• Главная страница
• Новости
• Библиотека
• Контакты
• Архив
• English

English

Nobel Prize Winner Academician Vitaly Ginzburg:

“It is science, science and science again that constitutes the future of humanity.”

“Newly acquired knowledge, expertise, new information and scientific ideas responsible for the advance of the society, are basically meant to make human life better, as nothing reigns supreme of human life. People, whose ideas and knowledge make the life of others easier, lay the groundwork for human development. Therefore what scientists are doing and what they are thinking about problems of social significance has always been of genuine interest to the public.

The article ‘Humanism and Moral Perfection’ featured some social views of a distinguished Nobel laureate Vitaly L. Ginzburg. Our desk suddenly got a chance to send him the issue of the RPhG with it and even talk to him over the phone. He had heard nothing about the Gazette, but immediately agreed to give us an interview. He warned though that he had been bedridden because of a serious illness and suggested arranging a telephone interview.

This month Vitaly Ginsburg is 91. He is not only famous for his scientific works, but also for his intense public activity against social obscurantism and in support of humanist movements.

At present a letter by ten academicians (two of them are Nobel laureates) is being widely publicized, its contents being the protest against the intrusion of the Orthodox Church in all the spheres of social life. That’s what we actually started with.

Q: You have recently signed a letter to the President about a possible clericalization of Russia looming on the horizon. But Mr. Putin, like many other Russian politicians, has always stressed his Orthodox views, hasn’t he? What do the authors of the letter expect then?

A: It was clear from the start who was to be the recipient of the letter. At the moment the President is the only person in the country who can do something about it. That’s why we wrote to him; otherwise the endeavor would have boiled down to hot air. Putin seems to be an Orthodox Christian, but that’s certainly up to him. However the situation around the letter looks rather strange. Funny things had immediately followed our attempts to publish it: ‘The Rossiyskaya Gazeta’ flatly refused and ‘The Izvestia’ asked either 16,000 or 60,000 dollars publish it, so we decided to flag them. It was ‘The Kentavr’, a supplement to ‘The Novaya Gazeta’, which eventually agreed to publish the letter. They also took my article ‘Astrology: Religion to Follow Suit’. It’s in ‘The Novaya Gazeta’, ‘The Kentavr’ supplement of August 23, and at www.ufn.ru.

Q: Your appeal has not been supported by all the academicians; some of them even stood against. Among the latter there are not only humanists, but, for instance R. I. Ilkaev, a physicist. Isn’t it, among other things, a sign of the depreciation of the rank of an academician?

A: I believe, Ilkaev is no custom here: he is the chief of the Atomic Research Centre at Sarov. That town is a well-known Orthodox strong point where it’s quite a task for one to be ranged against a generally assumed pro-clerical position. Ilkaev is even a member of some church council. As for other academicians who stood against our letter, I do not know them personally. (Editor’s note: there was another opponent of ‘The Letter of Ten Academicians’ who expressed his antagonism in the press – it was academician Pivovarov, the Director of the Russian Institute for Scientific Information. But he is a humanist – political scientist, therefore he is surely no custom.) In fact, I may say I practically cannot name any believers among academicians. There was Lvov, the Director of the Institute of Economics. They said he was a believer. I suppose it might be true. There are 500 academicians, and even if there is only 1 per cent of believers, it amounts to 5, which is quite a lot.

Q: Do you think that it may also be some rents and gaps of school education that make many people religious?

A: Yes, the level of education has in some way decreased, the result of it being, for instance, people’s religiousness. Personally I don’t understand how an educated grown-up can be religious. I would also like to be a believer, especially now that my health has been sapped, and I cannot walk. In fact, I’m lying in bed and waiting for the death to come. And religion would, so to speak, come in very handy, a just to sweeten my life now. But I cannot believe in miracles!

Sometimes one can hear educated people, even engineers say that the world has such an intricate nature that it couldn’t have been possibly be made without God. And it’s very convenient as God can take the blame for anything!

School education is essential. I myself may be called a victim of school reforms: I only finished a seven-year school, as in my time ten-year schools were closed up. However for university entry exams the knowledge of all school subjects was required, and I had to master it all on my own, but my practice in mathematics and Russian was insufficient. As a result I still make mistakes in my writing and my counting is bad. Simple sums are to be made automatically, which is not my case, and it is surely a disadvantage. At MGU I chose optics rather than math as my principal line of study because I did not regard myself to be good enough at math. In fact, I managed to find my ‘niche’ in physics where math is not that important. By the by, I often ask people a question why seasons change. Can you answer that? (Editor’s note: to our great embarrassment, the interviewer could not produce an answer to that question. We wonder if our readers can.)

