[A_D_E_P_T]

They would be The Norwegian Nobel Committee, who at this point should realize what a disaster their prize has been, and not only last year. It was inherently poorly conceived, and shouldn't be awarded to the living, who can and do go on to wage war, agitate social instability, and act against the interests of peace.

[gizajob]

Having a situation where a president demands the peace prize otherwise he causes a war isn’t a good look for Nobel, and shows that we’ve now moved so far from the original intention of the prize that the peace component really should be scrapped.

[s_trumpet]

The brink of world war 3 over fucking goodhart’s law.

We are not a serious species.

[gizajob]

When combined with the Peter principle, it doesn’t make for great progress, no.

[oenton]

> isn’t a good look for Nobel, and shows that we’ve now moved so far from the original intention of the prize that the peace component really should be scrapped.

I don't follow. Are you saying the committee should have known that Trump would literally wage a military war if he isn't awarded the peace prize? Are you saying if they changed their mind now and allowed Venezuelan politician Machado to gift her prize to Trump, that Trump would no longer have a desire to own Greenland? I'm honestly trying to understand but maybe I missed an important story.

[gizajob]

Well it should be apparent that Greenland is the sovereign territory of another NATO member, Denmark. Coming along like a transactional narcissist and claiming you “need it or else” and breaking nato over it OR you get the Nobel peace prize for not capturing it.

[A_D_E_P_T]

Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.

Giving a "peace" award to living people/organizations -- who can and do go on to sully the award with most unpeaceful deeds -- is a proven failure.

[fifilura]

The thing is, they don't "need" to do anything.

This is the prize.

If people find it irrelevant it will become irrelevant.

The committee didn't ask for the US president to put so much relevance into it.

He got the FIFA peace prize. It would be better if he valued that prize higher.

You have to ask yourself. Why is it important for you that they change?

[throw0101d]

> Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.

The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.

The only option would be to not award it (like happened in 1948).

[andsoitis]

> The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.

Can the Nobel Foundation change their rules? Or is static, forever set in stone? In a complex world, you need to be able to adapt.