5 ms·

Pretty ridiculous statement in my opinion. Life goes on, disaster or not. There's supposedly always better situation in the future, it is pretty dubious to cl

by borism 17y ago

Pretty ridiculous statement in my opinion. Life goes on, disaster or not. There's supposedly always better situation in the future, it is pretty dubious to claim that wars and cataclysms accelerate long term development.

timwiseman 17y ago
There's supposedly always better situation in the future, it is pretty dubious to claim that wars and cataclysms accelerate long term development. It depends on what you mean. Wars have historically accelerated technology development, at least in the short term. If you mean development more generally, then no probably not. The civilian technology would eventually get developped, if more slowly without the major push of a war. In the process, people and resources are destroyed.
- borism 17y ago
  Of course I mean human development. Tech development is self accelerating (with main constraint being human developers, who's numbers wars and catastrophes reduce, btw). Conflicts provide some bump, but I would say it's pretty insignificant in the large scheme of things.
  - ars 17y ago
    I didn't say development. I said economic activity.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Perhaps it's like accelerating your car. You gain more speed faster at the expense of efficiency.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    I think that's a pretty good analogy.
seldo 17y ago
It depends where you're talking about. In an area reasonably prepared for disasters, they actually do bring about increased prosperity -- Florida has periodic construction booms after hurricanes, and a majority are insured, so financial losses are constrained to the big insurance companies. On the other hand, even in a developed nation, a major disaster can end the life of an area -- New Orleans is perhaps two-thirds of its former size and looks unlikely to grow. In this case of Haiti, a steady and dedicated stream of aid could help rebuild the country, but history has shown that the international community's attention to the desperate plight of that nation has always been short-lived. Sadly, I fear it will be worse than before, and remain so.
jacoblyles 17y ago
It's Mancur Olson's "Institutional Sclerosis" growth theory. He claimed to have shown that growth rates increase after a large shock to the existing order. His explanation for this is that institutions tend to be corrupted by special interests over time, feeding on the wealth of society. Shocks give people a chance to start afresh.
- borism 17y ago
  Doesn't that mean that winning side of military conflict gets even more corrupt afterwards?
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    He does claim to show that the losing side in several conflicts experienced higher growth rates after wars than would be expected from historical data (the American south after the civil war, Japan after WWII, etc.). Critics point to counter-examples, but as far as I know it's considered a reasonable (though not air-tight) theory.

by borism 17y ago

timwiseman 17y ago

There's supposedly always better situation in the future, it is pretty dubious to claim that wars and cataclysms accelerate long term development. It depends on what you mean. Wars have historically accelerated technology development, at least in the short term. If you mean development more generally, then no probably not. The civilian technology would eventually get developped, if more slowly without the major push of a war. In the process, people and resources are destroyed.

borism 17y ago
Of course I mean human development. Tech development is self accelerating (with main constraint being human developers, who's numbers wars and catastrophes reduce, btw). Conflicts provide some bump, but I would say it's pretty insignificant in the large scheme of things.
- ars 17y ago
  I didn't say development. I said economic activity.
chrischen 17y ago
Perhaps it's like accelerating your car. You gain more speed faster at the expense of efficiency.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  I think that's a pretty good analogy.

seldo 17y ago

It depends where you're talking about. In an area reasonably prepared for disasters, they actually do bring about increased prosperity -- Florida has periodic construction booms after hurricanes, and a majority are insured, so financial losses are constrained to the big insurance companies. On the other hand, even in a developed nation, a major disaster can end the life of an area -- New Orleans is perhaps two-thirds of its former size and looks unlikely to grow. In this case of Haiti, a steady and dedicated stream of aid could help rebuild the country, but history has shown that the international community's attention to the desperate plight of that nation has always been short-lived. Sadly, I fear it will be worse than before, and remain so.

jacoblyles 17y ago

It's Mancur Olson's "Institutional Sclerosis" growth theory. He claimed to have shown that growth rates increase after a large shock to the existing order. His explanation for this is that institutions tend to be corrupted by special interests over time, feeding on the wealth of society. Shocks give people a chance to start afresh.

borism 17y ago
Doesn't that mean that winning side of military conflict gets even more corrupt afterwards?
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  He does claim to show that the losing side in several conflicts experienced higher growth rates after wars than would be expected from historical data (the American south after the civil war, Japan after WWII, etc.). Critics point to counter-examples, but as far as I know it's considered a reasonable (though not air-tight) theory.