ARE WE DEATH, THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS?

Confession: I watched Oppenheimer only yesterday. Am I terribly late? Yes. Did it feel like 3 hours had passed when the movie ended? Definitely not. Why am I writing this NOW? Well, let’s find out.

Dr. Oppenheimer, a womanizer, strangled by an invisible copper wire 

It has been 2340 minutes since I watched it and I still find my mind circling back to Dr. Oppenheimer: the arrogant but often mesmerizing, chilling but charming, brilliant but naïve individual.

If he is a staunch liberal, then why did he ultimately reject communist ideas?

If he fears what an atomic bomb might unleash, why did he never agree to sign the petition?

Despite the highly implicit reference, I can’t help but question if it was naivety, the excitement of scientific innovation or a crave for status and fame that blinded his eyes to the potential consequences of his creation. He suffered from a constant internal dilemma: between his guilt (his own beliefs) and societal expectations. This was amplified by the simultaneous sounds of the deafening shoe stamping and the reverberating shock waves from the Trinity atom bomb test.

While I agree that his involvement started with excitement for the prospect of a new scientific creation, I hardly believe this explains his future actions. He wanted the pride that comes with the bomb only to realise that he’s left with nothing but guilt.

PRIDE IS TRANSITORY – MOMENTARY

Guilt is not. Guilt is powerful. Guilt is crippling.

The Chain Reaction

“Just because we built it doesn’t mean we get to decide how it’s used”

It boils down to one question: Are the producers responsible to safeguard the misuse of their products?

After hours of pondering and discussing, here is my answer:

It depends. If the consumer’s potential actions can harm the larger community, then yes. But I believe the producer is not necessarily guilty simply due to their creation, but is guilty if they don’t exhaust all possible options to stop the damage despite knowing about it. What do you think?

In this case, “the chain reaction” applies both scientifically and politically. If we place moral limitations on scientific discovery, does it threaten the creative process of exploration? – I would love to hear your answers (comment down below)

Assuming there are no limitations imposed on scientific exploration and the findings are life threatening, should it be published? Can the consumers of the findings  be trusted even though it is ethically or morally vetted and the caveats established?,  Well, Dr Oppenheimer indulged in believing that the bomb that came into existence would only strengthen the United States of America to negotiate for a better world, but in reality the world chose to use it for its own destruction.