The Motives of Scientists
jmc at Steam.stanford.edu
Tue Oct 3 21:11:29 EST 1995
In article <44si9r$9lo at holly.cc.uleth.ca> wilson at hg.uleth.ca writes:
From: wilson at hg.uleth.ca
Date: 3 Oct 1995 23:51:23 GMT
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Reply-To: wilson at hg.uleth.ca
In article <JMC.95Oct2233242 at Steam.stanford.edu>, jmc at Steam.stanford.edu
(John McCarthy) writes:
>Remember that whole generations of future American politicians were in
>the armed forces when the bombs were dropped and were spared invading
Let's suppose a future politican was 20 when the bombs were dropped.
That would make him/her 70 now. That's a bit old to be considered a
future politician. Also what do you mean 'whole generations'. I
don't think you the age span of WWII vets currently in politics could
be more than 10 years at most. This hardly constitutes a single
generation. Your statement would have been very true in the 1950's
when support for science among politicians was very high.
I meant future from August 1945. As to the idea that a generation is
10 years, let me point out that while Harry Truman was a soldier in
WWI, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and now Dole were in
service in WWII. The U.S. Presidents who were not in military service
in WWII comprise Johnson (already a Congressman), Carter (too young for
WWII but served later in the Navy), Ford (maybe) and Clinton. Clinton
is the first President from a generation that evaded military service.
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
More information about the Bioforum