4 ms·

> Yet we shouldn’t forget that civil-military antagonism and the deep American tradition of distrusting the state have been crucial to the United States’ abilit

> Yet we shouldn’t forget that civil-military antagonism and the deep American tradition of distrusting the state have been crucial to the United States’ ability to innovate. There are good reasons why defense-tech giants of the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s like Raytheon and Grumman missed out on such major tech advances as Web protocols, the smartphone, personal computers and various types of encryption — all of which would eventually have great military significance. The biggest reason was that none of these advances were directed at waging war; indeed, many aimed at transcending the power of the state. This is a fairly cherry picked story to match a narrative that frankly does not really exist. Silicon valley is not a partner of the defense world, it's derivative of it. The vast majority of technological disruption has come from technologies emerging from the state, that are then popularized by Silicon Valley. Most of these came from the space race, and in many ways Silicon Valley is still "behind" the Pentagon. Web protocols, smartphones, personal computers, encryption etc., all of this came from the military into Silicon Valley, not the other way around. The Pentagon doesn't need Silicon Valley, it's quite the opposite.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
> "Web protocols, smartphones, personal computers, encryption etc., all of this came from the military into Silicon Valley" Yes. That's factually correct. But at what cost? How many wars? How many lives lost due to our infatuation with the MIC? The Pentagon does not have to be the only road to basic research, R&D, etc. What if there were other agencies with the budget (to burn) clout of the DoD? Put another way: What might the societal perks have been if the deep pockets' lens was not military-centric? For example, is there an alt-earth in an alt-universe with no mobile phones, but also no poverty? The things you've mentioned are nice. They certainly are shiny. But just because we made them doesn't mean we should have.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >For example, is there an alt-earth in an alt-universe with no mobile phones, but also no poverty? Probably not. A society with no poverty would be so much more productive than ours that it would invent fun things like mobile phones pretty quickly.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Perhaps you're right. Mine was a hypothetical about priorities, as well as some social commentary. That is, the more we look down at our shiny objects and drool, the less likely we are to see how a handheld mobile device is relatively low hanging fruit. Perhaps just correlation / coincidence but adoption of modern technology tracks well with the loss of the middle class, at least in the USA. Yes, a stretch. I'm not going to the mat for this idea. Just a simple observation; worth pondering?
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      I agree with you, but in the end, I think that pitting an imagined austere but socially developed society against our actual supposedly-profligate but socially underdeveloped society misses reality to repeat a myth: the myth of decadence. This myth lets people pretend society is too productive and too good at meeting needs, leaving nothing but petty status disputes, covering up the reality of a society that's running dramatically below peak efficiency precisely because it doggedly dedicates so much of its resource base to status disputes.
- wdewind 9y ago
  > But at what cost? How many wars? How many lives lost due to our infatuation with the MIC? I'm not implying the military industrial complex is good (or bad). I'm simply saying the narrative that silicon valley gave the military smart phones and not vice versa severely misunderstands the way things in that sector happen. To the extent that Silicon Valley works with the military it is because SV effectively is a branch of the military. > The Pentagon does not have to be the only road to basic research, R&D, etc. What if there were other agencies with the budget (to burn) clout of the DoD? Is there really a huge difference between Pentagon and DoD when talking about the MID?
  - whorleater 9y ago
    > To the extent that Silicon Valley works with the military it is because SV effectively is a branch of the military This is glossing over an incredible amount of history. Is the entire physics field a branch of the military as well?
    - wdewind 9y ago
      A lot of it, yeah. Look at the physics and funding that came out of the bomb.
lambdasquirrel 9y ago
You know how the U.S. (and its Allies) beat Russia in the Cold War because they gradually developed a stronger electronics and high-tech sector, which became more and more important as e.g. precision weapons showed their worth? And as we started testing nukes in computers rather than in underground tests? The Russians’ state-dominated model simply couldn’t produce the kinds of innovations made by the Western commercial sector. It’s a similar thing with Silicon Valley and the US govt. The days where the govt seeded tech in the US are long gone. This is not to say there’s no contribution, but when was the last time someone cared about govt or defense contractor involvement? Not many who are alive and still working in the Bay Area today. The article is correct and there is a fear of being co-opted by the state. There is a question whether there is some middle ground. Traditionally that middle ground was held by defense contractors. Today there are tech-like companies that are increasingly filling that niche. Examples of such companies are Pivotal (which recently filed its S-1) and Palantir (which might never file its S-1). I would argue that Amazon and Google are getting into these DoD contracts because Pivotal, Redhat, etc. failed to build a compelling-enough PAAS solution that the government can deploy on its own. The government would love to own its own datacenters, but apparently that isn’t working out, or there’s still some need for agility that’s not being fulfilled. Given how much space Palantir leases in downtown Palo Alto (and the fact that they seem to have no need or responsibility to ever exit or behave like any other tech company), I think the fear of being consumed by the government is not at all unfounded. Now you can argue that Pivotal and Palantir are nice companies (for vastly different reasons) but when you really take stock of it, no one can say they’re really tech companies (and, that is fine). To Silicon Valley, they represent something else, something bureaucratic. On one hand Silicon Valley needs to be a bit more realistic about geopolitics. The government isn’t going away. In practice, it's just the simple fact that we are more beholden to political stability than we think, and we tend to take it for granted. On the other hand, the government represents that side of society that forces things and pretty much can’t get free-spirited commercial innovation right. And again, in practice, it's like trying to do anything interesting when you have your nanny mother (who has no real fiscal or creative responsibility) watching over your shoulder. The reality is more boring than people realize, but the tension is there and the problem is real.
- wdewind 9y ago
nitwit005 9y ago
> Web protocols, smartphones, personal computers, encryption etc., all of this came from the military into Silicon Valley, not the other way around. While the low level protocols like TCP came out of DARPA, the web protocols like HTTP were all civilian. Neither personal computers or smartphones were military inventions. Modern encryption is sometimes traced to WW2, but cryptography is thousands of years old.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

