This statement was signed by myself and over 1,000 other scientists and delivered to key governments and decision makers.
An important statement. Thank you to all who signed. Here's hoping we make it out of this century. If we don't...I just want to say it's been an adventure and a pleasure to share the earth with you, my fellow human beings. To oblivion and beyond. :')
Who designed and engineered the nukes? You and your colleagues. Thanks for that.
Maybe try using science to help human beings rather than decimate them.
All others: Western science incl. this idiot have the wrong value of pi. This was brought to Krauss' attention but he ignored it & he will be held accountable.
Well, there is the argument that nuclear weapons have prevented a third world war from erupting and, despite Putin's loud threats and he has not employed any tactical nukes.
As a followup to the above joint statement, this group of notable cultural elites might do something like this:
Imagine all the signers of this statement on stage at a press conference somewhere like the National Press Club proclaiming the simple truth that nothing we've done in 75 years has made us safe from nuclear weapons. Officially declare failure. Just say it. We tried. And we've failed. Having leading citizens make this plain and unequivocal of a statement seems important because if 75 years of failure is pushed in to our face enough times it will force the culture to do one of two things:
1) Accept that we've failed and are awaiting a coming collapse of our civilization, or...
2) Try something new.
One "something new" can be to start seeing everything we've done so far with the best of intentions as a kind of enemy, because it makes us feel like we're doing something useful, when really we aren't. Like this comment for example.
One "something new" can be to stop offering hope that what we've been doing for 75 years can somehow succeed someday. Just say it, we ran a 75 year long experiment and the results are in. The evidence proves that what we've been doing doesn't work. Does. Not. Work.
Another "something new" might be to stop expressing concern and giving warnings etc and have cultural leaders just say flat out plain and simple with no wiggle room or place to hide... The road we're currently on ends in civilization death. Period. Fact. No nuance.
Another "something new" might be for the assembled scientists on the stage to publicly question whether there's really a point in doing more science. That joint statement will earn you a New York Times front page headline and interviews on every major network. A thousand scientists standing together on stage wondering out loud. Just wondering, that's all. Just asking. Why are we still doing science? Who is it that we think we're going to pass our discoveries on to?
Another "something new" might be for the science community to go hysterical on national television. You know, like the astronomer gal in Don't Look Up. What have you got to lose? If you succeed you become heroes. If you fail there won't be anybody left to remember you went hysterical. Hey, it could be fun!
Another "something new" can be for the science community to say to itself, we do this, or it doesn't get done. And if it doesn't get done, that's the end of science. Isn't this the truth of the matter?
It's not fair to aim this burden at scientists, but who else is there? The church, philosophers, politicians, celebrities, businessmen, typoholic bloggers etc, none of them have the required credibility.
The science community has gone a long way in curing us of climate change denial disease. Thumbs up for that, and thank you! We need you to do that again.
That's great, applause from here to all involved!
And now, the next step...
We all need to be clear on the fact that nuclear weapons technical articles, passionate activism and political activity etc have all utterly failed to improve the nuclear weapons situation, which is worse today than it was when I was a kid in the 1950s. This is not to accuse all those with the very best of intentions, to the contrary. It is instead just to look the evidence provided by 75 years of real world experience in the eye without blinking, a concept that I'm sure all scientists can support.
What we should be learning from 75 years of failure is that reason and facts are the wrong channel with which to change the culture of nuclear weapons denial. We hoped that reason and facts would work, we really wish that they would. We pray that the great cultural authority that scientists have earned would be a sufficient form of persuasion. But the evidence says otherwise.
If scientists wish to be truly impactful on this all important survival challenge, it's going to take more than reason, facts, cultural authority, and passionate statements. If scientists wish to make a real difference they are going to have to start hard bargaining with the society they seek to serve.
PLEASE NOTE: We're only going to listen to scientists when you make us listen.
Scientists need to go out on strike, and start delivering messages like this to the public:
- If you want a cure for cancer, get rid of nuclear weapons.
- If you want vaccines for pandemics, get rid of nuclear weapons.
- If you want colonies on Mars, get rid of nuclear weapons.
- If you want better anything from we the science community, get rid of nuclear weapons.
- We're taking a break from our work until we see whether you hear us. We're not going to keep busting our butts trying to make this world a better place only to see it all washed away in a day.
To those who will label this proposal as unrealistic I would ask this. Please show us the evidence that "realistic" thinking and action is ever going to save this civilization from nuclear weapons. Show us that evidence. Until such time as such evidence is provided, we'd be wise to start exploring the "unrealistic".
If you're truly concerned about the state of humanity, you would stop ignoring the inverse square calculation of pi which permits a unification of GR with QM.
All human suffering since at least the time of Archimedes has occurred on a base of a deficient circle constant. What is it going to take for a single scientist to give a single f- about this & challenge Archimedes' basic underlying assumptions re: polygonal approximations of pi?
Krauss, you & your colleagues need to STOP assuming others have access to thousands & thousands of dollars, belong to an academic institution (which are collapsing anyways) & is able to publish a paper. It can be demonstrated in less than 60 seconds 3.14159... is wrong.
This is serious & it is easy to demonstrate scientists don't actually care about the problem of human suffering. If they did, they would STOP ASSUMING their polygonal approximation of pi is reconciling the radius of a circle to INFINITE degrees. It does NOT, Krauss. This entire issue rests on a single false assumption you & your colleagues negligently refuse to challenge & STOP trying to send people off to publish papers. You're doing nothing but adding to the problem.
ALL of humanity is suffering at the hands of ignorant mathematicians & scientists whom would sooner sacrifice the whole of humanity than challenge a single basic underlying assumption.