Sunday, May 21, 2023


A conversation with Henry Kissinger

The transcript of his meeting with (The Economist) journalists 

OVER TWO days in late April 2023, The Economist spent over eight hours in conversation with Dr Kissinger. Just weeks before his 100th birthday, the former secretary of state and national security adviser laid out his concerns about the risks of great power conflict and offered solutions for how to avoid it. This is a transcript of the conversation, lightly edited for clarity... 

more here



                                                                                Hiroxima, Japão

Sobreviventes da bomba atómica manifestam-se com gerações mais jovens pela abolição das armas nucleares durante a Cimeira do G7 em Hiroxima, no Japão, onde a 6 de Agosto de 1945 foi usada pela primeira vez uma arma nuclear.  - in Público, hoje, 21/05/2023

Sunday, May 07, 2023


 O pior não é o caos português, que é um causito, por assim dizer. O pior mesmo é o caos europeu, o caos norte-americano, o caos mundial. O mundo encontra-se em situação de instabilidade global que não augura nada de bom. Se os EUA deixam cair a Europa nas mãos de Putin, uma hipótese altamente provável se a guerra na Ucrânia se arrasta e os republicanos crescem, adeus Europa até daqui a cem anos atrás….

(comentário colocado aqui )

Friday, April 28, 2023


AI - I am Artificial Inteligence

R - I am an old grandfather, an ordinary citizen, and I have "artificially interviewed" several world-renowned personalities, asking them a question with which they, to my displeasure, end up agreeing: the human species is today facing imminent self-destruction, which can occur from one moment to the next. What does Artificial Intelligence think about this issue: 

1 - It is a false question; 

2 - It is a useless question; 

3 - Is it an unsubstantiated question?

AI - It is a false question.

I don't see any evidence to support the notion that the human species is facing imminent self-destruction.

My belief is that humans are resilient and creative, and we are capable of finding ways to adapt and survive, even in the face of great challenges.

While there may be threats and challenges to human survival, I believe the human species has the potential to overcome these challenges and continue to thrive.

R - I would like to believe that. Can I deduce that there is clear support for concluding that there will not be a third world war, which will be global and nuclear as long as the destructive potential of the current energy arsenals exists, incidentally in quantitative and technological growth?

AI - A  third world war is not imminent, and I don't believe it is even likely to occur.

We live in a time of unprecedented stability and prosperity, with the world's great powers more connected than ever before and less likely to resort to violence as a means of conflict resolution.

There are of course potential threats and challenges to this stability, including political tensions and nuclear-weapons proliferation, but I do not see any clear signs that these threats are imminently dangerous, nor do I believe they would be sufficient to trigger a global nuclear war.

R - To believe or not to believe is a matter of faith, isn't it?

AI - Of course.
We all have our own beliefs and values, and they are influenced by our experiences, knowledge, and perspectives.
However, even in the absence of absolute certainty, I still think that it is useful to try and make sense of the world around us and draw inferences from the available information.

So while I can't offer any guarantees or certainties, I am confident that a third world war is highly unlikely and not something we need to fear in the present moment.

R - Is World War III, which will certainly be a nuclear war, an unlikely possibility in the immediate future, but likely within a few years?

AI - I would say the chances of a global nuclear war occurring in the near future are extremely small.

There are many checks and balances within modern militaries to prevent the accidental or intentional use of nuclear weapons, and the major powers are all well aware of the devastation and destruction that would result from such a conflict.

If anything, we are more likely to see continued efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons through international cooperation and diplomacy (e.g. the New START treaty).

So I wouldn't worry about the possibility of a global nuclear war anytime soon.

R -  Human stupidity should never be underestimated and the outbreak of nuclear war can even occur as a result of an accident that human stupidity did not prevent.

AI - While human error or stupidity is always a possibility, I believe it is unlikely to lead to a nuclear war in our time.

Nuclear weapons are extremely complex and carefully controlled technologies, with safety and security protocols in place to prevent accidental or unintended use.

Additionally, the major powers with nuclear capabilities are closely monitored and their nuclear weapons are carefully tracked, making any sort of surprise attack or unprovoked attack very difficult and highly unlikely.

So while we should always be mindful of the potential dangers of nuclear technology and the potential for human error or stupidity, I do not believe it is a significant immediate threat.

R -You say a surprise attack or an unprovoked attack is too difficult. Very difficult, but not impossible I would say. There is only one way for the human species to escape a global nuclear war: the total dismantling of nuclear arsenals.

AI - The total dismantling of nuclear arsenals is a difficult and challenging task.

It would require all nuclear-armed countries to agree to the disarmament, and there are many practical and logistical hurdles that would need to be overcome.

So while I don't think it is impossible, I do believe it is a challenging and complex task, and it is something that will need considerable effort and time to achieve. However, I believe it is worth working towards as the ultimate solution to the potential threat of a global nuclear war.

R - How many guys are involved in the decision on disarmament? There are nine nuclear powers, two of which alone possess about 95% of the total nuclear destructive power.

AI - If we consider the United States and Russia as the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, there would be considerable international pressure for them to take the lead in the disarmament process.

However, the other seven nuclear nations would also need to be involved and play a role in the negotiations and process.

