[Note from moderator: as the poster points out, categories is not a forum for political discussion. Consequently, further messages on this topic received before Monday will be digested and posted then, closing the discussion.] Dear Colleagues, I am responding to the posting of Marco Grandis. I would like to express my heartfelt admiration to all those who raised their voice against Elsevier's involvement in the arms trade. I find it so noble that many scientists found time to express their outrage and protest. At the same time, I cannot help saying that I find the whole initiative childishly naive, and even somewhat hypocritical. Naive, because apparently, they believe that wars are because of the arms trade -- in other words, they seem to mistake the cause with the result. (If there were no wars, would there be any point in manufacturing weapons? Let me ask it clearer: Would it bring *profit* to manufacture arms in that case??) And I said hypocritical, because I do wonder where the same good souls were at the time of the invasion of Iraq, during the war in the Balkan, or what do they think about what is happening in Israel. I wonder if the same worried scientists who propose to boycott Reed-Elsevier have already signed the academic boycott against Israel, and would participate in a similar action against the US as a protest against its foreign policy. I am raising these issues not in order to generate a political discussion on a categories forum (which is definitely not the appropriate place for such a discussion), but rather to illuminate the disproportional nature of the suggestion action. It appears to me an overreaction, and directed against the wrong entity. With best wishes, Gabor Lukacs
Dear Gabor, In support of those who raised their voice in this matter (namely, Marco Grandis), I would like to say that although maybe naive, this alarm call is surely not even mildly hypocritical. Notice that to protest against one particular issue does not exclude protesting about others, surely more fundamental as you rightly point out in this case. For this reason, I think that your questioning in the paragraph below is out of order and calls for a retraction. It seems to me that you assume too much about those who were brave enough to let us all be aware of this issue, and to whom we should be grateful.
And I said hypocritical, because I do wonder where the same good souls were at the time of the invasion of Iraq, during the war in the Balkan, or what do they think about what is happening in Israel. I wonder if the same worried scientists who propose to boycott Reed-Elsevier have already signed the academic boycott against Israel, and would participate in a similar action against the US as a protest against its foreign policy.
In a more detailed answer to this paragraph, I firmly believe (from first-hand knowledge) that the same worried scientists who would sign a petition to criticize Reed-Elsevier would also sign petitions against unjustified wars and invasions, such as those perpetrated by the current US government and its allies (and that includes the UK and Israel -- although I find that the latter is a trickier issue and tends to be simplistically confused with antisemitism). Any of such actions may be considered naive in view of the results they cause (well -- not always! see the recent US elections) -- nevertheless it is the duty of any conscientious scientist to raise his/her voice against any crimes against humanity, regardless of who perpetrates them. The case of Reed-Elsevier touches us more closely than any other, as (say) mathematicians who publish in reputed journals cannot simply ignore Journal of Pure and Aplided Algebra, Topology, Advances in Mathematics, etc. This case, unlike the larger and more fundamental issues, is within our reach, and that is what makes it so special. I fully agree with Marco Grandis having raised the alarm in this forum, precisley for this reason. Unlike you, I am not wondering why is he (or others) not doing likewise with other causes in this same forum. The reason is simple -- this is an ACADEMIC matter and therefore, as academics (not politicians), we can in principle do something effective about it. We may individually sign lots of other petitions, write letters to newspapers, and disseminate difficult to get inflormation colncerning the larger and more fundamental issues. But to bring those larger issues to the attention of this forum would, in my view, and I am sure also in the view of ther moderators, be inappropriate. This, on the other hand, is not. I understand that the entire editorial board of Topology recently resigned as a protest against their profiteering (without much effort -- who does the writing of papers, refereeing, preparing camera ready articles or proofreading? not them -- yet they charge outrageous prices for their journals), knowing far too well that Thirld World countries cannot afford such outrageous subsciptions. Would it be possible to promote such an action for this far more important issue of arms dealing (a worse case of profiteering and also more inmoral as it concerns human lives, not "just" access to scikentific journals)? To end, I largely agree with your concerns. I am only asking you to be less judgemental in your assesments without analysing the situation further. It may be unjust and hence unnecessarily insulting. Best wishes, Marta ************************************************ Marta Bunge Professor Emerita Dept of Mathematics and Statistics McGill University 805 Sherbrooke St. West Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 2K6 Office: (514) 398-3810 Home: (514) 935-3618 marta.bunge@mcgill.ca http://www.math.mcgill.ca/bunge/ ************************************************
From: Gabor Lukacs <lukacs@cc.umanitoba.ca> To: categories@mta.ca Subject: categories: Response to "Elsevier and weapons trade" Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:46:42 -0600 (CST)
[Note from moderator: as the poster points out, categories is not a forum for political discussion. Consequently, further messages on this topic received before Monday will be digested and posted then, closing the discussion.]
