4 ms·

I'm not sure I follow, can you expand?

• Tenhundfeld 10y ago
  I think they're saying the state-funded violence and whatnot often leads to advancements that spill out into the broader scientific world, e.g., many DARPA projects.
  • cm3 10y ago
    Right, and I'm saying that if the funding changes, then hopefully more of it will be on topics that are useful for civilians' problems too. That means, more research on, say, cyber warfare would inevitably trickle down to the civilian world as technological improvements. Also, if more of the battles are in the cyber realm, then even if the same amount is spent, at least the chances of collateral damage will likely be lower.
    • ytjohn 10y ago
      Till we have to deal with self-replicating, protein destroying, nanobots.
      • astazangasta 10y ago
        You mean bacteria? We already have this 'problem'.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • astazangasta 10y ago
    If you spend 50% of your money through the military it is inevitable that much of your useful work will end up being funded that way. This in no way means we need to spend through the military; the same useful work could be funded regardless.
    • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      If. US is currently at 12%. Education, health care and pensions currently amount to > 60%. So its easy to cry wolf. We're really in a much better place than chicken little would have us all think.
      • cm3 10y ago
        Assuming the percentage you cited is right, I do think the relative numbers are less important in my assertion than the absolute because with the current tools at hand it's hard to reduce that > 60% part. Only by finding better tools through more research can we, for example, reduce the need to spend that much on health care and pensions. If you consider the absolute amount spent on the battling part of the forces, I would like for battles, if they have to be fought, to shift into cyber space. Just getting rid of money spent on munitions alone would be huge. And more cyber wars means stronger need to build and use more secure IT infrastructure which will benefit everybody.
      • astazangasta 10y ago
        In FY2017, $582.7 billion of $1.149 trillion in discretionary spending is on defense. Where do you get 12%?
        • NoGravitas 10y ago
          I imagine he is counting non-discretionary spending, like Medicare and Social Security, which are large, but are also separately funded.
      • imaginenore 10y ago
        No, the US is currently at 54% military + 6% veteran benefits, while 6% education, 6% medicare + health, 3% science. https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_s...
        • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  • curiousgal 10y ago
    Is there a list somewhere of DARPA projects that have had greater benefits? Couldn't find anything. (Genuine question)
    • jschwartzi 10y ago
      You're using one right now.
    • biofox 10y ago
      Some of them are listed on the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA Notable ones that caught my attention: internet (ARPANET), satellite navigation (transit), time-sharing computing (multics), onion routing (Tor), the computer mouse (Engelbart), autonomous robots (Shakey), and self-driving cars (Grand Challenge).
      • MaysonL 10y ago
        Of course, ARPANET, Multics, and Engelbart were funded by ARPA, not DARPA.