<nettime> Bertrand Russell on war in the future (1952)

[Rana Dasgupta <rana_dasgupta@yahoo.com>]

>From a lecture entitled "Science and war" in "The
Impact of Science on Society" (London: Unwin Hyman,
1952).  49 years ago.

The right to make war, like the right to strike, but
in a far higher degree, is very dangerous in a world
governed by scientific technique.  Neither can be
simply abolished, since that would open the road to
tyranny.  But in each case it must be recognised that
groups cannot, in the name of freedom, justly claim
the right to inflict great injuries upon others.  As
regards war, the principle of unrestricted national
sovereignty, cherished by liberals in the nineteenth
century and by the Kremlin in the present day, must be
abandoned.  Means must be found of subjecting the
relations of nations to the rule of law, so that a
single nation will no longer be, as at present, the
judge in its own cause.  If this is not done, the
world will quickly return to barbarism.  In that case,
scientific technique will disappear along with
science, and men will be able to go on being
quarrelsome because their quarrels will no longer do
much harm.  It is, however, just possible that mankind
may prefer to survive and prosper rather than to
perish in misery, and, if so, national liberty will
have to be effectively restrained.

[...]

The atom bomb, and still more the hydrogen bomb, have
caused new fears, involving new doubts as to the
effects of science on human life.  Some eminent
authorities, including Einstein, have pointed out that
there is a danger of the extinction of all life on
this planet.  I do not myself think that this will
happen in the next war, but I think it may well happen
in the next but one, if that is allowed to occur.  If
this expectation is correct, we have to choose within
the next fifty years or so between two alternatives. 
Either we must allow the human race to exterminate
itself, or we must forgo certain liberties which are
very dear to us, more especially the liberty to kill
foreigners whenever we feel so disposed.  I think it
probable that mankind will choose its own
extermination as the preferable alternative.  The
choice will be made, of course, by persuading
ourselves that it is not being made, since (so
militarists on both sides will say) the victory of the
right is certain without risk of universal disaster. 
We are perhaps living in the last age of man, and, if
so, it is to science that he will owe his extinction.

If, however, the human race decides to let itself go
on living, it will have to make very drastic changes
in its ways of thinking, feeling and behaving.  We
must learn not to say: 'Never! better death than
dishonour!'  We must learn to submit to law, even when
imposed by aliens whom we hate and despise, and whom
we believe to be blind to all considerations of
righteousness.  Consider some concrete examples.  Jews
and Arabs will have to agree to submit to arbitration;
if the award goes against the Jews, the President of
the United States will have to ensure the victory of
the party to which he is opposed, since, if he
supports the international authority, he will lose the
Jewish vote in new York State.  On the other hand, if
the award goes in favour of the Jews, the Mohammedan
world will be indignant, and will be supported by all
other malcontents.  Or, to take another instance,
Eire, will demand the right to oppress the Protestants
of Ulster, and on this issue the United States will
support Eire while Britain will support Ulster.  Could
an international authority survive such a dissension? 
Again: India and Pakistan cannot agree about Kashmir,
therefore one of them must support Russia and the
other the United States.  It will be obvious to anyone
who is an interested party in one of these disputes
that the issue is far more important than the
continuance of life on our planet.  The hope that the
human race will allow itself to survive is therefore
somewhat slender.

But if human life *is* to continue in spite of
science, mankind will have to learn a discipline of
the passions which, in the past, has not been
necessary.  Men will have to submit to the law, even
when they think the law unjust and iniquitous. 
Nations which are persuaded that they are only
demanding the barest justice will have to acquiesce
when this demand is denied the by the neutral
authority.  I do not say that this is easy; I do not
prophesy that it will happen; I say only that if it
does not happen the human race will perish , and will
perish as a result of science.

A clear choice must be made within fifty years, the
choice between Reason and Death.  And by 'Reason' I
mean willingness to submit to law as declared by an
international authority.  I fear that mankind may
choose Death.  I hope I am mistaken.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net