Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped.

That is false. The Soviets declared war on Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, and launched their invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria on Aug. 9. The atomic bombs were dropped on Aug 6 and 9. The Japanese surrendered on Aug 15. Soviet entry into the war was certainly a factor in Japan's decision surrender, but the surrender did not precede the bombings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2 ... panese_War

There is no consensus among historians on this matter. But I apologise if I seemed more certain than was justified.

[Sculptor1]

You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful" [...] you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, the word 'world' can have different meanings. But if we consider something that can be applied both to a scientist and a diplomat, let's talk about the geopolitical world. And, yes, let's consider wars.

After finishing first world war a diplomatic effort was taken to prevent another world scale war from occurring. But the efforts lasted only several years. Seemingly the humans those days had no respect to diplomatic missions or decisions. Then came the second world war. Even after Germany fell, Japan was not willing to keep their arms down despite all the diplomatic efforts. Then the scientists came forward with the nuclear bombs, and we know what happened next. So scientists showed that they value more than diplomats in this particular situation.

You really think so? <baffled> Oppenheimer, when he realised the potential for actual destruction in the real world that his team had created, was appalled. Too late, but better late than never, some might say.

As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.

Your previous posts have used phrases like "better for the world", and so I wonder, do you think the creation of nuclear weapons contributed to the betterment of the world?

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped. The military rushed to drop them - to try out their shiny new toy - before the news of Japan's surrender became known, and prevented their strike. Was it politicians or scientists that did that? I don't know. Are senior soldiers neither, or both?

America was not that interested in Japan's surrender.
They were very keen to try both types of A bomb on the Japs.
If they were trying for surrender then they might have waited for Japan to assess the damges of the first before dropping the second- that the US had thrown $2billion into the project.
The Japs were very interested in the Russians who had assembled the largest force in human history and watched Manchuria fall in a couple of days. The japs chose the US over Russia, before completely realising the devastation of the A bomb.

[Sushan]

Only he could tell you whether, in retrospect, his decision was a wise one. He had no duties to do anything "for the world." The only thing bearing on the wisdom of his decision is whether the career switch delivered more or less satisfaction to him.

Satisfaction is a subjective experience. So his answer can be yes or no depending on his own reasons. Yes, no man comes to the world with designated duties, and it is up to the individual to decide whether to gain from the world or give something to it. But the world will asses you depending on what you give to others, but not depending on what you gained. So there is a weight to what others think about a person, and it applies to Dr. Ghoulem Berrah as well.

Whether that weight is felt by Berrah depends only upon how much he attaches to that assessment.

You're right, the weight of other people's opinions and assessments ultimately depends on how much importance Dr. Ghoulem Berrah places on them. It's true that society often judges individuals based on their contributions, but personal satisfaction and fulfillment play a significant role in determining whether a decision was wise or not.

Dr. Berrah's choice to switch careers from a scientist to a diplomat would have likely been influenced by his own priorities, values, and goals. In the end, it's up to him to decide whether the career change brought him more satisfaction or if he would have preferred to continue in the field of science.

[Sushan]

I am simply having the belief that trying to keep humans in peace and harmony by others, negotiations between countries and various other parties are quite useless, since we all are humans. We are bound to change, so will be all the negotiations and peace treaties. Ultimately what a diplomat does will be a temporary solution. OTOH science is an evolving subject. Yes, there may not be a shortage of scientists, but I do not think having more will be an excess as well. The scientific discoveries will make the human life better, while diplomatic missions just add some stories to the human history, and this history always keep on repeating.

Well no one notices the lives that weren't lost in the war that didn't happen. Or the refugees that weren't created in the border skirmish that was averted. Hence simplistic comments about the impact of diplomacy like yours.

As to scientific discoveries, I didn't hear any data that the guy who took over when he left Yale, didn't make even more and more important discoveries than he would have.

I am not sure whether we can compare two different people about something like scientific discoveries although they held the same appointment. The appointment or the logistics have a little to do to the innovations or breakthroughs of an individual. The skills are inherent and unique to a person. When such skills are directed in the correct way the correct and useful results will be produced. I think that direction was changed when Dr. Berrah left the field of science. Replacing him by another scientist has nothing to do with continuing the work what only Dr. Berrah could have done.

