Alfred Nobel invented dynamite and other explosives, so perhaps he felt responsible for their military use. But dynamite also opens roads through mountains and gave access to people who were not communicated. So he cannot really be blamed for inventing something with the potential to be weaponised. As usual it’s not the object but the human intentions that are responsible for its use that must be called into question. More worryingly he made much of his fortune manufacturing and trading in weapons in spite of his assertion that he was a pacifist.
Like many other people who make a lot of money from the mechanisms of capitalism Mr Noble decided to invest upon his death in a good cause and he set up the Nobel Peace prize and other rewards for people who have done interesting things in different fields (but no Nobel prize for Maths, legend has it, because his wife may have had an affair with a Mathematician).
He left the decision about who was to receive these monies and recognition from the world to a college of mainly academics appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
And like so many others who made a lot of money through activities which are mammoth money makers but not taking into account other people’s needs and who then develop philanthropic interests – like the Gates and the Zuckerbergs – he set out to improve the world. Laudable intentions but… the problem is why those people or their representatives should have the right to decide what is good for others. As far as I am aware of nobody has set up a philanthropic project to change the basic mechanisms of concentration of wealth that create so much inequality and suffering, at the same time as giving the luxury of “helping the world” to the rich guys.
The Nobel committee has a history of famous controversial Peace prize decisions. The Guardian journalist Will Dean summarised it in terms of how many Kissingers, (The Kissinger Index, after Tom Leher’s “Political satire died the day Henry Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize) should be given to the Nobel Academy for decisions like giving the Peace Prize to Barack Obama or the European Union.
Bob Dylan was given the Nobel Prize for Literature but he is refusing to acknowledge it. And the Nobel Committee are starting to say that he is “impolite and arrogant” for not talking to them. Not to understand that Bob Dylan has been singing all his life precisely about the problems of the establishment, (war and weapons manufacturers included) the Nobel committee being a part of it, and to expect that this time he would be a good boy and behave himself according to the parameters of the establishment is ludicrous.
This does not mean that the decision was wrong as they probably made many people aware, who did not have the pleasure of listening to Bob when they were young, that it was not only the content of his songs that was interesting but also that the poetic quality of his lyrics was outstanding.
In sum, this does not have to be another Nobel cock up but it can remain an interesting decision as long as they stop having tantrums and chill out.
