Heard about the WILL of NOBEL, as the same be conferred to those “who have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind!”
Take this hypothetical example w.r.t. Inventions: Let’s say the person who invented Telescope, witnessed the exponential rise of it, on a larger scale; and at no point there’s anyone stating that we must un-invent Telescope, or its foundation wasn’t beneficial! Now, this should be considered as the ‘greatest benefit to mankind’, a gift whose foundation so far has not been questioned, and it has witnessed the exponential rise in its making!
Take this another hypothetical example w.r.t. Peace: Let’s say a person brought peace to a town by dethroning the crown or its leader, which the mainstream considered as fascist. But what if that land, even after the period of 10 years, never evolved, and the poverty thrived therein. Then, without the blueprint of the aftermaths, can that be considered as the greatest benefit to the mankind? I presume NOT! Take case of Malala. Of course, she was a victim and had gone through a lot, but, did NOBEL end up exponentially improving the demographics of any land? Absolutely Not! So, can this be considered as the greatest benefit to the mankind? I presume Not! It’s just that the WEST wanted to prove its point, and showing its upper hand, by bestowing random awards.Please understand: My mere contention is that the statement -> greatest benefit to mankind, shouldn’t be forcefully/unnecessarily wasted merely in the name of inclusivity, nor, on the basis of laundering of the contenders VIA Mainstream + PR.
Bestow it once in 4 Years like Olympics; but the recipient should’ve passed every litmus test in the field, maybe of STEM, ART, PEACE, ECONOMICS! 😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi 2024