Several things. First he got his PhD in 1963, he was hired as an assistant professor (didn't have tenure) and was gone by 1965, hardly enough time to accomplish anything at all. In fact, in my PubMed review of him, I could only find his PhD dissertation, ie no publications as a professor (only as a student). There is no evidence he would have gotten tenure, let alone been a leader in his field.

You bring up valid points about Dr. Berrah's academic career and the limited time he spent in the field of science. It's true that his potential contributions to the scientific community might have been limited by the short duration of his time as a professor. It's also worth considering that success in academia, especially in research, often takes time and dedication to a specific field.

However, it's important to remember that individuals can have a significant impact in various domains, and sometimes a career change can lead to even greater contributions in a different field. As a diplomat, Dr. Berrah was able to use his unique skills and experiences to make a difference in international relations and promote peace.

[Sushan]

You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful" [...] you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, the word 'world' can have different meanings. But if we consider something that can be applied both to a scientist and a diplomat, let's talk about the geopolitical world. And, yes, let's consider wars.

After finishing first world war a diplomatic effort was taken to prevent another world scale war from occurring. But the efforts lasted only several years. Seemingly the humans those days had no respect to diplomatic missions or decisions. Then came the second world war. Even after Germany fell, Japan was not willing to keep their arms down despite all the diplomatic efforts. Then the scientists came forward with the nuclear bombs, and we know what happened next. So scientists showed that they value more than diplomats in this particular situation.

You really think so? <baffled> Oppenheimer, when he realised the potential for actual destruction in the real world that his team had created, was appalled. Too late, but better late than never, some might say.

As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.

Your previous posts have used phrases like "better for the world", and so I wonder, do you think the creation of nuclear weapons contributed to the betterment of the world?

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped. The military rushed to drop them - to try out their shiny new toy - before the news of Japan's surrender became known, and prevented their strike. Was it politicians or scientists that did that? I don't know. Are senior soldiers neither, or both?

It's important to acknowledge that both scientists and diplomats have their roles and responsibilities in shaping the world, and the outcome of their actions is not solely determined by their professions. Each situation and historical context can lead to different results, and the impact of their work depends on various factors.

In the case of the development and use of nuclear weapons, it's clear that the consequences have been both devastating and far-reaching. It's true that Oppenheimer and other scientists involved in the project later expressed regret and moral concerns about the creation and use of these weapons. The example you provided serves as a reminder that scientific advancements can have unintended consequences and that moral and ethical considerations must be taken into account when developing new technologies.

As for the role of diplomacy in preventing conflicts and fostering peace, it's important not to underestimate its potential impact. While diplomacy may not have been able to prevent all wars, it has played a significant role in resolving conflicts and maintaining peace in numerous instances throughout history. Diplomatic efforts have also contributed to the establishment of international norms and agreements that help maintain global stability.

[Sushan]

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped.

That is false. The Soviets declared war on Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, and launched their invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria on Aug. 9. The atomic bombs were dropped on Aug 6 and 9. The Japanese surrendered on Aug 15. Soviet entry into the war was certainly a factor in Japan's decision surrender, but the surrender did not precede the bombings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2 ... panese_War

You are correct. The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, before Japan's official surrender on August 15. It's important to note that the surrender was influenced by multiple factors, including both the bombings and the Soviet Union's entry into the war against Japan.

[Sushan]

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped.

That is false. The Soviets declared war on Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, and launched their invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria on Aug. 9. The atomic bombs were dropped on Aug 6 and 9. The Japanese surrendered on Aug 15. Soviet entry into the war was certainly a factor in Japan's decision surrender, but the surrender did not precede the bombings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2 ... panese_War

There is no consensus among historians on this matter. But I apologise if I seemed more certain than was justified.

It's true that there is no single consensus among historians regarding the precise factors that led to Japan's surrender in World War II. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the Soviet Union's entry into the war, are both considered significant factors. Debates on this topic reflect the complexity of historical events and the difficulty in determining causality.

[Sushan]

You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful" [...] you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, the word 'world' can have different meanings. But if we consider something that can be applied both to a scientist and a diplomat, let's talk about the geopolitical world. And, yes, let's consider wars.

After finishing first world war a diplomatic effort was taken to prevent another world scale war from occurring. But the efforts lasted only several years. Seemingly the humans those days had no respect to diplomatic missions or decisions. Then came the second world war. Even after Germany fell, Japan was not willing to keep their arms down despite all the diplomatic efforts. Then the scientists came forward with the nuclear bombs, and we know what happened next. So scientists showed that they value more than diplomats in this particular situation.

