Nobel Symposium 14, Stockholm

15-20 September 1969

SCIENTISTS IN POLITICS (Abstract)

Linus Pauling

The greatly increased understanding of the nature of the world and the tremendous technological developments to which it has led during recent decades have forced scientists to become involved in politics. I believe that this involvement must become even greater in the future, and that it will lead to a changed world organization such as to provide the most opportunity for the most satisfying lives for all people, and to minimize the amount of human suffering.

The most striking example of the changes provided by scientific discoveries is the change in the power of destruction that has been placed in the hands of the leaders of the great nations through the development of nuclear weapons. If we use the ratio of deaths to tonnage of high explosive achieved in the bombing attacks of the Second World War, the existing nuclear explosives are calculated to be enough to kill 70 times the number of people on earth.

It is irrational to think of waging war with weapons that could wipe out the human race. But we have made little progress toward the goal of a world without war, in which disputes between nations are settled by recourse to world law. The national leaders have not yet called on the scientists for help in analyzing the extremely complex problems involved.

The steps that have been taken toward the abolition of war and the control of nuclear weapons have involved political action by scientists. An example is the contribution of the scientists of the Pugwash Conferences and other scientists in analyzing the problem of radioactive fallout and the genetic and somatic damage that it causes, and the technical problems connected with a bomb-test treaty, in the period before the treaty was signed in 1962. In addition, scientists have been effective in helping to educate their fellow citizens about these and other problems.

Individual scientists have also made great political contributions by government service, both as members of government agencies and as advisors to the heads of nations. There is also the possibility that scientists could play an important part in politics by occupying leading posts in the legislative and executive branches of government. Very few scientists serve in this way, partially, I believe, because scientists find it difficult to reconcile the principles of action in science, which are essentially ethical, with those in politics, which often represent a point of view characterized by personal self-interest, as illustrated by the selling of votes by senators to the administration, in return for political favors, during the 1969 controversy about the construction of an antiballistic missile system.

We may ask why, despite the strong rational arguments against the ABM proposal, President Nixon and his advisors should have supported it so strongly. I have no doubts that Nixon was placating the military-industrial complex, the Pentagon and defense contractors, by giving them another 10 billion dollars taken from the people as a whole, despite the strong testimony by leading scientists against the expenditure.

It is the military-industrial complex that is the greatest bar to progress toward a better world, and it is the military-industrial complex that scientists, students, and other people working for the betterment of the human condition, must fight.

How can the forces of militarism be overcome? How can a system of world law be developed to take the place of war in the settling of disputes between nations?

I believe that the existence of stockpiles of nuclear weapons that can destroy the world forces us to extend the system of law and morality to include all human activities. World law must be based upon an accepted ethical principle. I believe that there is such a principle, which may be expressed in the following way: that decisions among alternative courses of action should be made in such ways as to minimize the amount of human suffering.

This principle, or an equivalent one, has for a long time been used by individual human beings, but not by business corporations or by national governments. In business the principle of maximizing profits takes precedence over the business of minimizing human suffering. In the action of governments patriotism takes precedence over morality.

One of the tasks to which scientists and other people interested in the place of morality in a world of facts, might apply themselves is to search out the cause of human suffering in the world today. Militarism is one of the major causes of human suffering. In addition to the misuse of a large portion for militarism, the very unequal distribution of the world's wealth is a great cause of human suffering.

In the world as a whole, two thirds of the people, the miserably poor, numbering 2,300,000,000, have a total income equal to only 10% of the world's income. An equal total income, 10% of the world's total, is enjoyed by a miniscule group, the unconscionably rich, who make up only one tenth of one percent of the people of this world. The ratio of the average income of the unconscionably rich and the poor is thus about 700.

Let us consider the effect of a transfer of a part of the income of the unconscionably rich, 1.1% of the population, leaving them still affluent, to the miserably poor two thirds of the world's population. The rich people would remain happy, to the extent that happiness is determined by having a reasonably large amount of money; and the misery of two thirds of the world's people would be very considerably alleviated through the doubling of their income.

An additional great amelioration of the misery of the poor could be achieved by the allocation to them of the resources now wasted on war and militarism, and still more, in the course of time, by increases in production through the use of modem technology. I assume, of course, that there will be a halt in the shockingly great rate in population increase.

The practical problems of achieving such a change in redistribution of the world's wealth is a great one. Scientists and scholars should begin now to analyze this complex problem, and to formulate a technical schedule of progress toward the goal of a world worthy of a man's dignity, intelligence, and sense of justice.

I believe that it is necessary to attack the problem of the great amount of needless human suffering the world. I believe that it is only scientists who can analyze the problem in a sufficiently thorough way, and formulate the procedures by which it may be solved.

I am hopeful for the future. I believe that nuclear war can be avoided, and that, in the course of time, the institution of war can be abolished. I hope that the present unjust distribution of the world's wealth can be rectified, in the course of time, by peaceful methods, through the process of evolution of the existing political and economic systems.

I am encouraged by the revolt of the young people against the world which their elders have made, against its evil and injustice. I hope that they do not forget, as they grow older, but that instead they will join with the following generation in carrying out these changes that are needed to achieve a world of justice and morality, in which all human beings cooperate to keep the amount of human suffering to a minimum.