What is your reaction to this formulation of scientists? Is Rabi's view of the imaginative power of scientists and their inherent innocence simply trivializing the deeper moral implications of the work of the Manhattan Project? For instance, Rachel Carson normally got lost in the wonder of nature as a child, yet her imagination took her on a very different path, shaped by her sense of morality and protecting humanity.
Or is it not so black and white? By shedding light on this overlooked side of the atomic scientists, what is Fiege trying to do?
I definitely agree with the quote from Rabi about the curiosity of scientists. I believe that without the initial curiosity and the sense of wonder behind it to propel them forward, scientist would have never discovered all of the things that we know today. They have to be somewhat curious and think outside the box in order to make some of the scientific discoveries that have been made, especially concerning the technologies involved in the atomic bomb. When Fiege talks about how many of the scientists that worked on the Manhattan project got their degrees, he points out that many of them began with a simple interest in a natural phenomenon, and that they continued to ask questions to figure out why things looked or acted a certain way. Considering that there are a lot of discoveries that are continuing to be made, it is clear that scientists still posses that hint of wonder that propels them to search further into the scientific world.
ReplyDeleteThough it is a good point that Rachel Carson too was interested in nature and never built the atomic bomb, she was interested in nature in a different way. Yes, both atomic scientists and environmental scientists can share the sense of wonder that drives further exploration into nature. However, environmentalists want to understand nature, where as it seems to me the atomic scientists wanted to not only understand nature but figure out the power of nature and how they could use it. In the article, Fiege talks about nature as a place for the physicists and atomic scientist to walk and ponder many of their complicated ideas, and how it was a place where they could clear their minds and think about their small-scale projects. For environmentalists, like Zahniser, I think nature is more of a place to revel in the awe-inspiring power of nature. You do not have to figure out how to use nature for yourself or make it better, just appreciate it.
I think in this article Fiege is trying to point out a side of the atomic scientists that the majority of people will never see, especially because as Fiege points out)thus connection to nature and sense of wonder never gets published in thier formal papers. Sure there are many environmentalists who do not approve of the atomic bomb, but I think Fiege is trying to imply that the roots of physical scientists and environmental scientists are not all that different, and that they may have more in common than you would think.
Fiege, an environmental history professor, analyzes the apparent contradiction between the rich relationships the atomic bomb scientists had with nature, their enduring childlike awe and wonder at the natural world, and the unprecedented level of destruction and death that their work made possible. Fiege shows that although many atomic scientists loved nature as much as Rachel Carson, their view was fundamentally Newtonian and reductive, seeing a world made of discrete constituent parts that could be separated, analyzed, and reconfigured.
ReplyDeleteWith this work, Fiege adds complexity to the understanding of the atomic bomb scientists. They were not emotionless, sterile, lab types who had no interest in the outside world. They had a profound, abiding relationship with and respect for nature. But their childlike curiosity and wonder propelled them to discover a technology that could annihilate the human race. Knowledge itself is neither good nor bad. The actions taken based on that knowledge, however, are subject to moral judgment.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific atrocities. They can be considered war crimes. But just as gun manufacturers are not responsible for murders committed using their products, I do not believe the scientists of the Manhattan Project were culpable for the use of their invention by the U.S. government.
I believe that Fiege is trying to explain how things in nature can inspire these scientists to develop the technology to create tools, some thy poses the power of destruction like that of the atomic bomb, that will shape our world and the lives of everyone. Looking at the mountains Oppenhiemer saw not only beauty but life and matter in a simple form. This may have been what caused them to develop the idea of breaking an atom, the most simple form and use its destruction. When comparing them to Peter pan I think it is imperative that scientists maintain that curiosity they have as kids throughout their life an never grow up because this is what drives them to making new discoveries such as the atomic bomb.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to the Rabi's quote is a antigonistic. Physicians are not anymore more 'Peter Pan' than any other person. Personality Theorist, George Kelly, describes people to be just like scienctists. In his Personal Construct Theory, he states that people have that innate drive to predict and control the events in our world. I also do not agree with the fact that the physicist never grow and that they keep their curiosity. Everyone keeps their curiosity and they must "grow up". Curiosity is the first part of growing up. Then the curiosity matures and 'evolves into a passion for formal scientific inquiry" (Fiege, 587). The phycisist have grown up. They grew up into very healthy adults. They matured physically, mentally, and spiritually. These scientist are probably more mature and grown up than most people. There childhood reflects a very healthy environment for physical, intellectual, and spiritual growth. Being exposed to nature as a children is most likely the cause for this.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the purpose for the this article is to humanize the atomic bomb physicists. Their formal writings of the Manhatten project is strictly objectional. They make the scientists appear as cold-hearted with the lack of human emotion. The articles purpose is to shed light to the fact that these scientists have a love for human life and nature, and that they are not motivated by evil, hate, and destruction towards life and the environment.
