Growing up in the 1950s, I remember people beginning to talk about nuclear war and the living envying the dead. Such talk became greater in the 1960s, toward the tail end of which I used to sit Victor Alert—15 minute quick reaction alert with the aircraft armed with a nuclear weapon.
But, the idea that civilization would end with nuclear war or some other activity has always seemed strange to me. Now, someone muses on the outcome of a mass death event that did not totally wipe out all human life.
It seemed like a reasonable analysis to me. Not pretty, but reasonable.
Regards — Cliff
I think that the basis for the held view that a post nuclear war world would make the living envy the dead was based largely on the assumption that such a devastating exchange would render the earth's surface (at least the solid parts) more or less uninhabitable because of high radiation levels and the ecological effects of a nuclear winter.
ReplyDeleteThis fellow's posit and analysis seems reasonable if not hopeful, but he fails to consider what brought humanity to its knees to begin with. So many of the "plagues" capable of such devastation would likely not occur without lasting effects. Consider the outcome of a world wide distribution of small pox, based on an accidental or "limited" release of the bug..which of course would be reengineered, and therefore much more virulent than the plain label variety. And if we did suffer a nuclear winter which of course could occur as well with a "small" extraterrestrial strike on earth, farming would be pretty much unrealistic, thus, the few survivors would be left to chase a deer in the dead of winter.
And, assuming that the Irish guy could be correct in all his assumptions......one muses about the amount of time it would take humanity to "evolve" back to Victor Alert.