Two of the committee resigned in protest, Kissinger almost turned it down because it was also being awarded to Lê Đức Thọ, Lê Đức Thọ actually turned it down because the peace it was supposed to be about hadn't happened yet, Kissinger accepted in absentia as he did not want to be targeted by anti-war protestors when getting the peace prize, then he later tried to return it only for the committee to say no.
> It's one of the few Trump grievant that is legitimate.
Hardly. What does it have to do with Trump? The only reason it's a "grievance" is that Trump feels he should get the prize. While he supports a genocidal nation and tries to start wars.
Haber invented the process for artificially creating ammonia. Since ammonia is a critical fertilizer, this invention has fed billions of people. On the other hand, it’s also critical for the manufacture of explosives. His work on chemical weapons was practically irrelevant by comparison. This was an astounding feat of chemistry, and well worth rewarding.
But fundamentally I don’t think we should make moral judgements over things like chemistry. A chemical process to create ammonia is a tool, and tools can always be used for good or evil. Even explosives are just tools that can be used for good or evil. Sometimes those explosives are even the same substance that is used for fertilizer. The morality of the use of the tool is provided by the user of the tool, not the creator of the tool.
We can celebrate the people who make the tools while saving our condemnation for the people who use tools for evil.
I agree about the Peace prize though, that one’s generally worthless.
John Carreyrou's book "Bad blood" is extremely good. Full of suspense, amazing revelations. I highly recommend it. It explores a lot of Elizabeth Holmes' and Sunny Balwani's insanity.
