4 ms·

Terrible loss of life, but both of those wars were catalysts for major technical and industrial breakthroughs... I'm curious if the tech advancements of those w

Terrible loss of life, but both of those wars were catalysts for major technical and industrial breakthroughs... I'm curious if the tech advancements of those wars outweigh the direct deaths.

whatshisface 9y ago
I hear this a lot, but it's silly on its face. What if the money was just put directly in to research instead? If any government action leads to spin-off technologies, I'd rather it be in the form of a space program than in the form of a war that kills many of the next generation's great scientists.
- meddlepal 9y ago
  Practically speaking, the money would never be allocated without a good reason. War is a reason to do things. People don't buy into other reasons as strongly as "that guy over there is trying to kill you."
- cinquemb 9y ago
  I agree, the argument is silly on it's face, but pragmatically speaking, until we can "convince"[0][1] every person alive (and the empowered leaders) to find other ways to allocate resources more efficiently such that everyone is satisfied to the degree of their own ideal resource consumption without resorting to conflict, I doubt things will change. Besides, def establishment is already clamoring for a "why not both option"[2] with increasing the development of capabilities to conduct war in space. [0] I have some ideas about how this can be done in practice in the future, though I suspect some could call it the War on Humans™ [1] https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069 https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069 "Tetherless magnetothermal deep brain neuro-stimulation" [2] http://spacenews.com/air-force-chief-goldfein-well-be-fighting-from-space-in-a-matter-of-years/ http://spacenews.com/air-force-chief-goldfein-well-be-fighti...
- Fomite 9y ago
  “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower
- rleigh 9y ago
  "Necessity is the mother of invention". If you don't desperately need something, you don't need to put resources into developing it. Unfortunately, war has driven technological progress. And that also includes the space programme. If the cold war hadn't driven the space race, then I suspect space exploration would be a distant and poorly-funded priority. Without a sufficiently good reason, governments won't put money directly into research (at least, in the eye-wateringly large quantities spent in wartime).
noobermin 9y ago
You cannot be serious. No, you don't need mass war to catalyze major breakthroughs. I don't know why someone would even think that unless they were extremely ignorant of history.
- gaius 9y ago
  No, you don't need mass war to catalyze major breakthroughs. True, but it is also true that periods of heightened tension even short of shooting wars do accelerate development. The Space Race is the classic example. The Internet is also a product of the Cold War. The jet engine was developed in the period before WW2 when things were already looking fraught. That’s historical fact; “worth it” is a whole ‘nother matter.
peterbraden 9y ago
What an idiotic comment totally bereft of any morals or perspective. What possible technical breakthroughs could justify the deaths of millions? This sort of backward value system is horrendous.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  110 million people died between WW1 and WW2.
- tekacs 9y ago
  > What possible technical breakthroughs could justify the deaths of millions? The kind of technical breakthrough that saves billions? I'm not especially a fan of this approach, but the absolutist stance that you've taken seems obviously falsifiable. None of this is justification to start a war, nor would our ethics largely permit us to proceed towards uncertain success contingent upon the sacrifice of many lives. That said - for example the American Civil War was potentially a 'justifiable' war, costing many lives to improve lives; there is little reason to think that a technical breakthrough could not justify a war. --- NB: Besides - the GP talked about the 'technical breakthroughs outweighing the direct deaths'. It's certainly plausible that we've saved more lives since WW1/2 than we lost in WW1/2 on account of technology developed for the war. This has probably been studied and proven right/wrong, so it's entirely plausible to check (and to be curious about). That's not a justification to start a war necessarily, but that's not at all GP's phrasing.
  - peterbraden 9y ago
    I'm not interested in getting into an argument about whether the ends justify the means. Restrospectively wondering if the deaths of millions, which as a side effect inspired innovation, isn't exactly the same thing though. The murder of one person causes non existence of all of their future descendents, so the moral calculus of future lives isn't clear either. Either way the original comment was callous and borderline sociopathic.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  The World Wars brought with them massive advances in the fields of medicine and agricultural chemistry, helping to heal and feed billions of people. That's not to say that technological innovation should be some perverse incentive for war, or that war even guarantees any benefits, but there are inadvertent benefits to some wars and other negative events in the world.

