[Gatac]

Here's some reasons why I don't think we should nuke each other, even in the face of humanity going down the drain.

First off, I've talked about the damage to Earth's biosphere. Plus, the survivors (and there will be survivors) will either be condemned to a dark age [if they're numerous] or to one of the slowest, nastiest deaths possible, widespread radiation poisoning [if they are few]. I'm opposed to the first one, because that's exactly what we're trying to prevent, and the second one on ethical grounds.

Second, self-determination. I'd much rather we back off on our moralistic laws on suicide and let the problem sort out itself as it gets worse. World is unbearable? Your call, Mister. Sign this scrip here, do you want your morphine overdose now or would you like to say goodbye to your loved ones first? This is harsh, I know, but it gives the people involved a choice rather than smacking them with nukes for the good of the planet. Plus, I can imagine that a lot of people in third-world countries do not actually care about the problems we as western civilisation have. Even if we all disappear of the face of the earth, they'll go on living their comparatively simple lifes - unless we poison the biosphere so massively that they can't farm or have herds. Nukes - well, they're sorta made to fuck up the biosphere, if you get my drift.

Third, the problem may, in fact, be self-correcting. As we get closer to the endgame, new technology may yet be developed that allows us to escape or at least use a new resource for a time. Lower population levels (re: suicide; I don't know if births would go up or down in light of the crisis, but I assume that we'll head downwards overall, at least in the western world) will lighten the load on nature and our resources. This is in fact the only similarity I have with VHE - I agree that, barring any near-future tech jumps that allow us to leave Earth, humanity is best served by sizing down some. However, I think depression and personal choice is at least as effective as preaching the "Kill yourself for the good of the planet" claptrap, plus it feels to me morally superior because you're not trying to convince people to kill themselves, merely providing a safe and painless way to do it.

Fourth, of course, nuking people has awful connotations associated with war. It doesn't matter if those people wanted to die (and good luck proving that), you've attacked another, sovereign country (or even yourself) with a weapon of mass destruction. Essentially, you're not trying to kill people, but a country, and that brings all side of nasty philosophical baggage, not the least of which would be that the few nuclear powers we have (seven, I think) would - for total human extinction - have to nuke everyone else first, at which point the justified question will arise whether they will actually kill themselves, too, after they've reduced the human population to 2 billion or less, which - as the VHE says - is in fact a far more sustainable population size than the 6+ billion we have now. Also, who gets to decide if you want to get nuked into oblivion? President, parliament, kings? Popular vote? How do you deal with dissidents? Are you going to kill people who adamantly don't want to die just because they happen to live nearby people who do want to die? Would that be a simple majority, 2/3rds, or is there a certain percentage of people where you have a sort of veto cutoff? What about neighbouring countries?

Gatac