4 ms·

"Someone else would have found a way to bind nitrogen without him and so feed billions of people in the end." The same logic that wipes out his achievement cou

"Someone else would have found a way to bind nitrogen without him and so feed billions of people in the end." The same logic that wipes out his achievement could also absolve him of his sin. Certainly someone else would have also invented chlorine gas. Based on the little I've read of him I agree that he doesn't sound like a great guy (though I certainly don't know enough to really have an informed opinion). But, more generally, I oppose the notion that summarizing someone is as simple as a toggle switch between good and bad; I think that's too reductionist. Humans are (and the world is) more complicated than that.

Joe-Z 9y ago
While I agree with you that humans cannot simply be labeled as good or bad (there‘s also a nice Solschenizyn-quote at the end of the article) your argument has one flaw: He not only invented chlorine gas he actively pushed for its use against the opinion of German generals. The question stands how many people would‘ve not only disocered this deadly weapon but also were so enthusiastic about its use (see also: some quotes of him in the article)
- neaden 9y ago
  People were already shooting each other, blowing each other up, stabbing each other, wounding each other in the dirt to die of gangrene or other infections, setting each other on fire. On what basis do we condemn chemical weapons while ignoring all these other methods of death and pain?
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    Well, I guess you have to consult the Hague convention on warfare for an answer to that question. As mentioned in the article this was also the basis on which the generals opposed Haber‘s plans.
  - hrasyid 9y ago
    This is a good philosophical question, but the answer the governments of major powers came up with is that to limit the atrocity there must be rules even in war. So people came up with mutually agreed conventions. It was agreed that violating these would be worse then killing "by the book". Germany was a party to the rule prohibiting chemical warfare: https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/002422 https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/002422
dschuetz 9y ago
I agree on the reductionist part, it's never that simple. But, in his case it was his conscious decision to use the gas as a chemical weapon, the case of which was unprecedented. Sure anyone else would have come up with the idea sooner or later, but he has set the precedent so that anyone after him now can use it, as the Allies actually did, in all this "but they also did it, now we want too!" sentiment. His bad judgement caused not only good things, but disregarding the possible consequences also cause much much worse things. It's actually simple, imho.

Joe-Z 9y ago

While I agree with you that humans cannot simply be labeled as good or bad (there‘s also a nice Solschenizyn-quote at the end of the article) your argument has one flaw: He not only invented chlorine gas he actively pushed for its use against the opinion of German generals. The question stands how many people would‘ve not only disocered this deadly weapon but also were so enthusiastic about its use (see also: some quotes of him in the article)

neaden 9y ago
People were already shooting each other, blowing each other up, stabbing each other, wounding each other in the dirt to die of gangrene or other infections, setting each other on fire. On what basis do we condemn chemical weapons while ignoring all these other methods of death and pain?
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  Well, I guess you have to consult the Hague convention on warfare for an answer to that question. As mentioned in the article this was also the basis on which the generals opposed Haber‘s plans.
- hrasyid 9y ago
  This is a good philosophical question, but the answer the governments of major powers came up with is that to limit the atrocity there must be rules even in war. So people came up with mutually agreed conventions. It was agreed that violating these would be worse then killing "by the book". Germany was a party to the rule prohibiting chemical warfare: https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/002422 https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/002422

dschuetz 9y ago

I agree on the reductionist part, it's never that simple. But, in his case it was his conscious decision to use the gas as a chemical weapon, the case of which was unprecedented. Sure anyone else would have come up with the idea sooner or later, but he has set the precedent so that anyone after him now can use it, as the Allies actually did, in all this "but they also did it, now we want too!" sentiment. His bad judgement caused not only good things, but disregarding the possible consequences also cause much much worse things. It's actually simple, imho.