You really think so? <baffled> Oppenheimer, when he realised the potential for actual destruction in the real world that his team had created, was appalled. Too late, but better late than never, some might say.

As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.

Your previous posts have used phrases like "better for the world", and so I wonder, do you think the creation of nuclear weapons contributed to the betterment of the world?

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped. The military rushed to drop them - to try out their shiny new toy - before the news of Japan's surrender became known, and prevented their strike. Was it politicians or scientists that did that? I don't know. Are senior soldiers neither, or both?

America was not that interested in Japan's surrender.
They were very keen to try both types of A bomb on the Japs.
If they were trying for surrender then they might have waited for Japan to assess the damges of the first before dropping the second- that the US had thrown $2billion into the project.
The Japs were very interested in the Russians who had assembled the largest force in human history and watched Manchuria fall in a couple of days. The japs chose the US over Russia, before completely realising the devastation of the A bomb.

It is important to recognize that historical events are complex and multifaceted. The motivations behind the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be debated, and it is possible that multiple factors were at play, including the desire to test the new weapon, the need to hasten Japan's surrender, and concerns about the Soviet Union's increasing influence in the region.

As for whether the creation of nuclear weapons has contributed to the betterment of the world, it is a complicated question. On one hand, the development of nuclear weapons has undoubtedly led to the destruction of two cities and the loss of countless lives. On the other hand, the existence of nuclear weapons has been argued to have contributed to the concept of mutually assured destruction, which some believe has prevented large-scale conflicts between nuclear-armed nations.

[Sculptor1]

You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful" [...] you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, the word 'world' can have different meanings. But if we consider something that can be applied both to a scientist and a diplomat, let's talk about the geopolitical world. And, yes, let's consider wars.

After finishing first world war a diplomatic effort was taken to prevent another world scale war from occurring. But the efforts lasted only several years. Seemingly the humans those days had no respect to diplomatic missions or decisions. Then came the second world war. Even after Germany fell, Japan was not willing to keep their arms down despite all the diplomatic efforts. Then the scientists came forward with the nuclear bombs, and we know what happened next. So scientists showed that they value more than diplomats in this particular situation.

You really think so? <baffled> Oppenheimer, when he realised the potential for actual destruction in the real world that his team had created, was appalled. Too late, but better late than never, some might say.

As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.

Your previous posts have used phrases like "better for the world", and so I wonder, do you think the creation of nuclear weapons contributed to the betterment of the world?

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped. The military rushed to drop them - to try out their shiny new toy - before the news of Japan's surrender became known, and prevented their strike. Was it politicians or scientists that did that? I don't know. Are senior soldiers neither, or both?

America was not that interested in Japan's surrender.
They were very keen to try both types of A bomb on the Japs.
If they were trying for surrender then they might have waited for Japan to assess the damges of the first before dropping the second- that the US had thrown $2billion into the project.
The Japs were very interested in the Russians who had assembled the largest force in human history and watched Manchuria fall in a couple of days. The japs chose the US over Russia, before completely realising the devastation of the A bomb.

It is important to recognize that historical events are complex and multifaceted.

True but the simple trajectory which says:" 2 bombs = Japanese surrender = America won the war " is about as accurate as the story of Paul Revere, or Abe Linc fought the war to free the slaves.

[LuckyR]

Well no one notices the lives that weren't lost in the war that didn't happen. Or the refugees that weren't created in the border skirmish that was averted. Hence simplistic comments about the impact of diplomacy like yours.

As to scientific discoveries, I didn't hear any data that the guy who took over when he left Yale, didn't make even more and more important discoveries than he would have.

I am not sure whether we can compare two different people about something like scientific discoveries although they held the same appointment. The appointment or the logistics have a little to do to the innovations or breakthroughs of an individual. The skills are inherent and unique to a person. When such skills are directed in the correct way the correct and useful results will be produced. I think that direction was changed when Dr. Berrah left the field of science. Replacing him by another scientist has nothing to do with continuing the work what only Dr. Berrah could have done.

Several things. First he got his PhD in 1963, he was hired as an assistant professor (didn't have tenure) and was gone by 1965, hardly enough time to accomplish anything at all. In fact, in my PubMed review of him, I could only find his PhD dissertation, ie no publications as a professor (only as a student). There is no evidence he would have gotten tenure, let alone been a leader in his field.

