years ago, different story. Cuban Missile Crisis was about "stop the bomb" more than "winning." But HK flu about the same time was not met with wartime measures. (nor was Polio)

Just something I consider.

My point isn't that bombs actually matter more than viruses. But that peoples' worries come in waves, and one day people still stop worrying about something they should worry about. One possible cause of doom.

[jennypenny]

It could be that (1) people my age have already lived through a cold war so it's not a novelty like a pandemic, and/or (2) people don't classify the threat from a pandemic and a nuclear war in the same way and therefore don't worry about them in equal measure. I personally classify nuclear war as an ELE along with things like asteroids -- scary, but not much that can be done about it if it happens. Pandemics ... well those I can do something about as they are theoretically survivable.


re: China -- China hasn't done a terrific job of dealing with Covid (they are still imposing lockdowns), their college aged kids aren't attending top universities in the same numbers, and they have unique population issues that will have to be addressed. They are also in deep economic shit if people stop buying their goods.

Regardless, if the planet is really coming up on some (very) hard limits, China's reign as the world's new super power might be unimpressive and possibly short-lived. Will being the world's lone super power help them through a sixth extinction event? Probably, but not much.

[zbigi]

(*) For example, Hiroshima had a yield of 16kt whereas the MOAB that the US dropped in Afghanistan in 2017 had a yield of 11kt.

Wikipedia says MOAB is 11 tons, not kilo tons?

[zbigi]

Regardless, if the planet is really coming up on some (very) hard limits, China's reign as the world's new super power might be unimpressive and possibly short-lived.

Alternatively, in a slow decline, being a superpower means there's enough resources for you, but not neccessarily for others. Jacob wrote somewhere that he expects the condition to worsen gradually across the world, but the US should be affected last of all. It could be similar with China.

[jacob]

Wikipedia says MOAB is 11 tons, not kilo tons?

Oi, you're right!

With blast radius going as the 2/3 power of the yield (this is high school physics because the yield covers a half-sphere volume whereas that blast radius covers an area), one would need (16000^2/3)/(11^2/3)=128 MOABs to replicate the first nuclear bomb. This physical relationship is incidentally also why the development of ever larger yields was halted in favor of more accurate delivery of multiple small ones because destruction is more efficient that way. If I may offer a trilemma: (force, precision, numbers). Most warfare doctrines come down to picking two, but only two, of those.

[prudentelo]

Before WWII smart military scientists (unfashionable branch of science, don't take it to parties, health science is much better) thought regular bombs would do it like nuclear bombs.

They did some bad statistics extrapolating from Guernica. London bought one million coffins during the Munich scare.

They still went to war. Several million tons of bombs dropped in WWII. Dozens of nuke-equivalents. Plus more damage from secondary fires. The real killer.

It has happened before. It can happen again.

It's more important that people believe the cause is worth it, than they believe the bombs don't kill. My point is beliefs change, even though deadliness of bombs (of given type) stay the same.

[George the original one]

Today we are fearful about viruses, but not fearful about nuclear bombs.

The pattern of nuclear bombs in fiction echo how public fear has shifted through the decades:
1) What if nuclear war breaks out on purpose?
2) What if nuclear war is accidently started? (madman, system malfunction)
3) What if a minor state goes rogue & uses a nuclear bomb? (Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa, North Korea, Iran)
4) What if terrorists use a nuclear bomb?

So far, none of those scenarios has played out.

[jacob]

They did some bad statistics extrapolating from Guernica. London bought one million coffins during the Munich scare.

Indeed! Like how the pre-covid standard inventory of body bags in metropolitan US hospitals had come down to about one hundredish. Why this particular range? Because in the rare case of a crashed commercial airline. Apparently justified and optimized as a cost-saving compromise somewhere between "just in time" delivery and "inconceivable" events. Where does anyone even begin anymore ...

[Campitor]

2) What if nuclear war is accidently started? (madman, system malfunction)

The Russians once had a malfunction of their missile detection system; it was detecting incoming nuclear warheads from the USA. Luckily a coolheaded General intervened and reasoned that no escalation or incident would warrant a US attack and a malfunction had to be the root cause. - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/opin ... 20missiles.

William J Casey, Director of the CIA from 1981 to 1987, wrote in his memoirs that another mistaken escalation almost occurred because of a midnight cleaning crew. An office used for Nuclear and Strategic planning in Europe was getting a thorough cleaning by a night crew. The Russians saw the lights on all night and thought the US/NATO must be planning a nuclear strike so they launched fighters and started troop movements. The US saw the Russian force mobilization and reacted in-kind. Luckily the US President called the Soviet Premier to ask why troops and nuclear assets were being mobilized. Eventually the all night office lights were mentioned. The President investigated and discovered the office was getting cleaned overnight. He called back the Soviet Premier to explain what happened. The US and Russians lowered their defense posture back to normal.

[ducknald_don]

The Russians once had a malfunction of their missile detection system; it was detecting incoming nuclear warheads from the USA. Luckily a coolheaded General intervened and reasoned that no escalation or incident would warrant a US attack and a malfunction had to be the root cause. - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/opin ... 20missiles.

Didn't he end up being punished for his decision. I wonder what decision he would have made if the incident had occurred during the current conflict.

[jacob]

There's a rather long list of whoopsies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _accidents
Also read: https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control- ... 143125788/

[ducknald_don]

If you look at the numbers we do seem to be getting better., only one incident in the 2010's but 28 in the 1950's.

[jacob]

Yeah, we should be very thankful to the engineers who built in enough fail-safe mechanisms into the various systems so that even when airplanes fall out of the sky or submarines drop to the bottom, the bombs don't accidentally detonate even on impact. Also the "social engineers" for ensuring that the people responsible for engaging are really really sure about it and it's not just up to one person having an emotional event or a bad day.
I highly recommend the C&C book. My "favorite" incident is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash ... apparently the bomb is still there lodged in a swamp somewhere in North Carolina. Crazy stuff. One could make movies about this and so people have. See e.g. Palomares in Spain or Thule in Greenland.

[Ego]

If you look at the numbers we do seem to be getting better., only one incident in the 2010's but 28 in the 1950's.

The question is, what are we getting better at, avoiding accidents or keeping them quiet?