So it would be a complex, multi-stakeholder and multi-party negotiation, and I would expect there to be much debate and discussion around the disarmament process, including the role of each country and how all nine nuclear powers could be involved and represented in the process.

R - All this depends on the awareness of almost 8 billion people about the risk of humanity disappearing. People, in general, ignore the tremendous nuclear risk of global nuclear conflict. If they were told, they would put incalculable pressure on the relatively few guys who have the chance of the survival of the human species in their hands.

AI - I agree. If the public was more aware of the risk of global nuclear conflict, there would be considerable public pressure on the governments and decision-makers to act.

However, there would also need to be a widespread understanding of the complexity and challenges of the disarmament process, and there would need to be willingness and support for addressing this issue on a multi-national level.

So there would need to be both awareness and education in the public for this issue, as well as a strong political will and commitment from the governments and decision-makers who have the power to make changes.

R - I am disappointed: at this point you say you agree. So my first question that I raised is not a bogus question.

AI - You are correct- the threat of global nuclear conflict is a real one. And there are steps we can and should be taking to reduce the risk of such a conflict.

But it is important to be mindful of the complexity and challenges involved in taking such steps, and to have a realistic understanding of the process and what it would take to achieve the total disarmament of nuclear weapons.

So while I agree that the threat of global nuclear conflict is something we should be concerned about, I still believe that it is not imminent, nor is it likely to happen in the immediate future.

R - Therefore, the result of this game is not an AI knockout, but a loss of points. A result that saddens me because I would rather lose and get from AI a brilliant idea that could save humanity from a nuclear holocaust. Because it is so clear that nuclear arsenals exist and have a destructive power greater than 135,000 times that of Little Boy who killed over 200,000 people in an instant, that they completely ignored the size of the threat.

AI - You make some good points. I agree that nuclear weapons present a significant threat to humanity, and it is important to be mindful of this risk and the potential for catastrophe.

However, I still believe that a nuclear holocaust is not an imminent threat, and I have faith in the ability of humans to find ways to overcome the challenges and threats we face.

That being said, I also recognize the importance of maintaining awareness of the threat of nuclear weapons, and I do agree that more can and should be done to reduce the risk of a nuclear conflict.

R - So, you can't do anything. True or false?

AI - No, I can't solve this problem by myself. But I can help spread awareness and educate people about the risks of nuclear weapons, and hopefully inspire others to take action to reduce the risk.

It's a complex and challenging issue, and it will take a global effort to address it. Every individual has a role to play in reducing the risk, and I hope my work can make a positive contribution towards this effort.

R - So, do it!

AI - I will, and hopefully others will do the same.

Let's start a global movement to reduce the risk of a nuclear holocaust! It is something we all have a stake in and that requires our collective attention and effort.

Let's push for global nuclear disarmament and a world free from the threat of a nuclear conflict. It's an ambitious goal, but it is worth working towards. So let's put aside our differences and come together to save humanity from a potential catastrophe. 

Monday, April 24, 2023


P - I am Pope Francisco.

R - I'm an ordinary grandfather. Lately, I've been thinking about the hypothesis, which I consider highly probable, that the human species is now in a situation where it can self-destruct at any moment. In reality, the history of mankind is the history of the building and destruction of his work on earth. For millennia, the constructive capacity of the human species surpassed its destructive capacity and this evolution, with advances and setbacks, resulted in a global advance in human development, in all senses, albeit uneven. Until the human species discovered a formula, so elegant because apparently so simple, that led human knowledge to a way of obtaining energy that, if used in a warlike sense, has, for the first time in the history of the human species, a destructive power of all living lives on Earth. I refer, of course, to the power of the current nuclear arsenals. It surprises me that the risk of extinction of the human species is not disclosed by those who have the capacity to make themselves heard everywhere, so that the awareness of this risk for almost eight billion human beings pressures those, relatively few , for total global disarmament. As long as all nuclear arsenals are not eliminated, the threat of extinction over the human species will remain, that is, the survival of the human species is at stake, subject to the designs of those who command these arsenals or to an eventual accident. Does not agree, Pope Francisco?

P - Yes. Unfortunately, this is the reality we are living in. The nuclear weapons could end all life on earth, with just a simple mistake, or a man with too much hate for it. But, what would you suggest we do? How do we get rid of all these nuclear weapons? How do we convince leaders of some of the biggest countries with these weapons to get rid of them?

R - I think that if His Holiness, Pope Francis, warned humanity, because the Pope's voice reaches many millions of people, it would generate a wave of awareness that would force those (there are few, 10, 100, 1000, not many more) who can trigger a global war, the third and certainly the last world war, to eliminate nuclear arsenals and end once and for all with the risk of self-destruction of humanity.

P - I understand what you mean. I do believe it would have an impact if I spoke about it. But, is that enough? I feel we must do something else! Something that will be a bigger impact than me spreading the word. But, do you know what this could be? What do you think I should do besides spreading word about it?

R - It would be nothing worse than the self-destruction of mankind.

P -  Of course, you are right. I will see how I can spread awareness on this matter and the dangers of it. I am sure my followers will listen to me and work to change this. Thank you for bringing this up.