A problem solver needs enough money (have the means) in order to pursue solutions. I don't think a great scientific discovery has ever been made because the di

A problem solver needs enough money (have the means) in order to pursue solutions. I don't think a great scientific discovery has ever been made because the discoverer wanted to get rich. Capitalism provides an allocation mechanism so that money (the means of discovery) makes its way to enough problem solvers. Capitalism might even be the best mechanism for doing this to ever be practiced. We agree on these points (so it seems to me from what you've written). Where we appear to have divergence is in my belief that 1. Capitalism does not do an adequate job of dealing with negative externalities. 2. The general mind altering, world view altering aspect of money acquisition makes dealing with the negative externalities difficult. The "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude that is prevalent amongst the monied class in the U.S. makes me think that it is especially difficult in the U.S. for things to change for the better. 3. The rate of resource destruction, pollution, etc., along with 1) and 2) makes me think that world will become one big, giant toxic shit hole before adequate steps are taken to deal with the negative externalities and by that time it will be too late. My personal belief is that it is highly unlikely the human race will survive the next 200 years in anywhere near the numbers it has today. -------- As to defense spending. It is true that Silicon Valley exists because of defense spending. I don't believe it is true that it would not exist (somewhere else perhaps) without defense spending. I think progress would still have occurred in computing and technology without defense spending. Thanks for the discussion.