In describing what his blog will include, Wellerstein writes, "Conversations between me and various smart, interesting people I’ve met over the years who generally think about some aspects of the end of the world for a living."
First, I would love to see the nuclear weapons community establish an online discussion forum for this purpose. …
In describing what his blog will include, Wellerstein writes, "Conversations between me and various smart, interesting people I’ve met over the years who generally think about some aspects of the end of the world for a living."
First, I would love to see the nuclear weapons community establish an online discussion forum for this purpose. The public would benefit greatly from being able to find all the nuclear weapons experts and leading activists all in one place. Perhaps one of your future articles might explore this possibility?
Second, we might address the subject of experts, those who do intellectual work for a living, particularly in regards to nuclear weapons.
For the sake of this discussion we might divide problems in to two broad categories, 1) those problems that can be solved with realistic and reasonable conventional thinking, and 2) those that can't.
When a problem can be solved with realistic and reasonable conventional thinking experts are very useful because they have the most information on a subject. The experts have studied their topic in great depth, and so it's logical for us to look to them for solutions.
When a problem can't be solved with realistic and reasonable conventional thinking, the experts are at a disadvantage, because they typically aren't in a position to publicly explore those ideas beyond what's considered realistic and reasonable. Publicly exploring ideas considered unrealistic and unreasonable can put the expert's most valuable business asset, their professional reputation, at risk. Being branded a crackpot can end an expert's career.
What we see in the case of nuclear weapons is a consistent failure of realistic and reasonable conventional thinking to meet this threat for 75 years. The technical, diplomatic, military, academic experts keep writing their books and articles, and leading activists keep organizing and protesting, all in a realistic and reasonable professional manner. And none of it ever works.
Point being, if a conversation on nuclear weapons is limited to those who do this intellectual work for a living, such a conversation seems doomed from the start to be limited to that set of ideas which have consistently failed to meet the nuclear weapons threat for 75 years.
There may be no solution to the nuclear threat. Perhaps we doomed, and nothing can be done. That could be the reality.
But if we are going to keep fighting to escape that fate it seems rational to turn our attention away from that which has never worked. We may need to explore ideas which have been judged to be unrealistic and unreasonable. A conversation containing only professionals may not be in a position to do that.
We might consider this structural challenge to nuclear weapons solutions.
1) The experts have the most information, but their careers may require them to limit their analysis to realistic and reasonable ideas which have never worked.
2) Amateurs are free to explore in any direction, but even if they were to come up with some good ideas, they don't have the badges of authority needed to be heard.
Conclusion: If a solution to nuclear weapons lies in the realm of ideas generally considered to be unrealistic and unreasonable, nobody at any level is in a position to sell those ideas.
In describing what his blog will include, Wellerstein writes, "Conversations between me and various smart, interesting people I’ve met over the years who generally think about some aspects of the end of the world for a living."
First, I would love to see the nuclear weapons community establish an online discussion forum for this purpose. The public would benefit greatly from being able to find all the nuclear weapons experts and leading activists all in one place. Perhaps one of your future articles might explore this possibility?
Second, we might address the subject of experts, those who do intellectual work for a living, particularly in regards to nuclear weapons.
For the sake of this discussion we might divide problems in to two broad categories, 1) those problems that can be solved with realistic and reasonable conventional thinking, and 2) those that can't.
When a problem can be solved with realistic and reasonable conventional thinking experts are very useful because they have the most information on a subject. The experts have studied their topic in great depth, and so it's logical for us to look to them for solutions.
When a problem can't be solved with realistic and reasonable conventional thinking, the experts are at a disadvantage, because they typically aren't in a position to publicly explore those ideas beyond what's considered realistic and reasonable. Publicly exploring ideas considered unrealistic and unreasonable can put the expert's most valuable business asset, their professional reputation, at risk. Being branded a crackpot can end an expert's career.
What we see in the case of nuclear weapons is a consistent failure of realistic and reasonable conventional thinking to meet this threat for 75 years. The technical, diplomatic, military, academic experts keep writing their books and articles, and leading activists keep organizing and protesting, all in a realistic and reasonable professional manner. And none of it ever works.
Point being, if a conversation on nuclear weapons is limited to those who do this intellectual work for a living, such a conversation seems doomed from the start to be limited to that set of ideas which have consistently failed to meet the nuclear weapons threat for 75 years.
There may be no solution to the nuclear threat. Perhaps we doomed, and nothing can be done. That could be the reality.
But if we are going to keep fighting to escape that fate it seems rational to turn our attention away from that which has never worked. We may need to explore ideas which have been judged to be unrealistic and unreasonable. A conversation containing only professionals may not be in a position to do that.
We might consider this structural challenge to nuclear weapons solutions.
1) The experts have the most information, but their careers may require them to limit their analysis to realistic and reasonable ideas which have never worked.
2) Amateurs are free to explore in any direction, but even if they were to come up with some good ideas, they don't have the badges of authority needed to be heard.
Conclusion: If a solution to nuclear weapons lies in the realm of ideas generally considered to be unrealistic and unreasonable, nobody at any level is in a position to sell those ideas.