Feige takes a different approach in trying to understand the scientists that collaborated on the atomic bomb with this writing. He points out that many of the atomic scientists looked toward nature for inspiration and to enable their intellectual processes. I believe that he is trying to shed light on the more humane side of the scientists, as he says "The production of scientific knowledge and techniques, however, involved more than just heartless men in white coats calculating on chalkboards and experimenting in laboratories." When I think of the scientists behind the atomic bomb I picture exactly what that quote describes, and I have never been informed of anything otherwise. After reading this and thinking about it for a while I can make the connection between theses scientists, and scientists of the like, and Peter Pan. In order to be a successful scientist you have to constantly be questioning things and looking into things deeper, perhaps in ways that other people can not. In order to have this open mind I believe that you do need to have a constant sense of curiosity. Without curiosity you have no desire to figure things out and you ultimately won't find the end result of anything to be interesting because you just won't care. The whole not growing up part is where I have the issue. Science is a growth process and in order for scientists to be successful they need to be able to grow with the science and inevitably grow up. I can not make any correlation between growing up and being curious so I am not sure how they go together in terms of a scientist.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion concerning the quote by Isidor Rabi, that "Physicists are the Peter Pans of the human race, they never grow up, and they keep their curiosity," is I believe, a unique and accurate description of many physicists. I think in order to become a physicists or a scientist in general, an “inquisitive mind” is essential. Scientists are always eager to learn what “makes things tick,” similar to how a child thinks about things he does not fully understand. Fascination with things that most adults take for granted is another child-like characteristic of a scientist. In addition, physicists are persistent in their desire to apply themselves to solve scientific mysteries the same as a child would be in order to satisfy their curiosity about something that interests them. Similar characteristics attributed to physicists and children that never seems to fade for the scientist/physicists is that dedicated physicists are always eager to learn and explore just the same as a child.
ReplyDeleteI think that Rabi’s view of the imaginative power of scientists and their inherent innocence concerning the Manhattan Project trivializes the deeper moral implications that the scientists felt that worked on the Manhattan Project. For example, I believe that associating scientist with child-like characteristics of imagination and total innocence as it relates to their scientific experiments, cannot be attributed to their efforts in constructing an atomic bomb for the Manhattan Project. These physicists realized that the bomb that they were designing would be used to destroyed cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that it would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. They knew from the start that this project was part of the war effort conducted by the United States government for the purpose of building an atomic bomb with the intention of one day using it to shorten the war with Japan. The individual scientists who were involved in this project new the ramifications of what this experiment was capable of producing, which negates the child-like innocence and the lack of moral culpability on the part of the physicists who were involved in this project. Finally, it was not a black and white issue for the scientist because there were many moral and ethical ramifications to consider when they agreed to work on this project.
The atomic scientists that Fiege portrays in his article were used to illustrate the type of fascination these scientists had as a child, which led them to become scientist in a certain field or fields that satisfied their childhood curiosity. For example, Fiege illustrates that Oppenheimer, Meitner, and Rabi all pursued their childhood curiosity concerning natural matter by making their life work that of an atomic scientist. One significant event or interest they experienced as a child ultimately benefited them when choosing their future occupation. But this is not true for all scientist’s, he states that some atomic scientists like Peierls and Serber had more than one specific interest that fascinated them early in their lives.
I think the goal of Feige was definitely to humanize the scientists on the manhattan project who were probably mostly thought of as monsters and destroyers of nature and human life(I believe he did mention Frankenstein and his monster). It was very interesting and nice to see how nature inspired wonder and discovery in the scientists and that they were real people who enjoyed life and nature. However, whatever innocence they possessed, the dread they felt, it did not stop them from creating a weapon of mass destruction. I do not know how to react really, these scientists were curious, intellectual, nature loving individuals who I assume had some morals but what they created cannot be overlooked or excused. I almost feel bad that they have a mushroom cloud over their life story but it was a choice they made. Feige was kind in showing a innocent perspective of the scientists and their lives without denying the notable part of their career and how they felt afterward. Even though they had a childlike curiosity, curiosity created the atom bomb which devastated many humans and the environment.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to place the people behind the mass extinction of human life like the creators of the atomic bomb in a positive light. However, Fliege makes the curiosity of scientists similar to children and places them in a far more innocent sphere. The fact that they continued to research and be curious about things is commendable, however, they surely must have realized what the application of their research was going to lead to, and therefore their innocence is negligible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that description. The scientists are motivated by a fascination of nature. It just takes the form of fascination of atoms and whatnot instead of birds, tree, water, etc. The reading also shows that the scientists also use nature hikes to organize their thoughts or at least relax. I can't find them hypocritical. They made their bomb in that era of endless firebombings. In a way, it can be said that it is more environmentally clean. Instead of using a fleet of planes and tens of thousands of pounds of bombs, all is needed is one bomb and one plane to get the exact same results. Since I don't think they understand radiation poisoning at that point nor how easily it is the mass produce these things, they couldn't possibly be aware of the dangers of a nuclear show down or a nuclear winter.
ReplyDeleteThe atomic scientists' intense fascination with nature helped them to produce the knowledge necessary to create the bomb. Fiege said that the deep feelings and curiosity and emotions inspired them to to do research that eventually led to their Manhattan Project work. Even though the scientist had a childlike curiosity, curiosity created the atom bomb which devastated many humans and the environment. These physicists realized that the bomb that they were designing would be used to destroyed cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that it would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. They also I am sure were very aware of what they were creating and the damage it could do so you can't use the childlike innocence as an excuse for the creation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this Peter Pan analogy does appear to be an attempt at giving the Manhattan Project and those behind it a more humane and innocent appearance. It sugar coats the atomic bomb and makes them and the atrocities caused by their work seem like nothing more than the ininability of these scientists to grow up and that everyone can look at the atomic bombs as a mere symbolic result of boys being boys.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this being said I can understand the growing need for the U.S. to take immediate and unrelenting action against the Japanese as it became clear that an end to the war was far off and millions of people would continue to die in combat on both sides. With this in mind, it becomes easier to excuse the men and women behind the Project even if innocent civilians were the ones to pay the price for their inability to grow up.