> "Web protocols, smartphones, personal computers, encryption etc., all of this came from the military into Silicon Valley" Yes. That's factually correct. But at what cost? How many wars? How many lives lost due to our infatuation with the MIC? The Pentagon does not have to be the only road to basic research, R&D, etc. What if there were other agencies with the budget (to burn) clout of the DoD? Put another way: What might the societal perks have been if the deep pockets' lens was not military-centric? For example, is there an alt-earth in an alt-universe with no mobile phones, but also no poverty? The things you've mentioned are nice. They certainly are shiny. But just because we made them doesn't mean we should have.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>For example, is there an alt-earth in an alt-universe with no mobile phones, but also no poverty? Probably not. A society with no poverty would be so much more productive than ours that it would invent fun things like mobile phones pretty quickly.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Perhaps you're right. Mine was a hypothetical about priorities, as well as some social commentary. That is, the more we look down at our shiny objects and drool, the less likely we are to see how a handheld mobile device is relatively low hanging fruit. Perhaps just correlation / coincidence but adoption of modern technology tracks well with the loss of the middle class, at least in the USA. Yes, a stretch. I'm not going to the mat for this idea. Just a simple observation; worth pondering?
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    I agree with you, but in the end, I think that pitting an imagined austere but socially developed society against our actual supposedly-profligate but socially underdeveloped society misses reality to repeat a myth: the myth of decadence. This myth lets people pretend society is too productive and too good at meeting needs, leaving nothing but petty status disputes, covering up the reality of a society that's running dramatically below peak efficiency precisely because it doggedly dedicates so much of its resource base to status disputes.
wdewind 9y ago
> But at what cost? How many wars? How many lives lost due to our infatuation with the MIC? I'm not implying the military industrial complex is good (or bad). I'm simply saying the narrative that silicon valley gave the military smart phones and not vice versa severely misunderstands the way things in that sector happen. To the extent that Silicon Valley works with the military it is because SV effectively is a branch of the military. > The Pentagon does not have to be the only road to basic research, R&D, etc. What if there were other agencies with the budget (to burn) clout of the DoD? Is there really a huge difference between Pentagon and DoD when talking about the MID?
- whorleater 9y ago
  > To the extent that Silicon Valley works with the military it is because SV effectively is a branch of the military This is glossing over an incredible amount of history. Is the entire physics field a branch of the military as well?
  - wdewind 9y ago
    A lot of it, yeah. Look at the physics and funding that came out of the bomb.

lambdasquirrel 9y ago

You know how the U.S. (and its Allies) beat Russia in the Cold War because they gradually developed a stronger electronics and high-tech sector, which became more and more important as e.g. precision weapons showed their worth? And as we started testing nukes in computers rather than in underground tests? The Russians’ state-dominated model simply couldn’t produce the kinds of innovations made by the Western commercial sector. It’s a similar thing with Silicon Valley and the US govt. The days where the govt seeded tech in the US are long gone. This is not to say there’s no contribution, but when was the last time someone cared about govt or defense contractor involvement? Not many who are alive and still working in the Bay Area today. The article is correct and there is a fear of being co-opted by the state. There is a question whether there is some middle ground. Traditionally that middle ground was held by defense contractors. Today there are tech-like companies that are increasingly filling that niche. Examples of such companies are Pivotal (which recently filed its S-1) and Palantir (which might never file its S-1). I would argue that Amazon and Google are getting into these DoD contracts because Pivotal, Redhat, etc. failed to build a compelling-enough PAAS solution that the government can deploy on its own. The government would love to own its own datacenters, but apparently that isn’t working out, or there’s still some need for agility that’s not being fulfilled. Given how much space Palantir leases in downtown Palo Alto (and the fact that they seem to have no need or responsibility to ever exit or behave like any other tech company), I think the fear of being consumed by the government is not at all unfounded. Now you can argue that Pivotal and Palantir are nice companies (for vastly different reasons) but when you really take stock of it, no one can say they’re really tech companies (and, that is fine). To Silicon Valley, they represent something else, something bureaucratic. On one hand Silicon Valley needs to be a bit more realistic about geopolitics. The government isn’t going away. In practice, it's just the simple fact that we are more beholden to political stability than we think, and we tend to take it for granted. On the other hand, the government represents that side of society that forces things and pretty much can’t get free-spirited commercial innovation right. And again, in practice, it's like trying to do anything interesting when you have your nanny mother (who has no real fiscal or creative responsibility) watching over your shoulder. The reality is more boring than people realize, but the tension is there and the problem is real.

wdewind 9y ago

nitwit005 9y ago

> Web protocols, smartphones, personal computers, encryption etc., all of this came from the military into Silicon Valley, not the other way around. While the low level protocols like TCP came out of DARPA, the web protocols like HTTP were all civilian. Neither personal computers or smartphones were military inventions. Modern encryption is sometimes traced to WW2, but cryptography is thousands of years old.