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. :')
There is perhaps one ray of hope. The next nuclear detonation has at least a chance of collapsing the culture of denial we are currently afflicted with. A nuclear weapons accident in the United States may be the best we can hope for, as that wouldn't start another war. We've proven ourselves incapable of learning this through reason, but a manageable dose of pain may still come to our rescue.
Failing that, I suggest we all start reading up on near death experiences, which tend to suggest that our worst fears may be unjustified.
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.
Well, ok, I'm listening, please make the case. Who is it that the science community thinks they are accumulating knowledge for?
Having chaired The Bulletin, you obviously know where the nuclear weapons status quo is headed. I presume the other signers of this statement have some awareness of that too, or they wouldn't have signed.
I really don't know, please educate me. Does the science community think that we can keep these weapons around forever and never use them? Do they think that what has never worked before in addressing this threat is nonetheless going to somehow someday work? Upon what basis is the science community assuming that coming generations will inherit what is being learned today?
We've been running an experiment for 75 years, the evidence is in, and it shows that what we're doing on nuclear weapons isn't working. I'm just asking the science community to do what it always does so well, listen to the evidence.
If it's been proven that what we're doing isn't working, and if we as a society aren't willing to do anything substantially different, you of all people know where that will lead. So what is the rational basis for continuing to accumulate more knowledge on every front??
I can type things like this all day long and it will never do a bit of good because I have the cultural authority of a dead squirrel. If anyone is going to effectively ask such inconvenient questions, it has to be people such as yourself.
I think it is frankly self evident. Asking questions and solving puzzles keeps our culture alive, and science continues to make the world better for people, feed more, stay healthier etc...
It's not self evident, imho. Your vision of science is communicating that there is a future to be planned for. And that communication feeds nuclear weapons denial. And the denial makes escaping the end of future impossible.
The factual question at the heart of this would be, is there a future to be planned for? My claim is that on the current course the answer is no. I see no credible reason to believe that we can avoid nuclear war forever. You know the history of near misses so I don't need to get in to that.
The statement above from the science community tells one story, that we should be alarmed. The actions of the science community tells a different story, that we can continue with business as usual. The public wants to hear this happier easier message, and so that's what they will hear. And thus, your warning message will be ignored.
I don't really expect the science community to stop doing science. What I'm suggesting is that this possibility be raised in a manner which generates attention and alarm. So long as the science community is comfortable within business as usual, and seen to be so, the public will be too. And so long as the public is content within the denial dream, politicians will ignore the issue. And so long as they do....
I also agree it's not fair to place this burden on the science community. I just don't see anyone else. It's not just the superior credibility of the science community that matters, but your power to provide the desired goodies. If the science community gives that power away unconditionally, nobody is going to negotiate with you for it, they will instead take you for granted.
Anyway, all of the above is clearly debatable, and what I'd hope to find is a larger community within which to have such ideas challenges.
Thanks.. having chaired the bulletin.. I expect if one did an event at the national press club with the 20 or so nobel laureates on the list, one would get a few journalists to attend, with a story in the back of the paper for a day.
If you did an event at the National Press Club, and wanted it to receive the media attention it deserves, the experts on stage would have to say something new, or it's not a story.
The statement you've referenced above is very well intended, and very much welcomed, as any mention of nuclear weapons anywhere is a positive. But there's nothing in the statement that the media hasn't already heard many times. So from their business perspective there's not much of story, and thus as you suggest, there won't be much coverage.
How about this? What if there was an online discussion forum whose purpose was to assemble everyone interested in nuclear weapons in one place, so as to facilitate brainstorming on questions like, what new can we say or do?
A couple years ago I had a nuclear weapons feed going on Twitter where I repeatedly floated this idea to anyone who would listen, which was close to nobody. So I'm probably not the right messenger for that idea. You're more of an insider in the nuclear weapons professional community so perhaps you have some ideas along this line.
What I have in mind is a meeting ground for the arms community, nuke experts and activists, and the general public. Forum software is the best platform for intelligent in depth discussions. I would have set this up myself a couple years ago, but the problem is that none of the professionals will show up once they see the platform is being hosted by a non-professional. I'm a retired forum software developer and have the needed tech skills, but I'm an obstacle on this one.
