One of the two major nuclear powers is trying their damned hardest to break MAD.
Does this mean that we can hold the people working on it responsible for billions of deaths, should they succeed?
Can we hold them responsible for unprecedented crimes against humanity - today? Or can we at least get them to stop doing what they are doing, and call it even?
Jenner is an odd choice over Hilleman. Jenner discovered the underlying ideas of vaccines, yes, but he also did relatively little to actually save lives.
It was Hilleman who actually realized vaccines as a medical intervention/the standard of care, and brought them to the people. It's estimated he's saved ~0.5-1 billion lives, basically directly.
I have a hard time understanding how the creation and distribution of the smallpox vaccine did little to save lives.
As per wikipedia
> In Jenner's time, smallpox killed around 10% of global population, with the number as high as 20% in towns and cities where infection spread more easily.
His vaccine was in use for over a hundred years as a 1st gen vaccine until the early 20th century.
> I have a hard time understanding how the creation and distribution of the smallpox vaccine did little to save lives.
Not did little - did relatively little when compared to Hilleman, who operated on such a greater scale and developed 40+ useable vaccines. For every usable vaccine, there are dozens or hundreds that work in theory, but not in practice, for so many different issues. Hilleman didn't just solve those issues, he developed the field of solving those issues, and his methodology, techniques, and end products remain cutting edge even today. It's impossible to overstate the effect Hilleman has had on the unprecedented immunity bubble we are living in.
Jenner did great work, but it was also an advance of an existing field. Variolation existed and was effective. Vaccination was a great step forward, but smallpox deaths were declining by the time he developed the method.
I've no real issue with either of them making an arbitrary list, but I guess I consider Hilleman's body of work to be so much larger and more effective. Not at all any disparagement of Jenner, just...Hilleman accomplished that much.
Would Hilleman have been able to develop vaccines had Jenner not developed the first ~200 years earlier? In a way, any lives saved by Hilleman can be partially attributed to Jenner as well.
The Haber-Bosch process enabled WW1 and WW2. It would have been simply impossible for Germany or any country to build enough explosives for a world war without the ability to synthesize ammonium nitrate. By 1915 about half of the explosives used were ammonium nitrate-based. One of its many uses was enhance and pad out dynamite which could not be produced fast enough.
In particular, both WW1 and WW2 would have ended very quickly for Germany without the Haber-Bosch process because of the naval blockade. "Master Mind: The Rise and Fall of Fritz Haber" by Daniel Charles makes the argument that WW1 could never have lasted more than a year or so without Haber's work.
He also personally had a role in starting WW1, albeit a small one, by helping with and signing a manifesto of intellectuals in Germany that supported the idea of war.
Never mind that Haber invented gas warfare (ironically and sadly, he was Jewish and his work would lead to the gas chambers). He was also an ardent supporter of chemical and gas warfare. He would give speeches about how good gas warfare is because there aren't many wounded soldiers left to care for, just the dead.
Between WW1 and WW2 something like 100 million people died. Haber is not a figure that should appear on this list.
In many ways he was also a tragic figure. From a hardcore nationalist, he was cast aside because he was Jewish. His wife committed suicide because of gas warfare during the battle of Ypres. His daughter committed suicide when her research on an antidote for gas warfare was cancelled. Many in his extended family were killed by the country he was such an ardent supporter of.
>Between WW1 and WW2 something like 100 million people died. Haber is not a figure that should appear on this list.
OK, so instead of 1-2 billion, he's at 0.9 to 1.9 billion lives saved/enabled? You make a convincing argument for why he maybe wasn't a good person, but net, the Haber-Bosch process has enabled so many more people to live than it has enabled people to die.
That's not a moral judgement, just pure numbers thing.
I think your "lives saved/enabled" comment brings up a very important question, though. Is a life enabled worth the same thing as a life saved? More to the point in this equation, I think the murder of any individual is much worse than having technology limitations that prevent some people from being born in the first place.
Without the Haber-Bosch process, the world population would be much, much smaller, that's undeniable. But the primary reason it would be smaller is so many people would have never been born - is that really a problem though?
I reckon most of those people would prefer to have been born. So from an objectivist, population average view, perhaps not equivalent to a life saved. But to any individual, it seems to equate to their life being saved.
> I reckon most of those people would prefer to have been born.
