Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#141

Post by XR0CSWV3h3kZWg »

dschuetz wrote: post #66

I don't think that his involvements in WW I are justified by his achievements in chemistry in favor of world population problems. Someone else would have found a way to bind nitrogen without him and so feed billions of people in the end. Much later perhaps, but eventually still. Yet, most of today's populus have barely enough to eat. So, ultimataly the problem remains unsolved, or it shifted even. Haber was not a sol…

As of 2016 ~10% of the world's population is undernourished.

https://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-fa...

If you believe that "most of today's populus have barely enough to eat" there is a good chance you have a much more dismal view of the world than actually exists.

I'd recommend checking out http://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#142

Post by lr4444lr »

soneca wrote: post #17

"Billions of people would not exist without him. And yet without him, World War I would have ended years earlier" The article is very interesting, but there is this Hollywood simplistic approach where one man is responsible for all things. The text even mention the Allies developing a poison gas, why not other German chemic? No one other person would be able to discover how to produce amonia? I don't subscribe to thi…

What the article takes pains to point out though was that despite competing gas technology, Haber not only invented but actively persuaded the German army to use it as an instrument of war. He did so in direct contravention not only to the rules of engagement at the time, but even the moral objections of his wife. This laid the groundwork for scientists in Nazi Germany to not only contribute their knowledge to war's death machine without remorse, but to feel compelled to do so as a moral good.

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#143

Post by loorinm »

verylittlemeat wrote: post #24
nabla9 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this "I don't get it" just rhetorical question or are you really not getting it and want to understand it? Rudyard Kipling's writings (before and during WWII) are probably the best source if you want to learn the sentiment that leads to the war. >million other people decide to also join in this fight Most people don't get to decide. Most of them are conscripted.

The United States doesn't conscript soldiers and yet can find hundreds of thousands of infantry soldiers to wage war. I don't think it's controversial to say that there's way more going on behind the effort to staff an army than threat of punishment from the government. Historically there are many examples of citizens eager to line up and fight for their country (whether for pragmatic or idealistic reasons). This isn…

Yeah this is kind of my point. I guess I probably don’t get it because I didn’t grow up in a military family. I guess people will do whatever they have to do for money. Because they are poor.

I’m pretty poor too but I feel like I have other options than to put my life in danger.

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#144

Post by felipemnoa »

zouhair wrote: post #139
soneca wrote: post #17

"Billions of people would not exist without him. And yet without him, World War I would have ended years earlier" The article is very interesting, but there is this Hollywood simplistic approach where one man is responsible for all things. The text even mention the Allies developing a poison gas, why not other German chemic? No one other person would be able to discover how to produce amonia? I don't subscribe to thi…

He did it though. Assuming that anyone else could have done it or would have done is a bit presumptuous. Look at the history of sound recording[0] for example. You can see that the technology that made it possible existed for years and years before anyone attempted such a feat. Now imagine if the first one who decided to record audio never done it would you think that we will be where we are now because "For sure som…

>>Now imagine if the first one who decided to record audio never done it would you think that we will be where we are now because "For sure someone would have done it" argument? I highly doubt that.

Reminds me of Hero's engine [1]. Had a single person decided to build a working industrial steam engine back then, then it is possible that the industrial revolution could've happened two thousand years ago.

I believe the technology to build it was there, nobody had the imagination to see the potential for this though.

Humanity missed its opportunity back then, thankfully we had another chance almost 1800 hundred years latter and this time there were people that seized the opportunity [2],[3]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_atmospheric_engine [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt_steam_engine

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#145

Post by loorinm »

loorinm wrote: post #2

What an insane and fascinating read. Two things occured to me: I don’t really understand how and why war happens. Like, it starts out as two parties both wanting the same resource, and then somebody says “over my dead body” or something and then a million other people decide to also join in this fight? I do not get it. The other thing is : The “inherent harm of technology”. Every single advancement will 100% hurt som…

OP here. Wow thanks for all the replies and views on why war happens.

I guess you could always explain any war by listing all the events that came righ before, but I don’t think that answers another question, which is this:

Why is it “ok” for governments to hire huge groups of people to murder other people, when murder is not ok in other settings? This is an obvious legal and moral contradiction right?

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#146

Post by jcranmer »

smackay wrote: post #8
JCSato wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly recommend you check out The Great War series on Youtube. Even if you just watch the prologue to the war videos, very informative on how WW1 got kicked off. Short answer: nationalism and a lot of treaties and grudges from past wars.

I saw a history documentary on the BBC many, many years ago where the historian was describing that the reason WWI started was because of railway timetables - basically moving all those troops and material was a logistical nightmare. Once the armies were assembled it was going to be impossibly difficult to move them all back so they got put into action instead. Most likely the historian was AJP Taylor: http://www.ae.…

The argument doesn't hold up terribly well to the evidence. The Austrian ultimatum was timed to be delivered just after the French prime minister left Russia and was effectively unable to participate in emergency conferences for three days, and by all accounts Austria was committed to war by the time the ultimatum was sent. When Russia mobilized, the tsar ordered a partial mobilization effort that wasn't even in the military's plans, and it took well over 24 hours for the military to change his mind.

A good military commander needs to be able to adjust plans on the fly to circumstances anyways, and while the logistical hurdles would have been substantial. Mobilization itself takes the form of several stages, and it's possible to hold at certain stages for lengthy (in comparison to the crisis) periods of times. Military commanders would certainly have objected strenuously, but politicians could have overridden them if necessary.

The real truth is that, by the July Crisis, most of the politicians weren't trying to avoid war anymore. Certainly not in Germany, which is the only case where the timetable argument comes close to applying.

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#147

Post by kansface »

dschuetz wrote: post #66

I don't think that his involvements in WW I are justified by his achievements in chemistry in favor of world population problems. Someone else would have found a way to bind nitrogen without him and so feed billions of people in the end. Much later perhaps, but eventually still. Yet, most of today's populus have barely enough to eat. So, ultimataly the problem remains unsolved, or it shifted even. Haber was not a sol…

> Yet, most of today's populus have barely enough to eat.

But today, this is a political problem, not a scientific one. After all, the world produces more than enough food for everyone.

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#149

Post by hrasyid »

neaden wrote: post #106
Joe-Z wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 qu…

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?

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

Re: Fritz Haber: A Monster Who Fed the World

#150

Post by sampo »

jessaustin wrote: post #115
bzbarsky wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That has never happened in my lifetime or that of my parents. Unless your parents are really young, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War is an obvious counterexample. There was a reasonably clear goal and the goal was accomplished. I will grant that this is the only example I can think of right now, though.

I was in high school then, and unlike others I actually remember the bullshit I hear on the news. We were told that it wasn't like Korea, because the troops would come home immediately. To the contrary, the continued presence (to the present day!) of USA military in Kuwait, Iraq, and especially Saudi destabilized the Middle East and was the primary motivator for the author of 9/11. If evicting Iraqis from Kuwait was…

> destabilized the Middle East

I don't think pre-1990 Middle East, where Iraq had just invaded and occupied a neighboring state (Kuwait) was exactly a stable place, either. Remember also the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq War.

Post reply on HN