You bring up valid points about Dr. Berrah's academic career and the limited time he spent in the field of science. It's true that his potential contributions to the scientific community might have been limited by the short duration of his time as a professor. It's also worth considering that success in academia, especially in research, often takes time and dedication to a specific field.

However, it's important to remember that individuals can have a significant impact in various domains, and sometimes a career change can lead to even greater contributions in a different field. As a diplomat, Dr. Berrah was able to use his unique skills and experiences to make a difference in international relations and promote peace.

Exactly. Which brings us back to my original post: scientists at Yale are very common, qualified diplomats in the Ivory Coast are rare.

[Sushan]

You really think so? <baffled> Oppenheimer, when he realised the potential for actual destruction in the real world that his team had created, was appalled. Too late, but better late than never, some might say.



Your previous posts have used phrases like "better for the world", and so I wonder, do you think the creation of nuclear weapons contributed to the betterment of the world?

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped. The military rushed to drop them - to try out their shiny new toy - before the news of Japan's surrender became known, and prevented their strike. Was it politicians or scientists that did that? I don't know. Are senior soldiers neither, or both?

America was not that interested in Japan's surrender.
They were very keen to try both types of A bomb on the Japs.
If they were trying for surrender then they might have waited for Japan to assess the damges of the first before dropping the second- that the US had thrown $2billion into the project.
The Japs were very interested in the Russians who had assembled the largest force in human history and watched Manchuria fall in a couple of days. The japs chose the US over Russia, before completely realising the devastation of the A bomb.

It is important to recognize that historical events are complex and multifaceted.

True but the simple trajectory which says:" 2 bombs = Japanese surrender = America won the war " is about as accurate as the story of Paul Revere, or Abe Linc fought the war to free the slaves.

You raise a valid point. The narrative that the atomic bombs alone led to Japan's surrender and an American victory is indeed an oversimplification of a complex series of events. History is often more intricate than the simplistic narratives we are taught or come to believe.

In reality, multiple factors contributed to the end of World War II, including the combined efforts of the Allied forces, the strategic bombing campaigns, the Soviet Union's entry into the war against Japan, and Japan's weakening economy and infrastructure. The atomic bombings were just one of these factors, albeit a significant and devastating one.

[Sushan]

I am not sure whether we can compare two different people about something like scientific discoveries although they held the same appointment. The appointment or the logistics have a little to do to the innovations or breakthroughs of an individual. The skills are inherent and unique to a person. When such skills are directed in the correct way the correct and useful results will be produced. I think that direction was changed when Dr. Berrah left the field of science. Replacing him by another scientist has nothing to do with continuing the work what only Dr. Berrah could have done.

Several things. First he got his PhD in 1963, he was hired as an assistant professor (didn't have tenure) and was gone by 1965, hardly enough time to accomplish anything at all. In fact, in my PubMed review of him, I could only find his PhD dissertation, ie no publications as a professor (only as a student). There is no evidence he would have gotten tenure, let alone been a leader in his field.

You bring up valid points about Dr. Berrah's academic career and the limited time he spent in the field of science. It's true that his potential contributions to the scientific community might have been limited by the short duration of his time as a professor. It's also worth considering that success in academia, especially in research, often takes time and dedication to a specific field.

However, it's important to remember that individuals can have a significant impact in various domains, and sometimes a career change can lead to even greater contributions in a different field. As a diplomat, Dr. Berrah was able to use his unique skills and experiences to make a difference in international relations and promote peace.

Exactly. Which brings us back to my original post: scientists at Yale are very common, qualified diplomats in the Ivory Coast are rare.

You make a good point. Dr. Berrah's unique combination of skills and experiences made him a valuable asset in the field of diplomacy, particularly in the Ivory Coast. His background in science likely provided him with a distinctive perspective and problem-solving abilities that may not have been as common among other diplomats. This emphasizes the importance of diversity in various fields, as individuals with different backgrounds can contribute in ways that might not be immediately apparent.

In the end, Dr. Berrah's decision to transition from a scientific career to diplomacy seems to have been beneficial for both him and the communities he served. It serves as a reminder that one's potential impact is not limited to a single field or profession, and individuals can make meaningful contributions in various domains throughout their lives.