I don't quite understand the angst here. Scientific discovery has occurred through human history. Sometimes the discoveries have been made by "the bad guys" sometimes by "the good guys."
The Nazi (and the Japanese btw) were not the first to use, kill, other humans in pursuit of knowledge.
The issue, KM, has always been whether to use the knowledge that was acquired from the Nazi experiments. It's one thing to learn how long someone can survive in freezing water, if the knowledge is acquired in the course of normal, though tragic, events, such as when the Titanic sunk. It's another to acquire it be executing them via cruel and inhumane means.......
pish-posh, jwh. Of course we are allowed to use that information--to not do so, to attempt to erase that information from history, would have the same effect as banning Mein Kampf or creating draconian free speech laws against nazism--it would onyl serve to make nazism that much more seductive to people wondering what the government was "hiding" from them. As a result, the neo-Nazi movement is stronger (though not strong, I want to argue relatively here) in germany/England/France than here in the U.S.
When you allow the crazies to talk, you realize how crazy they are. My feelings on liberals, of course. ;)
That being said, I don't know what kind of use such information would be to us today. But wouldn't be ironic if such heinous acts ended up in some hypothetical way saving lives? I don't condone it, but trying to erase it is just plain foolish.
Of course we should use the knowledge. The experiments were often evil. But letting someone die because we refuse to look at the data given to us would also be evil.
What about Nazi economics? Militarization, mass infrastructure spending, removing Jews from top positions in the economy, and autarky -- seemed to work pretty well for them in the 1930s, no? Would a similar policy work here? Now that free trade/globalization/open borders immigration has taken us to the brink of a Great Depression 2.0, maybe it's worth considering.
Why not? Think about it: we run massive trade deficits. While other countries would reciprocate against our tariffs, on balance, the U.S. economy would benefit, as we are now net importers. Our manufacturing sector would expand, creating new high-paying blue collar jobs. At the same time, enforcing our immigration laws would raise wages for unskilled workers by reducing the supply of unskilled labor from Mexico and points south. And I don't think the economy would skip a beat if folks like Robert Rubin were asked to bow out.
Some more militarization wouldn't hurt either. Why not expand our ground forces by a couple million men? That would take a bite out of unemployment, and help raise civilian wages, by tightening up the labor pool, and with that many men we could finally clean out the nest of vipers that is the Pashtun areas of Pakistan.
I'd love to. Please point me to a thread that would be more on topic where we can debate till the cows come home without bothering the nice people here who wanted to read about ethics and science.
Militarization, mass infrastructure spending, removing Jews from top positions in the economy, and autarky -- seemed to work pretty well for them in the 1930s, no?
In the sense that housing speculation worked well for investors in the 1990s.
All this strikes me as normal science that was carried out by scientists who were Nazis. The reason they were different from "normal" scientists was because their ideology removed any ethical restrictions they may have had on going ghoulish, and their government removed legal restrictions. Using the scientific method doesn't automatically make you a nice/ethical person, thats a whole different set of rules (which I believe all scientists must adhere to, of course).
Actual Nazi science [Germans = Ubermensch, Slavs = Untermensch], has however been discredited.
However I think in some cases Nazi science is seen as more amoral than discredited. The idea of "Aryan physics" or whatever is discredited, but the idea of using involuntary human test subjects I think is more condemned than discredited. The US certainly did that on occasion and to be honest I sometimes see a trace of envy when scientists discuss this aspect of Nazi science. A wistful "It's terrible, but if I could test medicines or procedures on prisoners imagine what I could learn" or even "If I could test on istitutionalized and abandoned disabled kids imagine what I could learn."
I'm not saying scientists or doctors are slathering beasts, but in my experience there is a not uncommon element among them like that. The only mass murderer I ever knew was a doctor. Putting that aside I think it's not that unusual for doctors to decide improving generalized public health is more important than any individual's life. I remember a doctor who was disappointed, angry even, my parents wouldn't consent to a surgery that'd most likely leave me a quadripalegic or dead. See I have a rare genetic condition and he would have learned so much by doing it. My life was never going to be "healthy" anyway, and I will most likely asphyxiate to death one of these days, so who cared? Well we cared and I'm glad of that.
Anyway that kind of "the ill are a cancer" or "never let ethics get in the way of research" aspect of the Nazis I think is still privately embraced by some. And to be honest within science itself I don't see anyway you can object to it. You have to use non-science ethical ideas to do so.
The Wizard War by Reg Jones notes that you could tell the difference between German and British radar by just turning the dial. The German radars had better engineering and tolerance control, the frequency was sharp. The British radar was much fuzzier. And if you kept turning the dial, the sharp German radars reached their frequency limit and disappeared, while the scientifically more advanced British radars (from cavity magnetrons) kept going.
American technology was advanced both ways. They made radars so small they could put them inside artillary shells. The Germans did not even believe that was possible.
Fred
We don't need to establish trade barriers against Chinese televisions and Mexican workers. Letting our currency fall by taxing interest on t-bills held by overseas owners would take care of both those problems very, very, quickly.
Of course, there would be other problems...
Good in a moral sense? Of course not.
Were good, as in correct and often useful, facts obtained in the process? Yes.
I don't quite understand the angst here. Scientific discovery has occurred through human history. Sometimes the discoveries have been made by "the bad guys" sometimes by "the good guys."
The Nazi (and the Japanese btw) were not the first to use, kill, other humans in pursuit of knowledge.
