Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JustYourAvgJester t1_ja512e8 wrote

Reply to comment by Sstnd in how could the future be for young people ? by nousomuchoesto

Ironically, his decedents could bring about the actual Nuke apocalypse.

2

Sstnd t1_ja523lp wrote

Whatever seems Ironic on that to you. Full out nuclear war isnt assured - another, 100% civilisationending process ist assured though. And we have a way different understanding about this one than we had back in your Grandpa's days.

0

JustYourAvgJester t1_ja52dhu wrote

oh no, I mean one of his decedents is in charge of an arsenal that probably could.

2

Sstnd t1_ja52wah wrote

Wow. So you got that going for you?

0

NaturalNines t1_ja56wem wrote

Scientists have been shouting about the end of the world for over a hundred years, dude. Climate change, malthusian population explosions, all sorts of shit.

Guess how many came true?

0

Sstnd t1_ja58nna wrote

My Smoking uncle has been Shouting about how Smoking is not as bad as it is made, how Alcohol helps him relax, all sorts of shit.

Guess how often he has died of cancer yet?

4

NaturalNines t1_ja5gama wrote

Anecdotes about your drunk uncle have no relevance to this discussion.

2

trippedbackwards t1_ja8779b wrote

I think that's his point! Some people are suggesting OP practically ignores all the dire projections. He's saying that just because we've survived as a species so far doesn't mean one of these real problems could have unprecedented results. Sure, his uncle is still alive. But he's very lucky. Smoking is, in fact, bad for you and kills millions of people.

He's basically illustrating "survivor bias".

1

NaturalNines t1_ja8gsjl wrote

Except one person saying something irrational about medical science isn't an argument against scientists pushing flawed calculations that end up not coming true.

Hence why, rather than addressing the scientific flaws that produced the false predictions, he starts making up excuses about the anecdotal experience of his uncle.

It's not a scientific argument at all. It's an excuse to not have one.

1

trippedbackwards t1_ja8mnng wrote

You said his anecdote wasn't relevant. He never claimed it was a scientific argument. His anecdote demonstrates survivor bias which is 100% relevant to the discussion. You were just too obtuse to recognize it.

1