This feels more like the Time Magazine "Man of the Year" than it does a serious attempt to highlight those who have provided the "greatest benefit on mankind".
The Nobel Peace Prize can serve a very real purpose; it can highlight someone working peacefully to overthrow an authoritarian regime. It can give those advocating for an improvement of the human condition a voice, international standing, a modicum of protection from government violence, and resources.
Using the Peace Prize (and the Economics Prize, for that matter) as a way to deliver short-sited political digs or kudos to one group or another is farcical. It should go to people who are on the ground, working right now, to make the world a better place.
Now this is just getting ridiculous. There are people and organizations out there making the world better, saving lives, saving the world. Please stop with the theatrics.
"It is unclear who would accept the prize if the internet were to win."
No doubt. The internet is a passive tool; it's the people and organizations using it for good who should be winning prizes. The Nobel Peace Prize should be less nebulous, and for concrete achievement. (Edited for grammar.)
That's the World-Wide Web, not the Internet. The Internet enables email, IM & IRC, online gaming, SSH, online backups, voice & video conferencing, and the World-Wide Web.
Why not? The irony of giving a peace prize to a military organization would clearly escape the grasp of this increasingly irrelevant group of nominators.
> Why not? The irony of giving a peace prize to a military organization would clearly escape the grasp of this increasingly irrelevant group of nominators.
Western Europe was liberated by military organizations. The resulting several decades of peace had something to do with military organizations as well.
Short of Norman Borlaug, military organizations have produced more peace than anyone else.
Good point, and with a few qualifications I agree with you. But the actual intent of the prize, as expressed by Alfred Nobel himself, mentions the reduction of standing armies as a qualification for receiving the award.
Cut the shenanigans and just nominate TBL! He actually deserves it. He hasn't sought out peace, as another commented suggested the prize should focus on, but indirectly, he's caused a lot of peace through communication.
Comments
How wonderfully fatuous.
Kissinger, Arafat, a newly-inaugurated president who justified the wars he was continuing in his acceptance speech, and now a communications medium.
Retire the Peace Prize. They clearly have no idea what to do with it.
This feels more like the Time Magazine "Man of the Year" than it does a serious attempt to highlight those who have provided the "greatest benefit on mankind".
The Nobel Peace Prize can serve a very real purpose; it can highlight someone working peacefully to overthrow an authoritarian regime. It can give those advocating for an improvement of the human condition a voice, international standing, a modicum of protection from government violence, and resources.
Using the Peace Prize (and the Economics Prize, for that matter) as a way to deliver short-sited political digs or kudos to one group or another is farcical. It should go to people who are on the ground, working right now, to make the world a better place.
After they gave it to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama, does it really matter who or what else wins it?
Did you read McCain's foreign policy plank? Obama gets it simply for not being McCain.
Now this is just getting ridiculous. There are people and organizations out there making the world better, saving lives, saving the world. Please stop with the theatrics.
Agree. I also think the prize should be given to organizations/people who specifically seek out to promote peace, not just produce it as a byproduct.
Wow, another nomination for Al Gore, impressive.
"It is unclear who would accept the prize if the internet were to win."
No doubt. The internet is a passive tool; it's the people and organizations using it for good who should be winning prizes. The Nobel Peace Prize should be less nebulous, and for concrete achievement. (Edited for grammar.)
I would give the medal to Vint Cerf and the money to the Internet Archive.
Maybe the W3C? Tim Berners-Lee deserves it.
That's the World-Wide Web, not the Internet. The Internet enables email, IM & IRC, online gaming, SSH, online backups, voice & video conferencing, and the World-Wide Web.
DARPA then?
Why not? The irony of giving a peace prize to a military organization would clearly escape the grasp of this increasingly irrelevant group of nominators.
> Why not? The irony of giving a peace prize to a military organization would clearly escape the grasp of this increasingly irrelevant group of nominators.
Western Europe was liberated by military organizations. The resulting several decades of peace had something to do with military organizations as well.
Short of Norman Borlaug, military organizations have produced more peace than anyone else.
Good point, and with a few qualifications I agree with you. But the actual intent of the prize, as expressed by Alfred Nobel himself, mentions the reduction of standing armies as a qualification for receiving the award.
Cut the shenanigans and just nominate TBL! He actually deserves it. He hasn't sought out peace, as another commented suggested the prize should focus on, but indirectly, he's caused a lot of peace through communication.
I would give it to CERN
Is it for all of the internet or only the parts that aren't censored?
The parts that are uncensored, minus the porn and lolcats.
So including 4chan?
How are they justifying this? The only answer I can think of is "to highlight the ways in which the internet is creating a difference in the world."
I hadn't noticed that the world is different due to the internet.
I will be happy to accept the money on behalf of the entire Internet.
How gracious of you.
But, I want my 0.0013 of an SEK.
AWESOME!