Facts is facts...
The issue, KM, has always been whether to use the knowledge that was acquired from the Nazi experiments. It's one thing to learn how long someone can survive in freezing water, if the knowledge is acquired in the course of normal, though tragic, events, such as when the Titanic sunk. It's another to acquire it be executing them via cruel and inhumane means.......
pish-posh, jwh. Of course we are allowed to use that information--to not do so, to attempt to erase that information from history, would have the same effect as banning Mein Kampf or creating draconian free speech laws against nazism--it would onyl serve to make nazism that much more seductive to people wondering what the government was "hiding" from them. As a result, the neo-Nazi movement is stronger (though not strong, I want to argue relatively here) in germany/England/France than here in the U.S.
When you allow the crazies to talk, you realize how crazy they are. My feelings on liberals, of course. ;)
That being said, I don't know what kind of use such information would be to us today. But wouldn't be ironic if such heinous acts ended up in some hypothetical way saving lives? I don't condone it, but trying to erase it is just plain foolish.
jwh-
Of course we should use the knowledge. The experiments were often evil. But letting someone die because we refuse to look at the data given to us would also be evil.
What about Nazi economics? Militarization, mass infrastructure spending, removing Jews from top positions in the economy, and autarky -- seemed to work pretty well for them in the 1930s, no? Would a similar policy work here? Now that free trade/globalization/open borders immigration has taken us to the brink of a Great Depression 2.0, maybe it's worth considering.
Fred -
Don't think so. While you're at it, read the following:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
Nelson,
Why not? Think about it: we run massive trade deficits. While other countries would reciprocate against our tariffs, on balance, the U.S. economy would benefit, as we are now net importers. Our manufacturing sector would expand, creating new high-paying blue collar jobs. At the same time, enforcing our immigration laws would raise wages for unskilled workers by reducing the supply of unskilled labor from Mexico and points south. And I don't think the economy would skip a beat if folks like Robert Rubin were asked to bow out.
Some more militarization wouldn't hurt either. Why not expand our ground forces by a couple million men? That would take a bite out of unemployment, and help raise civilian wages, by tightening up the labor pool, and with that many men we could finally clean out the nest of vipers that is the Pashtun areas of Pakistan.
Rockets to the Moon?
Fred -
All your answers are in the link I provided above.
If you liked the above, here's some more. I especially recommend chapter 7 "A [Candlemaker's] Petition."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph1.html#firstpage-bar
Nelson,
Instead of relying on the old crutch of libertarians and Randians, why not address my questions yourself?
Good to know that when you jumped the shark Fred, you did it wearing a brownshirt and toothbrush mustache.
It's not Nazi economics that really excite you though, is it?
Fred -
I'd love to. Please point me to a thread that would be more on topic where we can debate till the cows come home without bothering the nice people here who wanted to read about ethics and science.
Militarization, mass infrastructure spending, removing Jews from top positions in the economy, and autarky -- seemed to work pretty well for them in the 1930s, no?
In the sense that housing speculation worked well for investors in the 1990s.
All this strikes me as normal science that was carried out by scientists who were Nazis. The reason they were different from "normal" scientists was because their ideology removed any ethical restrictions they may have had on going ghoulish, and their government removed legal restrictions. Using the scientific method doesn't automatically make you a nice/ethical person, thats a whole different set of rules (which I believe all scientists must adhere to, of course).
Actual Nazi science [Germans = Ubermensch, Slavs = Untermensch], has however been discredited.
I agree that's a good distinction to make Kunal.
However I think in some cases Nazi science is seen as more amoral than discredited. The idea of "Aryan physics" or whatever is discredited, but the idea of using involuntary human test subjects I think is more condemned than discredited. The US certainly did that on occasion and to be honest I sometimes see a trace of envy when scientists discuss this aspect of Nazi science. A wistful "It's terrible, but if I could test medicines or procedures on prisoners imagine what I could learn" or even "If I could test on istitutionalized and abandoned disabled kids imagine what I could learn."
I'm not saying scientists or doctors are slathering beasts, but in my experience there is a not uncommon element among them like that. The only mass murderer I ever knew was a doctor. Putting that aside I think it's not that unusual for doctors to decide improving generalized public health is more important than any individual's life. I remember a doctor who was disappointed, angry even, my parents wouldn't consent to a surgery that'd most likely leave me a quadripalegic or dead. See I have a rare genetic condition and he would have learned so much by doing it. My life was never going to be "healthy" anyway, and I will most likely asphyxiate to death one of these days, so who cared? Well we cared and I'm glad of that.
Anyway that kind of "the ill are a cancer" or "never let ethics get in the way of research" aspect of the Nazis I think is still privately embraced by some. And to be honest within science itself I don't see anyway you can object to it. You have to use non-science ethical ideas to do so.
The Wizard War by Reg Jones notes that you could tell the difference between German and British radar by just turning the dial. The German radars had better engineering and tolerance control, the frequency was sharp. The British radar was much fuzzier. And if you kept turning the dial, the sharp German radars reached their frequency limit and disappeared, while the scientifically more advanced British radars (from cavity magnetrons) kept going.
American technology was advanced both ways. They made radars so small they could put them inside artillary shells. The Germans did not even believe that was possible.
Fred
We don't need to establish trade barriers against Chinese televisions and Mexican workers. Letting our currency fall by taxing interest on t-bills held by overseas owners would take care of both those problems very, very, quickly.
Of course, there would be other problems...