Philosophically, this feels like such a weird statement to me. I'm quite sure I'd be 100% fine with never having been born, because there'd be nobody to care about the lack of me in the first place. There are of course an infinite number of people who were never born due to some small butterfly-effect missed connections.
If a family has ten kids, is that family worth more than 3x a family with just one child?
That's what gets to me about utilitarian philosophy. By adding more people, something humans are good at, you're increasing the number of people that deserve moral consideration.
The idea that every life is sacred leads to some trolley-problem level of moralizing
Also the misplaced notion that all religious ideologies are same. Religions followed strictly promote procreation but they do not provide a solution for hunger, using limited resources of the world etc.
I can also argue as an Indian that authoritarian Chinese growth over last 4 decades did more to remove people from poverty and increase quality of life (in the process also saving many lives, whatever the cost - 15k Tiananmen deaths etc.) than democratic India where till recently nothing seemed to get done due to corruption, mismanagement and people fighting over limited resources.
Not to negate the amazing accomplishments here but, is saved the right word? After all they were saved but only to later die of something else. So prolonged might be more accurate although then you are forced to consider if that’s a good or bad thing. Because if you prolong someone’s life and they have a poor standard of living is it even worthwhile or are you just dragging out their suffering? I mean I see the most successful businessmen in history spending billions on rockets rather than buying mosquito nets to save lives by the dollar and I have to wonder if they haven’t come to the same conclusion. That is; the quality of the experience is as important as the length.
The article didn't mention it but Dr. Frederick Banting sold the patent for Insulin for $1. He was quoted as saying, “Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.” He would be rolling in his grave today if he saw the outrageous prices Insulin goes for and the perversity of the U.S. health care system.
He dindn't know how to do business. /s
And sidelining the "U.S. health care system" it's a bit unfair. A lot of "food" companies make big money selling sugar desguised as food or drinks.
Fermi would be a hero in the climate change environment.
Unfortunately not the entire “green” community/politics doesn’t see the nuclear as green and as a technology that can save this planet before getting to the fusion or whatever.
You've been downvoted by others for commenting with hyperbole about this "problem" that isn't really a problem, and for being wrong about viewing it that way. I didn't downvote you, but here's a link explaining why nuclear waste doesn't have to trouble any future generations at all. There are also many others that go into deeper detail online in case you're willing to set aside a specific viewpoint long enough to learn more details.
Fritz & harber Bosch, what a tragedy. They invented the technology to make Lebensraum unnecessary, long before WW2, but the anti-free-trade big game of empires, made the technology unfeasible dye to fossil fuel dependancies. The whole of Europe could have been spared this burning.
Hmm... Did they "save" billions of lives, or enable population growth into the billions?
Big difference...
The article byline: "...as we work at building a better future, let's dig in to how we got to where we are today"
Well, where is humanity today? Sheltering from unprecedented heatwaves in the northern hemisphere, while sidelining the fauna and flora that sustains our existence?
According to James Lovelock (https://youtu.be/zA1R64bBjHg), there might be as few as 100 million surviving humans by the end of this century.
32 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 66.8 ms ] threadOtherwise there would be another world war
One of the two major nuclear powers is trying their damned hardest to break MAD.
Does this mean that we can hold the people working on it responsible for billions of deaths, should they succeed?
Can we hold them responsible for unprecedented crimes against humanity - today? Or can we at least get them to stop doing what they are doing, and call it even?
No. Crimes against humanity applies only to small countries who lose the war with big countries.
It was Hilleman who actually realized vaccines as a medical intervention/the standard of care, and brought them to the people. It's estimated he's saved ~0.5-1 billion lives, basically directly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Hilleman
Of the 14 recommended vaccines in the US, he developed 8 of them.
As per wikipedia
> In Jenner's time, smallpox killed around 10% of global population, with the number as high as 20% in towns and cities where infection spread more easily.
His vaccine was in use for over a hundred years as a 1st gen vaccine until the early 20th century.
Not did little - did relatively little when compared to Hilleman, who operated on such a greater scale and developed 40+ useable vaccines. For every usable vaccine, there are dozens or hundreds that work in theory, but not in practice, for so many different issues. Hilleman didn't just solve those issues, he developed the field of solving those issues, and his methodology, techniques, and end products remain cutting edge even today. It's impossible to overstate the effect Hilleman has had on the unprecedented immunity bubble we are living in.
Jenner did great work, but it was also an advance of an existing field. Variolation existed and was effective. Vaccination was a great step forward, but smallpox deaths were declining by the time he developed the method.
