Physics for tomorrow, NuklearPower
I am taking an ethics course right now. Physics 501, special topics, ethics in physics. It's a really cool course, and the homework each week is to organize your thoughts for the upcoming topic. Being a college student, and the class being tomorrow, I thought right now would be a good time to start the homework. Since this is where I organize most of my thoughts anyways, it seems an appropriate place to work.
The topic: Should an ethical physicist work on weapons of mass destruction?
I personally do not like weapons of mass destruction. I hate them all. I think that all of them should be launched into space to blow some passing comet to smitherines. They cannot be used in a chivalrous way, which assaults my quixotic nature, and all leave very nasty side effects (radiation and such). Also, they are imprecise, as they decimate everything within the area, regardless of guilt. The worst part, however, is that governments are usually in control of these weapons.
As much as I dislike the dishonor, mess, and imprecision that nukes bring, I must admit that they have been useful. The Manhatten project can be said to have won the war for the US. However, this is only because the Japanese or Gernmans may have gotten these weapons first and used them on us to end the war in their favor. The weapons ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians, mainly civilians, and saved the lives of thousands or more of American troops. This is an odd trade, but one a politicain must make because his duty is to his people.
Is a scientist a patriot first and member of the world second? Or is it the other way around?
If he is a patriot first, he will make the nuke for his country so they can kill many people to save a few of their own. If he is a member of the world first, he will not because he doesnt view his countrymen as more valuable than other people.
However, making nuclear weapons opened the door to nuclear power, which we still have not plumbed the depths of. It helped scientists with discovering much about radioactivity and atomic science, so the ethical sciences were advanced by it. However, the ends does not justify the means, so this argument is thrown out the window.
If I were making a nuke for my own personal defense, I would feel better about it than making one for a government. With a government you cannot trust them, even if the person currently in power is a good ethical man, they will soon (in the life of a nuke) be deposed for another, and they for another, and being a physicist, I know that the probability of them always being good ethical people is close to nil. So your work could one day end up killing innocents, and you have to live with that.
Finally, I think that as ethical scientists we SHOULD work on weapons of mass destruction for the sole sad fact that not every physicist for all time would boycott working on them, so unfortunately the rest of us should make sure someone is working for a somewhat ethical organization that combats the unethical ones, keeping the "good guys" one step ahead of the game, and keeping the bad guys in check. Unfortunately, this means that physicists should be in the business of judging motives, which is impartial. Thus, the best option is to have a group of ethical physicists running a counter-nuke organization (aided by non-physicists), that keeps ahead of illicit groups, keeps existing nukes from getting into the wrong hands, and keeps new nukes from being created. This is the best idea I have for keeping the mass destruction problem under control.
The topic: Should an ethical physicist work on weapons of mass destruction?
I personally do not like weapons of mass destruction. I hate them all. I think that all of them should be launched into space to blow some passing comet to smitherines. They cannot be used in a chivalrous way, which assaults my quixotic nature, and all leave very nasty side effects (radiation and such). Also, they are imprecise, as they decimate everything within the area, regardless of guilt. The worst part, however, is that governments are usually in control of these weapons.
As much as I dislike the dishonor, mess, and imprecision that nukes bring, I must admit that they have been useful. The Manhatten project can be said to have won the war for the US. However, this is only because the Japanese or Gernmans may have gotten these weapons first and used them on us to end the war in their favor. The weapons ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians, mainly civilians, and saved the lives of thousands or more of American troops. This is an odd trade, but one a politicain must make because his duty is to his people.
Is a scientist a patriot first and member of the world second? Or is it the other way around?
If he is a patriot first, he will make the nuke for his country so they can kill many people to save a few of their own. If he is a member of the world first, he will not because he doesnt view his countrymen as more valuable than other people.
However, making nuclear weapons opened the door to nuclear power, which we still have not plumbed the depths of. It helped scientists with discovering much about radioactivity and atomic science, so the ethical sciences were advanced by it. However, the ends does not justify the means, so this argument is thrown out the window.
If I were making a nuke for my own personal defense, I would feel better about it than making one for a government. With a government you cannot trust them, even if the person currently in power is a good ethical man, they will soon (in the life of a nuke) be deposed for another, and they for another, and being a physicist, I know that the probability of them always being good ethical people is close to nil. So your work could one day end up killing innocents, and you have to live with that.
Finally, I think that as ethical scientists we SHOULD work on weapons of mass destruction for the sole sad fact that not every physicist for all time would boycott working on them, so unfortunately the rest of us should make sure someone is working for a somewhat ethical organization that combats the unethical ones, keeping the "good guys" one step ahead of the game, and keeping the bad guys in check. Unfortunately, this means that physicists should be in the business of judging motives, which is impartial. Thus, the best option is to have a group of ethical physicists running a counter-nuke organization (aided by non-physicists), that keeps ahead of illicit groups, keeps existing nukes from getting into the wrong hands, and keeps new nukes from being created. This is the best idea I have for keeping the mass destruction problem under control.
posted by Duncan Ohio at 7:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home