Terrible loss of life, but both of those wars were catalysts for major technical and industrial breakthroughs... I'm curious if the tech advancements of those wars outweigh the direct deaths.

whatshisface 9y ago

I hear this a lot, but it's silly on its face. What if the money was just put directly in to research instead? If any government action leads to spin-off technologies, I'd rather it be in the form of a space program than in the form of a war that kills many of the next generation's great scientists.

meddlepal 9y ago
Practically speaking, the money would never be allocated without a good reason. War is a reason to do things. People don't buy into other reasons as strongly as "that guy over there is trying to kill you."
cinquemb 9y ago
I agree, the argument is silly on it's face, but pragmatically speaking, until we can "convince"[0][1] every person alive (and the empowered leaders) to find other ways to allocate resources more efficiently such that everyone is satisfied to the degree of their own ideal resource consumption without resorting to conflict, I doubt things will change. Besides, def establishment is already clamoring for a "why not both option"[2] with increasing the development of capabilities to conduct war in space. [0] I have some ideas about how this can be done in practice in the future, though I suspect some could call it the War on Humans™ [1] https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069 https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069 "Tetherless magnetothermal deep brain neuro-stimulation" [2] http://spacenews.com/air-force-chief-goldfein-well-be-fighting-from-space-in-a-matter-of-years/ http://spacenews.com/air-force-chief-goldfein-well-be-fighti...
Fomite 9y ago
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower
rleigh 9y ago
"Necessity is the mother of invention". If you don't desperately need something, you don't need to put resources into developing it. Unfortunately, war has driven technological progress. And that also includes the space programme. If the cold war hadn't driven the space race, then I suspect space exploration would be a distant and poorly-funded priority. Without a sufficiently good reason, governments won't put money directly into research (at least, in the eye-wateringly large quantities spent in wartime).

noobermin 9y ago

You cannot be serious. No, you don't need mass war to catalyze major breakthroughs. I don't know why someone would even think that unless they were extremely ignorant of history.

gaius 9y ago
No, you don't need mass war to catalyze major breakthroughs. True, but it is also true that periods of heightened tension even short of shooting wars do accelerate development. The Space Race is the classic example. The Internet is also a product of the Cold War. The jet engine was developed in the period before WW2 when things were already looking fraught. That’s historical fact; “worth it” is a whole ‘nother matter.

peterbraden 9y ago

What an idiotic comment totally bereft of any morals or perspective. What possible technical breakthroughs could justify the deaths of millions? This sort of backward value system is horrendous.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
110 million people died between WW1 and WW2.
tekacs 9y ago
> What possible technical breakthroughs could justify the deaths of millions? The kind of technical breakthrough that saves billions? I'm not especially a fan of this approach, but the absolutist stance that you've taken seems obviously falsifiable. None of this is justification to start a war, nor would our ethics largely permit us to proceed towards uncertain success contingent upon the sacrifice of many lives. That said - for example the American Civil War was potentially a 'justifiable' war, costing many lives to improve lives; there is little reason to think that a technical breakthrough could not justify a war. --- NB: Besides - the GP talked about the 'technical breakthroughs outweighing the direct deaths'. It's certainly plausible that we've saved more lives since WW1/2 than we lost in WW1/2 on account of technology developed for the war. This has probably been studied and proven right/wrong, so it's entirely plausible to check (and to be curious about). That's not a justification to start a war necessarily, but that's not at all GP's phrasing.
- peterbraden 9y ago
  I'm not interested in getting into an argument about whether the ends justify the means. Restrospectively wondering if the deaths of millions, which as a side effect inspired innovation, isn't exactly the same thing though. The murder of one person causes non existence of all of their future descendents, so the moral calculus of future lives isn't clear either. Either way the original comment was callous and borderline sociopathic.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
The World Wars brought with them massive advances in the fields of medicine and agricultural chemistry, helping to heal and feed billions of people. That's not to say that technological innovation should be some perverse incentive for war, or that war even guarantees any benefits, but there are inadvertent benefits to some wars and other negative events in the world.