I've no real issue with either of them making an arbitrary list, but I guess I consider Hilleman's body of work to be so much larger and more effective. Not at all any disparagement of Jenner, just...Hilleman accomplished that much.
The Haber-Bosch process enabled WW1 and WW2. It would have been simply impossible for Germany or any country to build enough explosives for a world war without the ability to synthesize ammonium nitrate. By 1915 about half of the explosives used were ammonium nitrate-based. One of its many uses was enhance and pad out dynamite which could not be produced fast enough.
In particular, both WW1 and WW2 would have ended very quickly for Germany without the Haber-Bosch process because of the naval blockade. "Master Mind: The Rise and Fall of Fritz Haber" by Daniel Charles makes the argument that WW1 could never have lasted more than a year or so without Haber's work.
He also personally had a role in starting WW1, albeit a small one, by helping with and signing a manifesto of intellectuals in Germany that supported the idea of war.
Never mind that Haber invented gas warfare (ironically and sadly, he was Jewish and his work would lead to the gas chambers). He was also an ardent supporter of chemical and gas warfare. He would give speeches about how good gas warfare is because there aren't many wounded soldiers left to care for, just the dead.
Between WW1 and WW2 something like 100 million people died. Haber is not a figure that should appear on this list.
In many ways he was also a tragic figure. From a hardcore nationalist, he was cast aside because he was Jewish. His wife committed suicide because of gas warfare during the battle of Ypres. His daughter committed suicide when her research on an antidote for gas warfare was cancelled. Many in his extended family were killed by the country he was such an ardent supporter of.
OK, so instead of 1-2 billion, he's at 0.9 to 1.9 billion lives saved/enabled? You make a convincing argument for why he maybe wasn't a good person, but net, the Haber-Bosch process has enabled so many more people to live than it has enabled people to die.
That's not a moral judgement, just pure numbers thing.
Without the Haber-Bosch process, the world population would be much, much smaller, that's undeniable. But the primary reason it would be smaller is so many people would have never been born - is that really a problem though?
Philosophically, this feels like such a weird statement to me. I'm quite sure I'd be 100% fine with never having been born, because there'd be nobody to care about the lack of me in the first place. There are of course an infinite number of people who were never born due to some small butterfly-effect missed connections.
That's what gets to me about utilitarian philosophy. By adding more people, something humans are good at, you're increasing the number of people that deserve moral consideration.
The idea that every life is sacred leads to some trolley-problem level of moralizing
"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space 'Cause there's bugger all down here on earth"
"Can we take your liver now" ?
I can also argue as an Indian that authoritarian Chinese growth over last 4 decades did more to remove people from poverty and increase quality of life (in the process also saving many lives, whatever the cost - 15k Tiananmen deaths etc.) than democratic India where till recently nothing seemed to get done due to corruption, mismanagement and people fighting over limited resources.
Then he probably helped bring freedom to billions of people as well.
WWI and WWII broke the back of European power and made it untenable for them to hold onto their colonies.
Right before the outbreak of WWI, Europe as a whole controlled the majority of Africa, India, and had carved of China into zones of influence.
WWI and the WWII broke them psychologically, financially, and demographically.
That's why they thought. In reality they just changed masters.
Unfortunately not the entire “green” community/politics doesn’t see the nuclear as green and as a technology that can save this planet before getting to the fusion or whatever.
That is how long they will have to look after (some of) the waste.
There is no hole deep enough that you can put high level waste into and safely ignore it from then on.
It is not "green". It is the opposite. Selfish dangerous and greedy
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
- Self driving cars, probably attributed to Sebastian Thrun. ~1.4 million people die in automobile accidents each year.
- Malaria vaccines, perhaps attributed to Bill Gates, although I'd rather know the actual key scientists involved. 600k deaths/year.
- ... Maybe something about solar power, assuming it eventually grows to replace most hydrocarbons for power generation.
- ... Maybe the developers of CRISPR, if the modern genomics bubble leads to widespread medical advances.
Big difference...
The article byline: "...as we work at building a better future, let's dig in to how we got to where we are today"
Well, where is humanity today? Sheltering from unprecedented heatwaves in the northern hemisphere, while sidelining the fauna and flora that sustains our existence?
According to James Lovelock (https://youtu.be/zA1R64bBjHg), there might be as few as 100 million surviving humans by the end of this century.
The experiment is still running.