Shouldn't The Nobel Prize Be About Accomplisments?

Robert Mayer of Publius Pundit emailed me about a post of his suggesting, incredibly, that the Nobel Prize should be awarded for actually accomplishing something important:

My suggestion is that the Nobel Committee, if it really wants to prevent future wars that occur because of climate change, the environment, water, or what have you, is to offer the peace prize up as much like the X Prize which has shot the space tourism industry into orbit. For example: the $1.5 million dollar prize will go to whoever can develop a new desalination process that is cheaper and more effective than those currently in existence. Trillions of dollars in economic losses due to Al Gore's prescription is ridiculous compared to the $1.5 million it would take to unleash human potential all over the world in developing new technologies to deal with these problems.

Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Prize in 1970 for developing high-yield strains of wheat that saved millions from starvation. This is an actual achievment, unlike the speculation that Al Gore's specious work on global warming might one day prevent conflict.

Do results even matter these days? It seems too many people are satsified with nice intentions and good vibes.

2 comments:

Zsa Zsa said...

Ken...It should be. BUT it obviously has gotten side trsckrd by popular liberal ideas...

Eneils Bailey said...

This is, in a way, reminiscent of the Carter award of 2002.

It was publicly stated stated by someone on the selection committee that this award was not so much for a disgraced past President but a slap a at President George Bush. Same thing here, Algore has done nothing about condemning certain third-world countries of the world, just tells US citizens how we are wrecking the world. That is what appeals to the Nobel committee; slam the US, when a Republican is in charge for not accepting this theory of a one world government with socialist's like gore and Western European Socialist's in charge.