Example: Recently I came upon a site that stated it's mission as being "everything nuke all in one place". Sounded great, so I sent a brief polite message offering any kind of cooperation. Never heard back. This has basically been my experience across the world of nuke professionals.
If discussion with the public isn't going to work, it would still be useful for the public to at least be able to READ the professionals discussing among themselves in one convenient location.
Anyway, I suspect you're right this isn't going anywhere. I guess we can just wait for the next detonation and see how things change then.
You should take a look at The bulletin of The Atomic scientists online. It tries to do what you discuss. At least in part. Otherwise you are right re further debating this. Appreciated the dialogue though.
Took your advice and have started participating in the comments at the Bulletin. As you've observed, comment sections aren't really what I'm hoping to find, but perhaps this is a start that will lead to something better in time. Thanks for the idea.
Well, ok, if that's true, and it very well might be, that's just more evidence that what we're doing isn't working. And so we either give up and await the end, or we try something else.
If we want journalists to pay attention, we have to give them what they want, a story. I agree that 20 nobel laureates at the National Press Club probably isn't a good enough story, so we have the option to improve on that and make it a better story. 1.000 scientists signed the statement, right? That's a lot of intellectual firepower. Your peers could take on the challenge of designing a better story.
I'd be happy to contribute what I can to such brainstorming, but I know from experience that intellectual elites are not interested in contributions from the public. That rejection of the public by elites isn't personal, it's just business. Once someone is making a living as any kind of intellectual, real partnership with the public is perceived to be a threat to the "expert" business model.
As you can see, on the specific subject of nuclear weapons, I no longer accept that anybody is an expert. And when the next detonation occurs, and the public at large sees that elites of all kinds were powerless to prevent it, we're going to witness an accelerated lack of faith in the whole concept of elites.
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.
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. :')
And thanks for all the fish. :)
There is perhaps one ray of hope. The next nuclear detonation has at least a chance of collapsing the culture of denial we are currently afflicted with. A nuclear weapons accident in the United States may be the best we can hope for, as that wouldn't start another war. We've proven ourselves incapable of learning this through reason, but a manageable dose of pain may still come to our rescue.
Failing that, I suggest we all start reading up on near death experiences, which tend to suggest that our worst fears may be unjustified.
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.
reply.. and you would never get a group of scientists to stand up and say there is no point doing science.. they, and I, disagree
Well, ok, I'm listening, please make the case. Who is it that the science community thinks they are accumulating knowledge for?
Having chaired The Bulletin, you obviously know where the nuclear weapons status quo is headed. I presume the other signers of this statement have some awareness of that too, or they wouldn't have signed.
I really don't know, please educate me. Does the science community think that we can keep these weapons around forever and never use them? Do they think that what has never worked before in addressing this threat is nonetheless going to somehow someday work? Upon what basis is the science community assuming that coming generations will inherit what is being learned today?
We've been running an experiment for 75 years, the evidence is in, and it shows that what we're doing on nuclear weapons isn't working. I'm just asking the science community to do what it always does so well, listen to the evidence.
If it's been proven that what we're doing isn't working, and if we as a society aren't willing to do anything substantially different, you of all people know where that will lead. So what is the rational basis for continuing to accumulate more knowledge on every front??
I can type things like this all day long and it will never do a bit of good because I have the cultural authority of a dead squirrel. If anyone is going to effectively ask such inconvenient questions, it has to be people such as yourself.
I think it is frankly self evident. Asking questions and solving puzzles keeps our culture alive, and science continues to make the world better for people, feed more, stay healthier etc...
It's not self evident, imho. Your vision of science is communicating that there is a future to be planned for. And that communication feeds nuclear weapons denial. And the denial makes escaping the end of future impossible.
The factual question at the heart of this would be, is there a future to be planned for? My claim is that on the current course the answer is no. I see no credible reason to believe that we can avoid nuclear war forever. You know the history of near misses so I don't need to get in to that.
