4 ms·
That's not because the military technology was intrinsically good though, but rather a side effect of the massive budgets that governments will give towards mil
by toomanybeersies 8y ago
That's not because the military technology was intrinsically good though, but rather a side effect of the massive budgets that governments will give towards military R&D.
If the government threw just as much money into civilian research, we'd likely get just as much good, without finding more efficient ways to kill each other.
For instance, Australia has CSIRO [1], which is sort of like DARPA, but without the military bent. They've managed to invent all sorts of cool new stuff.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO
- ajdlinux 8y agoAnd the US has the NSF, while Australia also has DSTO... (I agree though that public civilian R&D funding is woeful)
- ryacko 8y agoIntel corporation is still larger than DARPA and DARPA is much more diffuse. The impact shouldn't be that great.
- jackpirate 8y agoA better comparison would be Intel Research and DARPA or Intel and the whole DOD. By either of those measures the military budget is much bigger.
- mmirate 8y ago> If the government threw just as much money into civilian research, we'd likely get just as much good, without finding more efficient ways to kill each other. Do I understand correctly, then, that if we continue throwing that money into military research, we not only gain the same civilian benefits, but also prevent the occurrence wherein someone else finds an efficient way to kill us before we find an efficient way to defend ourselves from it?