Sushan wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am
This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah
Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?
Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.
And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
In 1965, Berrah became an adviser to the Foreign Ministry of Côte d'Ivoire and a close counselor for President Félix Houphouët-Boigny. As a part of this work, he was part of the Ivory Coast delegation to United Nations General Assembly, the OAU, and was a special assistant to the president, and later Ambassador, until 1993. In this role, he worked to further the nation's foreign affairs policy, including diplomatic overtures to foreign leaders and working on Israeli-Palestinian relations.
You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful", and you ask if the scientist's decision was "a wise one", but you offer insufficient context to judge your case. You mention scientific breakthroughs that could be "of great use to the world", and doing "more to the world", but what world is this that you refer to? Is it the world in danger of eco-collapse because of the burning of fossil fuels, and so on? Is it the human cultural 'world', which ignores all other living things in the, er, 'world', and considers only human wishes or welfare? Is it the world of pop music and internet 'influencers', or the world of QAnon conspiracy theorists and 'preppers'?
You are you asking us to compare the benefit to the 'world' of peace versus scientific discovery, but how shall we do this? The answer must surely depend on the immediate circumstances surrounding your question. If 'the world
' is in need of a scientific breakthrough, then a scientist is surely of greater use. But if the problem is war, and we need to stop it, then the services of a diplomat will surely achieve more.
Your question, as presented, is unanswerable, IMO.
As I tried to point out in my previous post, you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges:
The Free Dictionary wrote:Compare apples and oranges - To try to highlight the similarities between two different things — which typically cannot be done.
Full dictionary entry here