Chapter 19 Chapter Sixteen When the Scientist Recognizes Evil

At a meeting of President Harry S. Robert Truman after the war, J. Robert Oppenheimer — the scientific director of the Manhattan nuclear weapons program — commented woefully that scientists had blood on their hands, they Sin has been recognized.Afterwards, Truman instructed his aides that he never wanted to see Oppenheimer again.Sometimes scientists are harshly criticized for doing bad things, and other times they are warned about the possibility of science being used for nefarious purposes. More generally, science is blamed because science and its products are seen as morally neutral, ethically ambiguous, and usable for both good and evil.It's an old charge.It may date back to the making of flaky stone tools and the use of fire.Since technology has been with our ancestors since before the first members of humanity were born, and we are a technological species, the question is less a question of science than a question of human nature.By saying this I do not mean that science is irresponsible for the misuse of its results.On the contrary, science bears great responsibilities, and the greater the power of its products, the greater its responsibilities.

Like assault weapons and their market derivatives, technologies that could alter the global environment in which we live should be used with caution.Yes, our predecessors have done this so far.And, as we always do, we are developing new technologies.But when our all-time flaws combine with our capacity for destruction, we must demand even more of ourselves—building a new morality on an unprecedented planetary scale. Scientists sometimes try to do this by praising the applications of science that enrich our lives and, consciously or not, keeping away from the tools of death that also stem from scientific research.Australian philosopher John Passmore wrote in his Science and its Critique:

The Spanish Inquisition tried to escape direct responsibility for burning the heretics by handing them over to the secular regime.To burn them personally, it piously explained, would be totally contrary to its Christian teachings.Few of us would allow the Inquisition to wash the blood off our hands so easily, knowing exactly what to expect.Likewise, where the technical application of a scientific discovery is obvious—for example, a scientist working on nerve gases—he cannot claim that such an application is “not his concern” on the basis that the military, rather than the scientist, uses the gas to injure man or kill.This responsibility is even more pronounced when scientists offer to help governments in order to obtain research funding.If a scientist, or philosopher, accepts funding from such a department as the Naval Research Department, he is cheating if he knows that his research is of no use to them; Responsible.He is, and should be, praised or blamed as far as the invention of his work is concerned.

An important historical example is the life of the Hungarian-born physicist Edward Teller.When Taylor was young, he was scarred by the Communist Revolution in Hungary led by Bela Kuhn, in which the property of middle-class families like his was confiscated, and a streetcar accident cost him another Part of a leg, the accident left him in eternal pain.His earlier research involved selection laws in quantum mechanics, condensed matter physics, and cosmology. He was the one who drove physicist Leo Szilard to Long Island in 1939 to meet with Einstein, who was on vacation there—a meeting that resulted in a historic letter, written by Einstein to Franklin President Roosevelt's letter called for the United States to develop a nuclear fission bomb, the atomic bomb, given the political and scientific dynamics of Nazi Germany.Recruited to work on the Manhattan Project, Taylor refused to cooperate once he arrived at Los Alamos—not because he was apprehensive about the possible consequences of the atomic bomb, but quite the opposite: because he wanted to develop more destructive weapons , a nuclear fusion or thermonuclear bomb, that is, a hydrogen bomb. (There is actually an upper limit to the amount of destructive energy that an atomic bomb can produce, while a hydrogen bomb does not, but a hydrogen bomb requires an atomic bomb as the trigger.)

After the invention of the atomic bomb, the surrender of Germany and Japan, and the end of the war, Taylor continued to stubbornly advocate so-called "super weapons", mainly to threaten the Soviet Union.Focus on the rebuilding, hardline, and militarized Soviet Union under Stalin and fanatical McCarthyism in the United States helped Taylor objectively.Oppenheimer, however, posed a considerable obstacle as he was chairman of the General Advisory Council of the postwar Atomic Energy Commission.Taylor provided key testimony at government hearings on Oppenheimer's loyalty to the United States.Taylor's involvement is generally considered to be largely responsible for the unfortunate outcome of Oppenheimer's safety clearance being revoked, his retirement from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and his Taylor's path to the superweapon is now clear.