Dear Colleagues,
I am responding to the posting of Marco Grandis.
I would like to express my heartfelt admiration to all those who raised their voice against Elsevier's involvement in the arms trade. I find it so noble that many scientists found time to express their outrage and protest.
At the same time, I cannot help saying that I find the whole initiative childishly naive, and even somewhat hypocritical. Naive, because apparently, they believe that wars are because of the arms trade -- in other words, they seem to mistake the cause with the result. (If there were no wars, would there be any point in manufacturing weapons? Let me ask it clearer: Would it bring *profit* to manufacture arms in that case??)
And I said hypocritical, because I do wonder where the same good souls were at the time of the invasion of Iraq, during the war in the Balkan, or what do they think about what is happening in Israel. I wonder if the same worried scientists who propose to boycott Reed-Elsevier have already signed the academic boycott against Israel, and would participate in a similar action against the US as a protest against its foreign policy.
I am raising these issues not in order to generate a political discussion on a categories forum (which is definitely not the appropriate place for such a discussion), but rather to illuminate the disproportional nature of the suggestion action. It appears to me an overreaction, and directed against the wrong entity.
With best wishes,
Gabor Lukacs
_________________________________________________________________ Download now! Visit http://www.telusmobility.com/msnxbox/ to enter and see how cool it is to get Messenger with you on your cell phone. http://www.telusmobility.com/msnxbox/
Dear Marta, Let me start from the end of your message, where you mentioned the resignation of the entire editorial board of Topology. I find their action quite reasonable and appropriate, because it is primarily an academic issue. Furthermore, preventing access to knowledge serves the perpetuation of poverty and the current division of power/property in the world. Thus, the pressure excerted on the publisher this way has the potential of being helpful. Now to the original question. I do not question, even for a single moment, the subjective good intent of those who protest and raise their voice. Nevertheless, objectively, I do find it hypocritical to protest against the arms trade, and not against the those who *use* or *buy* the arms. I find it a cheap lip service to complain about prostitutes and remain silent about the clients. What makes the arms trade profitable are precisely those countries (among them our beloved Land of Freedom, the US) who buy the weapons. I do not think it is sensible to make reproaches to these companies. Capitalism is about maximazing profit, not about the people's welfare. (Even if many measures are sold to the public as such!) Thus, the existence of the arms industry is just a consequence, not a cause. Trying to make it vanish helps as much as curing the symptoms of the plague. This issue bothers me for the same reason that I am bothered by animal-rights activists (who feel sorry for the poor-poor dogs and cats, but often seem to be less sensitive to the problems of their fellow humans) -- it distracts the attention from the real problem, and creates artificial ones. There are many entities that could/should be boycotted. However, before someone would join a boycott of Elsevier, they should ask themselves: When did they visit the US last time...?
It seems to me that you assume too much about those who were brave enough to let us all be aware of this issue, and to whom we should be grateful.
I think this is exactly the point -- I do not find it brave at all to boycott a publisher. In fact, it looks like a very cheap way of relieving oneself from the responsibility of taking a real action, and this is what I find hypocritical about it. If someone is brave, s/he should refuse to participate in conferences in the US, or even boycott US academics altogether (as you all know, a similar initiative is in place against Israel). Personally, I am not sure if this is the area where I would like show my courage, but I would certainly admire anyone who would organize such a boycott. Because THAT takes a lot of courage.
nevertheless it is the duty of any conscientious scientist to raise his/her voice against any crimes against humanity, regardless of who perpetrates them.
I fully agree with you on this. However, in my opinion, the crime is not manufacturing a weapon, but *using* it. Let me repeat that I was not question at all the subjective good intent of the posting or anyone involved. With warmest regards, Gabor Lukacs
Following Gabor's line of reasoning, and paying the utmost attention not to confuse cause with effect, it would be OK for us to invest in narcotics: after all, if people wouldn't use drugs, we wouldn't be making any money, the market would regulate itself and we would get what we deserve. I have to add that I missed the connection with Iraq and the rest. There is an elephant in the room that Gabor seems to fail to notice: if the allegations are true, Elsevier would be investing money we directly make for them with our own (unpaid) work. Which -- whatever side you take in the dispute -- makes a call for boycott legitimate. My pension fund is bound to ethical investments, my employer too; I don't see why I shouldn't ask so for my publisher. On 8 Dec 2006, at 01:46, Gabor Lukacs wrote:
[Note from moderator: as the poster points out, categories is not a forum for political discussion. Consequently, further messages on this topic received before Monday will be digested and posted then, closing the discussion.]
participants (3)
-
Gabor Lukacs -
Marta Bunge -
Vladimiro Sassone