The statement above from the science community tells one story, that we should be alarmed. The actions of the science community tells a different story, that we can continue with business as usual. The public wants to hear this happier easier message, and so that's what they will hear. And thus, your warning message will be ignored.
I don't really expect the science community to stop doing science. What I'm suggesting is that this possibility be raised in a manner which generates attention and alarm. So long as the science community is comfortable within business as usual, and seen to be so, the public will be too. And so long as the public is content within the denial dream, politicians will ignore the issue. And so long as they do....
I also agree it's not fair to place this burden on the science community. I just don't see anyone else. It's not just the superior credibility of the science community that matters, but your power to provide the desired goodies. If the science community gives that power away unconditionally, nobody is going to negotiate with you for it, they will instead take you for granted.
Anyway, all of the above is clearly debatable, and what I'd hope to find is a larger community within which to have such ideas challenges.
Thanks.. having chaired the bulletin.. I expect if one did an event at the national press club with the 20 or so nobel laureates on the list, one would get a few journalists to attend, with a story in the back of the paper for a day.
If you did an event at the National Press Club, and wanted it to receive the media attention it deserves, the experts on stage would have to say something new, or it's not a story.
The statement you've referenced above is very well intended, and very much welcomed, as any mention of nuclear weapons anywhere is a positive. But there's nothing in the statement that the media hasn't already heard many times. So from their business perspective there's not much of story, and thus as you suggest, there won't be much coverage.
How about this? What if there was an online discussion forum whose purpose was to assemble everyone interested in nuclear weapons in one place, so as to facilitate brainstorming on questions like, what new can we say or do?
A couple years ago I had a nuclear weapons feed going on Twitter where I repeatedly floated this idea to anyone who would listen, which was close to nobody. So I'm probably not the right messenger for that idea. You're more of an insider in the nuclear weapons professional community so perhaps you have some ideas along this line.
that is what the bulletin of the atomic scientists tries to do.. but largely it has little impact, except on the arms community
What I have in mind is a meeting ground for the arms community, nuke experts and activists, and the general public. Forum software is the best platform for intelligent in depth discussions. I would have set this up myself a couple years ago, but the problem is that none of the professionals will show up once they see the platform is being hosted by a non-professional. I'm a retired forum software developer and have the needed tech skills, but I'm an obstacle on this one.
Example: Recently I came upon a site that stated it's mission as being "everything nuke all in one place". Sounded great, so I sent a brief polite message offering any kind of cooperation. Never heard back. This has basically been my experience across the world of nuke professionals.
If discussion with the public isn't going to work, it would still be useful for the public to at least be able to READ the professionals discussing among themselves in one convenient location.
Anyway, I suspect you're right this isn't going anywhere. I guess we can just wait for the next detonation and see how things change then.
You should take a look at The bulletin of The Atomic scientists online. It tries to do what you discuss. At least in part. Otherwise you are right re further debating this. Appreciated the dialogue though.
Took your advice and have started participating in the comments at the Bulletin. As you've observed, comment sections aren't really what I'm hoping to find, but perhaps this is a start that will lead to something better in time. Thanks for the idea.
I appreciate the dialog too, thanks much.
Well, ok, if that's true, and it very well might be, that's just more evidence that what we're doing isn't working. And so we either give up and await the end, or we try something else.
If we want journalists to pay attention, we have to give them what they want, a story. I agree that 20 nobel laureates at the National Press Club probably isn't a good enough story, so we have the option to improve on that and make it a better story. 1.000 scientists signed the statement, right? That's a lot of intellectual firepower. Your peers could take on the challenge of designing a better story.
I'd be happy to contribute what I can to such brainstorming, but I know from experience that intellectual elites are not interested in contributions from the public. That rejection of the public by elites isn't personal, it's just business. Once someone is making a living as any kind of intellectual, real partnership with the public is perceived to be a threat to the "expert" business model.
As you can see, on the specific subject of nuclear weapons, I no longer accept that anybody is an expert. And when the next detonation occurs, and the public at large sees that elites of all kinds were powerless to prevent it, we're going to witness an accelerated lack of faith in the whole concept of elites.
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.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/nukes-what-new-can-scientists-do
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.