It is science that constitutes the future of the humanity; therefore one cannot overestimate the role of school education.

There is a minimal list of things that everyone has to know. But at our schools astronomy, for instance, is, so to say, in the dog house, while Bible chairs are on a roll.

Q: But there are rather few pupils who have can master school subjects with ease. Why?

A: The same thing happens in universities and colleges, but it’s all relative. It has to a bearing on people’s social choice as they opt for different professions. If a person had difficulty learning literature and languages at school, he is unlikely to become a philologist. But every educated person has to have some minimal knowledge: it is not only having an idea why seasons change, but also how an atom is structured, how genes work and many other things.

Q: As a scientist and philosopher (your humanistic activity confirms it), could you share with us your ideas about social rule and order? Do we have to consider people’s intellectual level in controlling social processes and establishing ruling bodies?

A: I’m not a politician. At present I have no idea for whom I will vote at the forthcoming elections. Parties’ manifestos say very little about their leaders’ intentions. The Communist Party agenda is just a bluff. If Zyuganov won the elections, in a couple of years he might establish concentration camps in the country and put his political opponents there, as these are the methods Communists practice to run the society.

I have always considered Yabloko a progressive, forward-looking party, but now I cannot distinguish between the manifesto of the Union of the Right Forces and that of Yabloko. But then why are there two parties instead of just one? The rulers are to be talented and knowledgeable people. The principle of natural selection is to be followed here. I’ve worked at the Lebedev Institute of Physics since 1940, and I know how physicists are selected. At first one may hold a minor post there, but then that person can be promoted. As for functionaries, they are most often selected ‘unnaturally’: through good connections or backstairs influence, etc.

Now about controlling social processes. Well, I joined the Communist Party in 1942. Those were very hard times (the Germans had taken half of Stalingrad), therefore my actions could not be explained by conformism as then I really believed in communism. Our life is measured with a practical yardstick, and communist practice has shown that one cannot build ‘humane communism’. The reason may be that of human nature. Nothing seems to prevent people from coming to terms and prospering thereafter. But that can never be realized as humans have a very complex non-homogeneous nature, impossibility of humane communism being the consequence. Moreover so, attempts to follow Marxist principles have always resulted in tyranny and people’s sufferings. My view of the rulers of the remaining Communist regimes is negative. I just cannot hear people calling Cuba ‘the Island of Freedom’. Cubans continue to flee from that ‘paradise’ to Florida via the Gulf of Mexico. And recently two Cubans have even turned to the Russian consulate in Cuba for help asking to be sent to the USA.

Q: If we analyze the actions of the Russian government in the past few years, we will see that they were clearly aimed at abandoning all democratic achievements in our society. Do you think Russia may once again slide back to a totalitarian regime? And what do you think the prospects for Russia really are?

A: A slide back to totalitarianism… I wouldn’t say it’s likely to happen. I’m sure Stalin’s evil-doings will be remembered by everyone except complete idiots and bandits. Just think of those killed without number! My farther-in-law was killed; my wife served a sentence in jail. I don’t think there’s a family of intellectuals that was not affected by the wickedness of that monster.

Q: Why are scientists of worldwide fame and reputation practically not involved in state affairs? What is your opinion? What would you do if you were offered to rule a state?

A: I’m not sure that it is scientists who are to be in power. There is no evolution of humans. A scientist is in no way a superman, he is just a member of the community, just like other people. Let’s look at it from a practical angle. What scientists of political influence do we know? Take Igor Kurchatov, for instance, he did have great influence and powers but confined to developing the atomic bomb. Well, Vorobyev, an outstanding doctor, was a Health Minister. Until recently I received treatment in his clinic. He was certainly better than Zurabov, but I cannot remember anything great he had done for the healthcare. (Editor’s note: one can also name S. Shushkevich, the former head of Belarus, but his political deeds are contradictory.) One has to be apt and experienced for ruling a state. Sergei Vavilov was talented, educated and hard-working.

He, as Kurchatov and some other scientists, was an administrator, while many other prominent scientists had not a slightest idea of ruling and administration. It looks as if a capability-based method of selection should be used here. It is the people who are most apt for ruling and administration that should stand for high posts.

In fact, a scientist is to remain a scientist and should not seek political posts.

I would refuse to take one because being in power is so specific.

Well, the interview was over. Since taking advantage of the opportunity was hardly appropriate at that point, we cut short the number of our questions, wished Vitaly Ginzburg strength to get over his illness and expressed our genuine admiration for his vigor and courage in the fight for humanistic ideals.