Max Planck. Ernest Rutherford. Niels Böhr. Enrico Fermi. Erwin Schrödinger. Werner Heisenberg. Lise Meitner. A cantos destes científicos son vostedes capaces de poñerlle rostro? E, porén, canto tempo tardaron en identificar ao que aparece na imaxe que asoma xusto enriba destas liñas?
É obvio que alén da súa colosal importancia para a ciencia (algo que só un necio podería discutir), Albert Einstein é tamén un xigantesco icono popular, unha desas figuras que transcenderon do seu restrinxido ámbito de traballo para se erixiren nunha referencia case mítica. Poucos coma el resultan tan recoñecíbeis para tanta xente e ao longo de tanto tempo, cousa que tamén sucede con Gandhi, Marilyn e -por razóns bastante mais sinistras- con Adolf Hitler. Todos eles acabaron por converterse en representacións símbolicas de conceptos moi complexos: a ciencia, o pacifismo, o mundo da beleza e o espectáculo, o horror do fanatismo e a guerra. Todos eles son figuras familiares mesmo para aqueles que xa apenas posúen unha vaga noción de quen foron e que fixeron exactamente.
A fotografía que adorna este post é a mesma que escolleu a revista Time para ilustar a portada que coroaba a Albert Einstein como "personaxe do século XX". Seguramente sexa esa a mais coñecida de todas as que lle fixeron. Sacouna en 1947 Philippe Halsman, un fotógrafo que Einstein incluiu persoalmente na lista de artistas e científicos alemáns aos que se lles deu un visado urxente para os Estados Unidos coa fin de que puideran fuxir da persecución nazi. Según Hallsman, Einstein lamentábase durante a sesión do legado mais doroso do seu descubrimento da equivalencia entre masa e enerxía: a bomba atómica e o case inmediato comezo da carreira armamentística. Halsman preguntoulle se non cría que algún día chegaría a haber paz. Con enorme tristeza Einstein respondeulle que non: "Mentres haxa seres humanos, haberá guerra".
Onte, 18 de abril, cumpríronse cincuenta anos da morte de Albert Einstein. Poucos meses despois, en xullo de 1955, facíase público en Londres un manifesto que alentaría o posterior nacemento da Conferencia Pugwash. Asinado ademais de por Einstein por outros eminentes científicos, como Bertrand Russell, Max Born, Linus Pauling ou Hideki Yukawa, o manifesto serviu para que os homes de ciencia expresaran ante o mundo o severo risco dunha guerra nuclear e a necesidade de apostar pola resolución pacífica dos conflitos. Aquelas palavras seguen servindo na actualidade de fermoso estímulo a prol da abolición da violencia, o único obxectivo lexítimo de todo esforzo humano:
IN the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft. We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism. Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire. We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it. We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties? The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow. No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed. It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration. Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert's knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy. Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited. This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious. Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step. Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.
WE invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:
"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."
Max Born Percy W. Bridgman Albert Einstein Leopold Infeld Frederic Joliot-Curie Herman J. Muller Linus Pauling Cecil F. Powell Joseph Rotblat Bertrand Russell Hideki Yukawa
Hoxe mesmo La Voz saca dous artigos de opinión sobre o tema. Os autores son profesionais da Física e das Matemáticas e aportan puntos de vista interesantes e diverxentes. Eu, como Calaza, non son competente na materia, pero como lle ocurríu a él, creo que podo facer un post ao respecto.
É certo, son dous artigos moi interesantes, aínda que o "ton" no que están escritos pareceume mais aberto e suxerente que o estilo empregado por Calaza, tan chulesco e dogmático, tan proprio de quen sabe que meteu o zoco.
O sistema de comentarios está á disposición dos lectores de "signos de vida" (antes "días estranhos") exclusivamente para a publicación de opinións e comentarios relacionados co contido deste blog. Calquera texto publicado por medio do referido sistema non reflicte necesariamente a opinión do autor deste blog. As opinións e informacións publicadas no sistema de comentarios son de autoría e responsabilidade integral dos leitores que del fixeran uso. O autor deste blog resérvase o dereito de suprimir os comentarios e textos que considere ofensivos, difamatorios, calumniosos, preconceitosos ou de algunha forma perxudiciais a terceiros. Textos de carácter promocional ou inseridos no sistema sen a debida identificación do autor (nome completo e enderezo válido de e-mail) tamén poderán ser eliminados.