The technology to create thermonuclear weapons is largely credited to Teller and the mathematician Stanislas Ulm.Hans Bess, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who headed the Theoretical Branch of the Manhattan Project and played a major role in the development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, confirmed that Taylor's original proposal was flawed and that it would take many people work.The first thermonuclear "device" in the United States was detonated in 1952 thanks to the important technical contribution of the young physicist Richard Gavin - a device too unwieldy to fit on a missile or bomber, only placed on There, assemble and detonate.The first real hydrogen bomb was invented by the Soviet Union and detonated a year later.It is debated whether the Soviet Union would have developed thermonuclear weapons if the United States had not developed them.And whether American thermonuclear weapons were needed to prevent the Soviet Union from using hydrogen bombs - because the United States had a large number of fission weapons at that time.There is now strong evidence that the Soviet Union—even before it exploded its first atomic bomb—had a viable thermonuclear weapon design.A hydrogen bomb is the "logical next step".But the Soviets sought to have a fusion weapon mainly because they learned through spies that the United States was working on it.

From my point of view, the consequences of a global nuclear war have become more dangerous with the invention of the hydrogen bomb, as a thermonuclear weapon exploding in the air is more capable of burning cities, creating a lot of smoke, making the land cold and dark, leading to a nuclear winter on a global scale .This is perhaps the reason for one of the most contentious scientific debates (c. 1983-1990) in which I have been involved.Most debates are driven by politics.The strategic significance of nuclear winter is that it unnerves those who insist on a policy of massive nuclear retaliation to deter a nuclear attack, and those who want to retain the option of a massive nuclear strike first.In either case, the environmental consequences would drive any country that fires large numbers of thermonuclear weapons toward self-destruction, even without nuclear retaliation from its adversary.A major component of this strategic policy for decades, the basis for accumulating tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, suddenly looked less reliable.

The original scientific paper on nuclear winter (1983) predicted a global temperature drop of 15-20°C, the current estimate is 10-15°C.The two values ​​agree fairly well, taking into account the irreducible uncertainties in the calculations.And both temperature drops are much larger than the difference between today's global temperature and the last ice age.An international team of 200 scientists has estimated the long-term consequences of global thermonuclear war, arguing that in a nuclear winter, civilizations and most people on Earth—including those far from the mid-latitude targets in the Northern Hemisphere— will be at risk, mainly by the threat of starvation.If a large-scale nuclear war breaks out, cities will be targeted.The work of Edward Teller and colleagues in the US (with a corresponding group in the USSR led by Andrei Sakharov) may be responsible for the end of humanity.The hydrogen bomb is the most terrifying weapon ever invented.

When the nuclear winter theory was first published in 1983, Taylor was quick to argue that (1) the physics was wrong; (2) the discovery had already been made at Lawrence Lynmer National Laboratory under his direction .In fact, there is little evidence that his findings preceded it, and considerable evidence that those responsible for reporting to leaders in every country on the effects of nuclear weapons ignored nuclear winter.But if Taylor is telling the truth, it is highly unreasonable that he did not reveal this finding to the parties affected — the citizens and leaders of his country, and the world.Keeping an ultimate weapon a secret—so no one knows it exists or what it can do—as in Stanley Kubrick's Doctor Strange is utterly absurd.

It seems to me impossible for any sane person to remain calm while they assist in this invention, even without thinking about nuclear winter.The pressure on those in favor of the invention—whether they realized it or not—must have been considerable.Regardless of Taylor's actual contribution, he was popularly called "the father of the hydrogen bomb" at the time. In a 1954 tribute in Life magazine, he said he was "almost fanatically determined" to build a hydrogen bomb.The second half of his life, I think, can be read as an attempt to justify what he had attracted.Taylor argued that the hydrogen bomb kept the peace, or at least prevented thermonuclear war, because the consequences of war between nuclear powers were simply too dangerous.This is not without reason.We haven't had a nuclear war yet, have we?But all of these arguments rest on the assumption that nuclear-armed states can, and always will, without exception, act sensibly.Mutual anger, vengeance and madness will not befall their leaders (or the military and secret police officers in charge of nuclear weapons).In the days of Hitler and Stalin, such thinking seemed naive.

