3 ms·

When Oppenheimer witnessed the first explosion of a nuclear weapon, he quelled his ethical reservations over the destructive power of his creation with a verse

When Oppenheimer witnessed the first explosion of a nuclear weapon, he quelled his ethical reservations over the destructive power of his creation with a verse from the Bhagavad Gita [1] often mistranslated as the deity stating "I am death, destroyer of worlds", but more accurately - "I am time, and I will destroy these people with or without your involvement". Had the scientists of the Manhattan project (Oppenheimer, Fermi, Szilard, etc) subscribed to the EA philosophy, they would have been unlikely to work on nuclear weapons development, and millions more would have likely perished in a land invasion of Japan. However, millions of Southeast Asians and South Americans did perish in the subsequent "proxy wars" of the Cold War era, so you can make a convincing historical "what if" either way. Effective altruism is not a very useful philosophy if you don't actually know what is best for humanity. Oppenheimer's philosophy (the Gita philosophy) was to simply do his job without being attached to the outcome. 1. https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/11/verse/32 https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/11/verse/32

bitcharmer 3y ago
That's incorrect. The translation quoted by Oppenheimer is actually more accurate than yours. The other two, more popular are: "The Supreme Lord said: I am mighty Time, the source of destruction that comes forth to annihilate the worlds. Even without your participation, the warriors arrayed in the opposing army shall cease to exist." [0] "Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: Time I am, the mighty destroyer of worlds, and I come to vanquish all living beings. Even without your participation, all the warriors on the opposite side of the battlefield will be killed" [1] [0] - https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/11/verse/32 https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/11/verse/32 [1] - https://asitis.com/11/32.html https://asitis.com/11/32.html
- cafebee 3y ago
  To my ear, the two translations you listed sound very similar to primitivesuave’s “I am time…” translation and dissimilar to Oppenheimer’s “I am death…” translation. Can you explain why you disagree?
monadINtop 3y ago
I understand the point you're making, but the statement that > they would have been unlikely to work on nuclear weapons development, and millions more would have likely perished in a land invasion of Japan despite being constantly repeated, is not reflected by contemporary documents and later historical analysis of decision making among Pentagon and White House officials. The threat of an impending land invasion was not a consideration at the time when it was decided to attack Japanese civilian centres with nuclear weapons. The primary factor in the decision for their use had far more to do with the risk of Stalin joining the fight on the eastern front and thus securing a claim for territory following the inevitable axis surrender, as well as a desire for US power projection from the demonstration of an atomic weapon in War. The primary delay in Japanese surrender was the question of the fate of Empreror Hirohito, who the US ended up protecting anyway.

bitcharmer 3y ago

That's incorrect. The translation quoted by Oppenheimer is actually more accurate than yours. The other two, more popular are: "The Supreme Lord said: I am mighty Time, the source of destruction that comes forth to annihilate the worlds. Even without your participation, the warriors arrayed in the opposing army shall cease to exist." [0] "Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: Time I am, the mighty destroyer of worlds, and I come to vanquish all living beings. Even without your participation, all the warriors on the opposite side of the battlefield will be killed" [1] [0] - https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/11/verse/32 https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/11/verse/32 [1] - https://asitis.com/11/32.html https://asitis.com/11/32.html

cafebee 3y ago
To my ear, the two translations you listed sound very similar to primitivesuave’s “I am time…” translation and dissimilar to Oppenheimer’s “I am death…” translation. Can you explain why you disagree?

monadINtop 3y ago

I understand the point you're making, but the statement that > they would have been unlikely to work on nuclear weapons development, and millions more would have likely perished in a land invasion of Japan despite being constantly repeated, is not reflected by contemporary documents and later historical analysis of decision making among Pentagon and White House officials. The threat of an impending land invasion was not a consideration at the time when it was decided to attack Japanese civilian centres with nuclear weapons. The primary factor in the decision for their use had far more to do with the risk of Stalin joining the fight on the eastern front and thus securing a claim for territory following the inevitable axis surrender, as well as a desire for US power projection from the demonstration of an atomic weapon in War. The primary delay in Japanese surrender was the question of the fate of Empreror Hirohito, who the US ended up protecting anyway.