RE: Response to "Elsevier and weapons trade"

RE: Response to "Elsevier and weapons trade"

[Gabor Lukacs]

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

Re: Response to "Elsevier and weapons trade"

[Vladimiro Sassone]

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.]

RE: Response to "Elsevier and weapons trade"

[Marta Bunge]

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/

Response to "Elsevier and weapons trade"

[Gabor Lukacs]

[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