3 ms·
I've always hated the argument that said "but look at how much technology has come out of the military [with all of those tens of trillions of dollars invested
by mtgx 10y ago
I've always hated the argument that said "but look at how much technology has come out of the military [with all of those tens of trillions of dollars invested in it over the span of a few decades]!"
Yeah, and imagine how many orders of magnitude more it would've come out if say NASA had gotten that money, or some other government agency with specific goals of doing R&D for the consumer market, like say investing $200-$300 billion a year to create better batteries, LCDs, processors, VR tech, and so on.
The military has spent much of that money on buying weapons, then a large chunk of it on researching weapons, and whatever consumer technology came out of that was incidental. It only seems we've gotten "so much", because the investments were so huge, so even if only 0.1% of the military tech rubbed off on the consumer market, it still seems like a lot.
A good example of this is how the U.S. government has largely refused to invest in anything other than radioactive nuclear reactors, preferring nuclear reactors based on uranium over say thorium, because it could also use the uranium to build weapons. Perhaps people wouldn't be so against nuclear reactors now if most of them were using thorium. And maybe we'd even have nuclear-powered rockets by now, making those Mars trips much shorter.
- omginternets 10y ago>preferring nuclear reactors based on uranium over say thorium There are other reasons for this as well. LiFTR reactors have serious problems with chemical corrosion. This is not a good example.
- jacquesm 10y agoIt may not be a good example but it does nothing to detract from the overall point.
- omginternets 10y agoThe overall point remains to be argued with good examples, as the only concrete example has to do with LiFTR reactors. Everything else is vague, at best.
- senorjazz 10y agoImagine a world where all the money from all countries was spent on the betterment of humankind. I think Bill Hicks had the right idea.
- npiazza83 10y agoMy response has always been that a universal basic income would certainly guarantee a few good soldiers.
- pjc50 10y ago> radioactive nuclear reactors A non-radioactive nuclear reactor is one that isn't working, surely?
- zeveb 10y ago> I've always hated the argument that said "but look at how much technology has come out of the military [with all of those tens of trillions of dollars invested in it over the span of a few decades]!" > Yeah, and imagine how many orders of magnitude more it would've come out if say NASA had gotten that money That exact same argument applies to giving money to NASA. Sure, it has spun off some useful technology (no, not just Tang, space pens & freeze-dried ice cream), but while we see that technology, we don't see the innovations which could have been developed with that money elsewhere. There's no reason to think that the state can pick innovative winners any better than it can pick economic winners. The reason to spend money on the military is national defense, period — not some amorphous 'oh, we'll get some cool tech out of it too!' The same applies to NASA or any other government agency.
- Retric 10y agoNASA has developed a lot of technology, but I somewhat agree. Silicon Valley get's a great reputation, but has fewer real successes than you might think. The basic problem is your 1000th rocket is not any more innovative than your 1000th dating app. Which is the core issue, private industry hates investing in long term research and it has a small problem space. The government funding got self driving cars close enough to production ready that companies are willing to finish the process. But, no company was trying to build a freeway capable self driving car 30 years ago and then publish their results.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago>There exists a realizable, evolutionary alternative to our being either atom-bombed into extinction or crowding ourselves off the planet. The alternative is the computer-persuadable veering of big business from its weaponry fixation to accommodation of all humanity at an aerospace level of technology, with the vastly larger, far more enduringly profitable for all, entirely new World Livingry Service Industry. It is statistically evident that the more advanced the living standard, the lower the birth rate. -Foreword of Grunch of Giants, Buckminster Fuller