Taylor has become a major force blocking a comprehensive treaty banning nuclear weapons tests.He made it harder to sign the 1963 Treaty Banning Above-ground Nuclear Tests.He argued that above-ground nuclear testing is vital to maintaining and improving the nuclear arsenal and that signing the treaty would "give up the future security of our nation".His views have now been shown to be specious.He is also an active advocate of nuclear power plant safety and investment effectiveness.He claimed to be the only casualty of the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania.Because while debating the issue, he had a heart attack. Taylor advocated detonating nuclear weapons from Alaska to South Africa to dig ports and canals, clear pesky mountains, and do the heavy lifting of earth-moving.When he proposed such a proposal to the Queen of Greece, Frednica, she is said to have replied: "Thank you, Dr. Taylor, but Greece already has enough wonderful sites." Taylor suggested, wanting to prove that Einstein general relativity?Then explode a nuclear weapon on the far side of the sun.Want to find out the chemical composition of the Moon?So launch a hydrogen bomb on the moon, detonate it, and analyze the spectrum of the flash and fireball. In the '80s, Taylor pitched President Ronald Reagan the idea of ​​Star Wars—they called it the "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI).Reagan seemed to have bought into Teller's wildly imaginative story of building an orbiting, table-sized, hydrogen-bomb-powered X-ray laser capable of destroying 10,000 Soviet warheads in flight, all over the world. When a thermonuclear war broke out, it really played a role in protecting American citizens. Defenders of the Reagan administration argued that while some aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative's role had been exaggerated, some deliberately exaggerated, it deserved credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union.However, there is no solid evidence to support this contention.Andrei Sakharov, Yevgeny Valekov, Roald Sagdev and other scientists had proposed to President Gorbachev to clarify the fact that if the United States really Leading the way through the Star Wars program, the safest and cheapest Soviet response was simply to expand existing nuclear arsenals and launch systems.In this way, the Star Wars program increases, not decreases, the danger of thermonuclear war.The Soviet Union's spending on air-based defense against U.S. nuclear missiles was insignificant by any standard—far short of causing the Soviet Union's economic collapse.The collapse of the Soviet Union was largely due to the failure of the command economy, the gradual understanding of Western living standards, general dissatisfaction with communist ideology, and Gorbachev's - although this is not the result he wanted - to " Transparency" and the promotion of openness. 10,000 American scientists and engineers have publicly sworn that they will not work on the Star Wars program or receive funding from the Strategic Defense Initiative.The incident set an example of widespread and courageous non-cooperation by scientists (at conceivable expense to personal gain) against a democratic government that was at least temporarily disorientated. Taylor also advocated the development of a ground-penetrating nuclear warhead - so that the hostile nation's underground command centers and buried deep underground shelters for the leadership (and their families) could be attacked and destroyed; Just 100 tons of nuclear warheads would suffice, and the removal of the underground structure "would not produce a single casualty", he said: civilians would be forewarned.Nuclear war would be humane. As I've written before, Edward Teller -- still energetic and clear-headed in his late 90s -- started a campaign with the former Soviet nuclear weapons development group to develop and explode a new generation of efficient space thermonuclear weapons , to destroy or deflect asteroids that could hit Earth.I worry that premature experiments in nearby asteroid orbits could be extremely dangerous to our species. Dr. Taylor and I met privately.We've debated it at scientific conferences, in the national media, and in secret meetings of Congress.We have great disagreements, especially about Star Wars, nuclear winter, and asteroid defense.Perhaps all of this made my opinion of him hopelessly subjective.Although he was a fierce anti-communist and technology enthusiast, looking back on his life, I see more in his desperate defense of the hydrogen bomb: the effect of the hydrogen bomb is not as bad as you think; it can Used to protect the world from other hydrogen bombs, to function in science and civil engineering, to protect Americans from enemy thermonuclear weapons, to make war humane, and to save our planet from dangers that may arise at any time from the universe .He tried to believe that in the future humanity would see him and thermonuclear weapons as saviors rather than destroyers. A number of dangers arise when scientific research wields enormous, indeed