There is no good reason as to why the Nobel Prizes couldn’t be granted only to deceased people. Pretty much nobody wins them for the money, it’s all about the prestige the prize grants the recipient. And said prestige is why they shouldn’t be given to people who are still alive.
Friedrich Hayek, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics (not a real Nobel Prize though) noted that it grants the recipient the kind of authority and influence that shouldn’t be given to any economist. Honestly, I feel that can be said about other prizes as well, especially the Peace Prize.
The past 20 years has shown, that the Nobel Peace Prize laureates can easily become the antithesis of peace. Abiy Ahmed, who has started to violate human rights just after winning his prize, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has defended genocide by her government and even Obama drone-bombing the Middle East. None of those people would receive the prize had it been granted after they die and their entire life is summed up.
The natural sciences, or literature prize are slightly different, but I still feel like they confer the amount of influence and authority that no living person should have, and it can lead to people treating them as authorities even on matters that are 100% outside of their field of expertise (like politics).
So the best solution to resolve this problem would be to only grant the prize to dead people, there could be a 5-10 year cutoff since their death, as not to grant the physics prize to Newton or Archimedes.
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Yeah, nobody can do any good with $1.1 million dollars. SMH
I think you identify problems with two prize categories. Economics as you say isn’t a real Nobel prize, and the Peace prize has been very controversially. I think these two categories excepted, the argument that they convey an undue amount of influence is a much weaker argument. Most people cannot name any recent Nobel prize winners in literature or physics.
And do what with the financial prize ?????
I think the peace prize is the most relevant here. Scientific awards particularly can be something that are awarded pretty quickly if they’re significant enough. Wrt peace, I don’t think we need to wait until someone dies, but it definitely needs to be a lifetime achievement award. I mean, Obama won the prize basically half a year into his first term. Like what the fuck is that? Dude had done basically nothing by that time.
The previous laureate was a Finnish president. He was in office in the 90s, and had been working for peace in various UN posts for like 20 years (something he did even after his presidency). In 2008 when he received the prize, he was 71. I mean, I think that’s ok. His legacy was already there. Essentially unless he turned into like a nazi overnight, there was nothing he could do to change it anymore.
This is dumb AF. There’s no reason why Nobel Prizes, which are awarded for number of things, none of which have any relevance to whether the recipient is alive or dead, should only be awarded when the recipient is dead. That’s completely arbitrary.
The original aim of the Nobel prize was that it be awarded to people who make a big contribution in terms of ‘benefit to humankind’. The ‘real’ Nobel prizes (the sciences, and true, the peace prize, but not economics) are still awarded with that principle in mind. So it’s not about whether the person deserves it over their life, but whether they did some very specific thing that contributed to improving the lives of others. True it’s also used to inspire kids and other stuff, but that’s not what it’s for. And sadly, even if that means that the person turns out to be bad, it’s just the one good thing they did that the prize honours.
>The natural sciences, or literature prize are slightly different, but I still feel like they confer the amount of influence and authority that no living person should have
Right you are: why would we need to grant influence and authority to a scientist or writer when we have such much better candidates for having influence and authority as Elon and Donald!? I mean, we don’t need any more deserving figures in the public space to counter them, do we?
And before the OP or someone else says that such people as Elon and Donald should not get influence and authority either, I am saying, get real, billionaires and corrupt politicians will have it in the real world.
Random opinion ≠ unpopularopinion
This would get very difficult for the sciences because they are often presented to multiple people for joint work. It would be difficult to time all of their deaths to make sure everyone fits in the 5-10 year window.
It’s already difficult enough to figure out when to award things, also trying to figure when enough contributors have died is a bit much.
In general, I think you’re overstating the problem by a pretty wide margin, but that’s what unpopular opinions are for.
I’d much rather the person who is deserving of the Nobel prize be able to enjoy that feeling and recognition rather than have countless Van Gogh situations where the value of their work isn’t recognised till well after their passing.
The peace prize is the fakest prize after the economics one lol
Peace? Yes
Literatur? Maybe
Scientific? No
Its that easy
This is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist
Ergh nah, the nobel price is a testament to the mind power of those scientists. Its not just help them directly with the money but also help them fundraising easier for future/current project. Give them recognitions they deserve and prevent “starving Van Gogh” scenario
What is the point give it to a corspe?
Having reviewed the criteria and awarding entities I’m not entirely sure why anyone gives credence to these awards to the level that they do. These are basically local regional awards given global prestige. My guess is legacy and money.
> There is no good reason as to why the Nobel Prizes couldn’t be granted only to deceased people. Pretty much nobody wins them for the money,
Just how many Nobel prize winners have you spoken to about this subject?
Did they tell you they did not care about money?
>it’s all about the prestige the prize grants the recipient. And said prestige is why they shouldn’t be given to people who are still alive.
Why should a person deserving of prestige not have it given to them?
Not giving Newton a Nobel Prize is the real unpopular opinion here