The various psychological distresses described above would seem to be, at heart, based on a very common and very understandable assumption that life is better than death. Thus, from that perspective, mass death caused by nuclear war is seen as the ultimate tragedy.
It seems worthwhile to question this assumption which is so foundational t…
The various psychological distresses described above would seem to be, at heart, based on a very common and very understandable assumption that life is better than death. Thus, from that perspective, mass death caused by nuclear war is seen as the ultimate tragedy.
It seems worthwhile to question this assumption which is so foundational to the human experience. Is life better than death? Is death the ultimate calamity? Why do we think that? Based on what proof exactly?
At first glance such questions may seem to be wandering off the topic of nuclear weapons. Experts on technical and political matters may find such questions to be uninviting. But, imho, such large questions are really diving deeper in to the subject of nuclear war, and not wandering off at all.
It seems worthwhile to explore such deeper aspects of the nuclear threat, given that there's really little to no credible evidence we have much of a clue of how to eternally avoid nuclear war. If it's true that we are unable to relieve our fears by removing the threat, the only option remaining to us may be to manage our relationship with the threat.
Is life better than death?
This is really not such a unusual idea. Nuclear war or not, we're all going to die of something someday. And so, nuclear war or not, coming to some accommodation with death is a job we all have to do anyway.
The various psychological distresses described above would seem to be, at heart, based on a very common and very understandable assumption that life is better than death. Thus, from that perspective, mass death caused by nuclear war is seen as the ultimate tragedy.
It seems worthwhile to question this assumption which is so foundational to the human experience. Is life better than death? Is death the ultimate calamity? Why do we think that? Based on what proof exactly?
At first glance such questions may seem to be wandering off the topic of nuclear weapons. Experts on technical and political matters may find such questions to be uninviting. But, imho, such large questions are really diving deeper in to the subject of nuclear war, and not wandering off at all.
It seems worthwhile to explore such deeper aspects of the nuclear threat, given that there's really little to no credible evidence we have much of a clue of how to eternally avoid nuclear war. If it's true that we are unable to relieve our fears by removing the threat, the only option remaining to us may be to manage our relationship with the threat.
Is life better than death?
This is really not such a unusual idea. Nuclear war or not, we're all going to die of something someday. And so, nuclear war or not, coming to some accommodation with death is a job we all have to do anyway.