Yeah. If all the principled, moral mathematicians refuse to work for the NSA, that leaves only the unprincipled, evil mathematicians in the NSA labor pool.
That might not work out too well either.
- US had more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world. Necessary?
- Stop thinking in terms of one human lifetime. If the US is nuked and retaliates there is no human life left on earth. If the US is nuked and canât retaliate that sucks for the US but human life continues on earth. One of these is, to me, clearly a better outcome (despite living in the US). And if a world without humans is more desirable to you than a world without the US then I have to question your priorities a little.
3 Likes
âAttacking a minority opinionâ â you mean the minority opinion that itâs OK to work for the NSA without any repercussions from professional groups? If thatâs the case, Iâm pretty sure you mean âmajority opinion.â Weâre talking about the article cited in the OP because itâs a minority opinion.
NaN
3 Likes
Actually, given the possibility of global nuclear winter, even a one-sided nuclear exchange may have ended humanity. So in that case, mutually assured destruction during the Cold War may actually have saved humanity even if one side got in a successful first strike and wasnât hit itself. But thatâs obviously not the point. What Iâm objecting to is the fuzzy idealism that says in a multi-sided situation that one side should give up its tools (weapons or intelligence) unilaterally, trusting other sides not to take advantage of the situation.
But why would it? Who would make a unilateral strike that destroys the world?
I have trouble ascribing the role of âsteely-eyed realistâ to folks whose assumptions include mustache-twirling villains planning nuclear strikes.
I donât think anyone said the other side wouldnât take advantage of the situation. The question is whether that risk is worse than the risk posed by oneâs own intelligence apparatus.
1 Like
Actually, given the possibility of global nuclear winter, even a one-sided nuclear exchange may have ended humanity.
Well, if the Assured Destruction of causing a humanity-ending nuclear winter with a one-sided strike doesnât stop a madman from pushing the button, neither will Mutually Assured Destruction.
MAD might have prevented another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It might have prevented direct conventional warfare between the superpowers, while prolonging the many proxy wars around the globe.
Itâs not fuzzy idealism to say that someone has to take the first step rather than further fuel an escalating conflict. That first step doesnât even need to leave you really vulnerable, it would be enough if it pointed in the right direction.
2 Likes
But why would it? Who would make a unilateral strike that destroys the world?
For starters, although people were familiar with the eruption of Krakatoa in the 19th century and its effects (analogous to a big explosion) on weather even in Europe thousands of miles away, until very near the end of the Cold War in the 1980s nuclear winter wasnât a commonly accepted idea. During most of the Cold War the idea of nuclear winter wasnât considered (although obviously if the theory is right it would have happened if a nuclear strike occurred whether or not they were expecting it as a result).
I donât think anyone said the other side wouldnât take advantage of the situation. The question is whether that risk is worse than the risk posed by oneâs own intelligence apparatus.
Fair enough. If that tradeoff is really considered.
Regardless of whether it was an accepted idea, a great many nuclear devices have been tested without causing nuclear winter. Presumably youâd need a nuclear event even more energetic than Krakatoa (and probably much more energetic because Krakatoa provided its own dust) to get equivalent effects. Krakatoa didnât exactly wipe out the human race.
We could argue all day about how plausible or implausible a large-scale nuclear strike (as opposed to smaller tactical strikes) would be in the absence of a MAD policy and not get anywhere.
1 Like
Iâm the author of the article. Sorry not to have engaged sooner; unrelated events made it impossible.
My article is actually very cautious and conservative. I donât say that mathematicians should refuse to work for the NSA, or that learned societies should expel members who work for them. I merely point out that they could.
Mathematicians who cooperate with the secret services (e.g. department chairs who give their staff leave to work for them) may not even realize that theyâre making a choice, because a culture has grown up where itâs unexceptional. I wanted to point out that it is a choice, that weâre not obliged to cooperate with the NSA/GCHQ unquestioningly.
1 Like
I wasnât trolling; I meant exactly what I said.
First, as I pointed out just now, I didnât say that national mathematical societies should expel anyone, or that department chairs should refuse leave to staff who want to work for the scret services. I merely said they could. The academic mathematical community has been cooperating with the secret services for so long that weâre at risk of forgetting that we get to choose.
Second, I didnât mention refusing faculty permission to accept grants.
Third, the nearest I came to that was saying that department chairs could refuse faculty permission leave to work for the intelligence agencies. Academics request leave for all sorts of reasons, and whether itâs granted is at the discretion of the department chair. (This is the case in the UK, at least, and I suspect many other countries.) There are all sorts of reasons why the chair might refuse.
In the case at hand, perhaps the university has an ethical policy thatâs contravened by some of the NSA/GCHQâs actions. My own university, Edinburgh, does have an ethical policy, which led to it disinvesting in a company that made parts for drones. I havenât read the policy, but itâs not beyond the bounds of plausibility that GCHQ falls foul of it.
Finally, this has nothing to do with academic freedom. No one is stopping anyone from doing whatever mathematics they want to do.
1 Like
I didnât mean to invoke the clichĂŠ of the otherwordly mathematician. Although I think it contains a small amount of truth, itâs also pretty irritating, and Iâm sorry if you felt patronized.
But thereâs strong evidence that the academic mathematical community is ignoring the NSA/GCHQ scandal.
For example: during the nine months after the scandal first broke, the London Mathematical Society (the UKâs national society for mathematicians) published nothing about it. Nothing, nada. No press releases, no official statements, nothing in the monthly newsletter.
Imagine if there was a major international scandal involving the largest publishing houses in the world. Wouldnât you expect it to feature on the front page of every issue of the Society of Publishersâ Newsletter? Wouldnât you think it was extremely odd if, month after month, it was never once mentioned?
I donât mean to be too critical of the leaders of the London Mathematical Society, or their counterparts around the world. Theyâre busy academics giving selflessly of their time, and in the end they did invite me to write an opinion piece for the newsletter. But the fact that it took so long and so much pushing suggests that we, as a community, are not very engaged with this aspect of the real world.
1 Like
Seriously? This isnât a shoop?
Iâd like to see a like to see where the f*ck they said this with a straight faceâŚ
1 Like
No shoop. Just good olâ American Ingenuityâ˘
Edit: Fox News was inspiredâŚ
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
