3 ms·

We in the west have a romantic and cavalier attitude towards the cold war but we are forgetting that the planet was brought to the brink of complete nuclear des

We in the west have a romantic and cavalier attitude towards the cold war but we are forgetting that the planet was brought to the brink of complete nuclear destruction several times and millions were killed in proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam etc.).

inglor_cz 6y ago
I was a kid in the 1980s and the threat of planetary doom was omnipresent. The radio would broadcast news about new deployments of American (never Soviet) cruise missiles and militarization of space every few days. We even had a very basic "intro what a nuclear war means" in our kindergarten. Nightmarish stuff for 5 y.o.s. Part of the regime propaganda that was ostensibly very much on the side of peace, even though maintaining a huge army. That said, the technological developments that we reaped were absolutely massive. Samuel Johnson once said that nothing concentrates someone's mind as a perspective of being hanged. That applied population-wise in the Cold War. Nowadays, talented people spend their time and mental stamina on selling ads with 0,01 per cent more efficiency; from a purely economic point of view, it might make sense, but I wonder if it really counts as technological progress.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  "Nowadays, talented people spend their time and mental stamina on selling ads with 0,01 per cent more efficiency ..." I rather have them doing that than have their time spent on how to make a hydrogen bomb more poisonous. Friendly trade and competition works. The idea we need war or war-like circumstances to perform our best is a foolish idea (or something worse).
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    "The idea we need war or war-like circumstances to perform our best is a foolish idea (or something worse). " I do not like that idea either, but denying its plausibility seems like a bit of wishful thinking to me. As you mention, competition works. Competition between corporations is not friendly, it is a fight to the death (of the corporations), and governments spend a lot of energy to prevent the participants from crossing multiple red lines - that were established precisely because earlier bouts of competition had destructive side effects. Competition is a business equivalent of a Cold War. And yes, it works, threat of being wiped out is a strong motivator. Multiple corporations that failed to compete no longer exist (does anyone remember DEC?), which is the equivalent of a country losing war so badly that it disintegrates. Much like the old Habsburg empire did.

inglor_cz 6y ago

I was a kid in the 1980s and the threat of planetary doom was omnipresent. The radio would broadcast news about new deployments of American (never Soviet) cruise missiles and militarization of space every few days. We even had a very basic "intro what a nuclear war means" in our kindergarten. Nightmarish stuff for 5 y.o.s. Part of the regime propaganda that was ostensibly very much on the side of peace, even though maintaining a huge army. That said, the technological developments that we reaped were absolutely massive. Samuel Johnson once said that nothing concentrates someone's mind as a perspective of being hanged. That applied population-wise in the Cold War. Nowadays, talented people spend their time and mental stamina on selling ads with 0,01 per cent more efficiency; from a purely economic point of view, it might make sense, but I wonder if it really counts as technological progress.

throwaway4good 6y ago
"Nowadays, talented people spend their time and mental stamina on selling ads with 0,01 per cent more efficiency ..." I rather have them doing that than have their time spent on how to make a hydrogen bomb more poisonous. Friendly trade and competition works. The idea we need war or war-like circumstances to perform our best is a foolish idea (or something worse).
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "The idea we need war or war-like circumstances to perform our best is a foolish idea (or something worse). " I do not like that idea either, but denying its plausibility seems like a bit of wishful thinking to me. As you mention, competition works. Competition between corporations is not friendly, it is a fight to the death (of the corporations), and governments spend a lot of energy to prevent the participants from crossing multiple red lines - that were established precisely because earlier bouts of competition had destructive side effects. Competition is a business equivalent of a Cold War. And yes, it works, threat of being wiped out is a strong motivator. Multiple corporations that failed to compete no longer exist (does anyone remember DEC?), which is the equivalent of a country losing war so badly that it disintegrates. Much like the old Habsburg empire did.