frightening, power over fallible national and political leaders: one is that some of the scientists involved are anything but semblance of objectivity. all.Power corrupts, always has.In such an environment, secretive institutions are especially pernicious, so democratic oversight and balance are especially valuable (a point Taylor, who thrived in secrecy, has attacked more than once).The CIA's inspector general commented in 1995 that "absolute secrecy breeds absolute corruption".The most open and lively debate is often the only guarantee against the most dangerous misuses of technology.The crux of the debate is perhaps obvious—many scientists, and even laymen, can tell the truth without burden.Another point might be more subtle, and an unnamed graduate student living somewhere far from Washington, D.C., might notice something—and if the debate was held in secret, he wouldn't have any chance to comment. In what domain is human endeavor not morally ambiguous?Even folklore, which is supposed to give us behavioral and ethical advice, is contradictory.Consider the adage: Haste creates waste.Yes, but it is also true that by acting in time, you can avoid piles of problems.Safety comes first; but if you don't enter the tiger's den, how can you get a tiger's cub.Where there is smoke, there is fire, but you can't judge a book by its cover alone.A penny saved is a penny earned, but you cannot take away the penny you earned.If you stop and stop, you will suffer from it, but where the wise dare not set foot, the fools flock to it.The three cobblers hold Zhuge Liang, and the three monks have no water to eat.Once upon a time, people planned their actions, or justified their actions, on the basis of these contradictory platitudes.What kind of moral responsibility should the aphorism bear?What about astrologers, fortune tellers and tabloid seers? Or consider mainstream religions.In Micah we are exhorted to do things justly and to love mercifully; in Leviticus we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves; in the Gospel " in which we are encouraged to love our enemies.But consider that, where these well-meaning exhortations have taken hold, the blood of the book's zealots has been shed. The book of Joshua and the second half of Numbers praise the massacres of men, women, children, and even livestock that took place city by city throughout Canaan, and the ancient city of Jericho in a "Holy War" " was erased.The only justification for these massacres is what the murderers claim, in exchange for circumcision of their sons and adoption of a special set of rituals; their ancestry has long been assured that the land will be theirs.For these extermination campaigns, there is not a trace of self-reproach to be found in the sacred scriptures, not an iota of patriarchal or divine unease.Instead, Joshua "destroyed all breathing life, as the God of Israel commanded" (Joshua 10:40).And these events are not accidental, but are central to the main narrative throughout the Old Testament.Similar stories of genocide (genocide for the Amalekites) can be found in Saul, Esper, and elsewhere in the Bible, and have little moral question on.All this, of course, troubled the liberal theologians of later ages. The devil is said to be able to "justify his purpose by quoting words from the Bible." The Bible is filled with stories of so many conflicting moral standards that every generation can find words in the Bible to justify any action they want to take - from incest, to slavery, to mass murder to the noblest love, bravery and self-sacrifice.And this confusion of moral multiple personalities is by no means limited to Judaism and Christianity.You find them deeply embedded in the traditions of Islam, Hinduism, and almost every religion in the world.That being the case, there may not be as many morally ambiguous scientists as the average person. I believe that scientists have a special responsibility to warn the public of possible dangers, especially dangers arising from science or foreseen through the application of science.You could say that this mission is prophetic.It is clear that warnings should be prudent, and not exaggerated too much in relation to the danger; but if we cannot avoid mistakes, what is at stake, they should be on the side of safety. Among the Kunsang hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari Desert, when two men, perhaps fueled by testosterone, had an argument, the women took their poisoned arrows so that the weapons would not be used to hurt each other.Today, our poisoned arrows can destroy civilizations all over the world and exterminate the entire human race.The price of moral ambiguity is too high now.Because of this—and not because of access to knowledge—scientists have a high ethical responsibility, an extraordinary and unprecedented ethical responsibility.It is my hope that graduate science programs will address these questions clearly and systematically to inexperienced scientists and engineers.And, sometimes I wonder if, in our society, women — and children — will eventually keep our poisoned arrows safe, too?