Educational Program: A Conversation with Charles Oppenheimer
Much has been made of Oppenheimer, director Christopher Nolan’s film about theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his complex role in the Manhattan Project. The film has reignited interest in one of the most influential scientific minds of the last century.
The Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in the United States (AFPC-USA), in collaboration with the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, invited AFPC-USA members to join a historic discussion about our past and our future between Charles Oppenheimer, grandson of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Garry Jacobs, President of the World Academy of Art and Science, the organization co-founded by Oppenheimer in the 1960s.
How can we harness the constructive power of artificial intelligence for good while mitigating its threats? How can we mobilize the synergy needed to effectively address the climate crisis? Are we at the same point in history with AI as Oppenheimer once was with the creation of atomic weapons?
Oppenheimer and Jacobs delved deeper into these topics during a discussion that explored the late scientist’s complex role in the Manhattan Project, emphasizing ethical dilemmas and the power of scientific innovation that can harness new ideas for either destruction or advancement.
The event highlighted the enormous untapped power of technology for addressing pressing global challenges and underscored the importance of responsible leadership in navigating morally ambiguous terrain to tackle critical issues related to peace, security, governance, technology, economy and the environment.
The educational program took place on Thursday, September 21. The event was moderated by Grant Schreiber, the Global Campaign Manager for the United Nations’ Human Security for All campaign.
The AFPC-USA is solely responsible for the content of this educational program. Below, readers will find a summary of some of the most important takeaways from the presentation.
ON HIS GRANDFATHER’S LEGACY
Oppenheimer said his grandfather, henceforth referred to as “JRO,” had great insights into “the significance of the creation of atomic weapons and what it would mean for humanity.” Most importantly, JRO saw “the effect of the technology that we build; science and technology will either destroy us or save us.”
JRO was a willing participant in the war effort; he and Neils Bohr “saw what was going to happen with the advent of the bomb” and correctly predicted its creation would contribute to an arms race. Because of this, he spent considerable time trying to influence public policy surrounding the use and creation of atomic weapons. He “saw it as his duty” and “believed that there needed to be a closer connection between arts, science and human values that eventually ended up in both his political prosecution and the founding of The World Academy of Arts and Science.” His outspoken warnings about the danger of the nuclear arms race were unpopular among political leaders at the time.
It was not entirely clear to the political class what the impact of the atomic bomb’s creation would be, Oppenheimer said, but the proposal for the establishment of a global regulatory body required major powers to work together and commit to “use these powers for energy, but not for weapons.”
Over time, other scientists began to follow JRO’s lead and the proposal gained momentum, which vindicated him, even though he stood “accused of insufficient enthusiasm in working on the hydrogen bomb” and was made a political pariah. Political leaders “wanted scientists to remain in the laboratory” and not weigh in on what might happen with their inventions. Eventually, scientists gained enough influence that they began to project their views “not just to governments but to the world community.”
The World Academy was later founded “to focus attention on the social consequences and policy implications of what science was doing.”
ON TECHNOLOGY USE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE IMPACT OF AI
Oppenheimer pointed out that humanity is once again dealing with “the challenge that comes up” as a result of “the evolution of our species”: Whether we are going to use technology to help ourselves or hurt ourselves, as a support for human security for humanity, or a threat to it.
Jacobs noted that the themes of the Oppenheimer film resonate with people today, contributing to its success. Oppenheimer added that while the film does not “give a prescription” on how to manage technology, the fact that its themes have resonated “has given many organizations a platform to talk about” how to address these challenges.
ON HUMAN COOPERATION
Oppenheimer noted that human beings “have a natural tendency to group up in [their] tribe and ultimately fight other tribes, to seek their own advantage. He observed, however, that there comes a point “when that doesn’t work” and “war can’t be fought in the same way.”
Military officials of course held the opposing view and “were measurably wrong” because humans “don’t get more security by making more nuclear weapons.”
Global society has reached “new levels of cooperation” that have created “interdependence all over the world.” “We're shipping materials,” he said. “We're not at daily war, but climate change in particular highlights how we haven't really gotten together to work it all out. It's essential that we work together against a shared existential threat that affects the whole world and [acknowledge] that no one group can win.”
Oppenheimer said he is continuing his grandfather’s legacy by encouraging the use of fission, the same field of science that JRO was involved in, to “create abundant energy, reduce the CO2 emissions causing climate change, and solve a lot of the world's other problems,” advocating that it be used for a “shared good instead of a bunch of weapons.”
ON THE LEGACY OF THE ATOMIC BOMB
The lesson to be learned from the atomic bomb is not that “we made a mistake” but “the way that people work together to manage the effects of this technology.” We essentially cannot “stop science and technology from evolving” but we can be responsible for their respective consequences.
“If we had followed the policy proposals of cooperating and not had an arms race,” said Oppenheimer, “it's pretty clear that we would've created abundant energy systems because even in the context of an arms race, we were sharing information about how to make nuclear energy.” He added: “If we’d had a practical system to allow for energy production and not weapon production, atomic energy would have proliferated, especially back in the 1950s and 1960s when we could get stuff like highways and nuclear power plants built much faster, and would've acquired recognition of a shared interdependence.”
Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has been “a tremendous waste” as well as “a tremendous danger.” Surprisingly, “we’re not dead” because we still haven’t used these weapons. However, “there is still a way out” and the same science JRO helped develop can be used “to solve the problems we have now.”
It is “hopeful” that humanity “has treaties and lowered risks” but it’s “not good” that people “aren’t worried about nuclear weapons these days.” Today’s problems “are shared and you have to do what you can to promote that.”
