7 ms·

DARPA has such a list of impressive, world wide useful technologies that wouldn't have been able to be created without funding from the government at the time g

DARPA has such a list of impressive, world wide useful technologies that wouldn't have been able to be created without funding from the government at the time given the time and money and at time, unlikeliness to be successful [0]. It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Their website says they're "creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security". Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when it should be human progress. [0] https://www.itpro.com/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-inventions https://www.itpro.com/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-inve... [1] https://www.darpa.mil/ https://www.darpa.mil/

Atlantium 5y ago
Many humans are quite aggressive. Pacifists are easily defeated by force. How can you have progress without security?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  That's a straw man. The problem is tons of research and development won't happen without the state, but the main avenue the state funds development (as opposed to research) is the military. There are many possible futures, and the world is highly non-ergodic, so there is a real cost here to biasing the development of technology in this matter. "Opportunity cost" doesn't do the concept justice. We don't have to stop military research, but we should bring up the Arpa-E and other such things to bring balance to the situation.
  - eganist 5y ago
    > That's a straw man. The problem is tons of research and development won't happen without the state, but the main avenue the state funds development (as opposed to research) is the military. The reason the op's comment is not actually a straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is because the first governments were developed out of a necessity to ensure a unity of peoples, the functioning of essential systems, and the protection of said peoples and systems. It's also why (for instance) the very first sentence of the US constitution has multiple touch points with national security: > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, *establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty* to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. To summarize: defense is how so much of our monetarily non-viable societal advances take place because defense is primarily why governments exist at all. Even arpa-e (thanks for your edit—it's a good topic to bring up) exists to minimize our reliance on foreign energy, which is directly motivated by national security.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      Come on, nobody knows how the first governments were developed. No written records exist.
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        Yeah, and as far as we can tell those first states massively sucked for almost everyone, too.
      - bobthechef 5y ago
        We know what government is per se, regardless of the motives of the earliest state governments. But here we miss an important point which is that government is natural to human societies. The mistake is to think that government is some artificial construct at odds with human nature. Tribes are governed. Families, the smallest society, are governed. What we call "government" is just a modification of the most basic form of government of the family (kings, for example, were analogically fathers of the kingdom). The authority of the state is derived from the authority of parents through the principle of subsidiary.
        Ericson2314 5y ago
        I agree with the spirit, but I prefer to reject the natural/artificial distinction. Societal and biological evolution can be a very "arbitrary" processes. Sometimes something just happens, and is good enough, and sticks around. It's ultimately pretty subjective which things are "over-determined" and what wasn't (photosynthesis? agriculture? Something like eukaryotes from endo-symbiosis?), without being able to run a bunch of difficult experiments. Government and money are two institutions who's origins are much debated, but I would be find replacing them with something else, "self-perpetuation" replaces "natural" for me. I also so think this is dovetails with the best argument for reproducible bootstraps (as the follow up to reproducible builds). Without that, and like with our socials institutions, we have a a "historical bootstrap" we are constrained by. But by making an artificial bootstrap, we gain some freedom to tinker rather than being completely constrained by historical happenstance. With software it is clear what this looks like. With something like governance and money it is less clear. Certainly it's hard to imagine the John Locke style arguments bootstrapping from "primitive man" working out, as children must be raised in a culture before they get the privileges of democracy, and are thus biased. But perhaps there are other more feasible ways.
  - echelon 5y ago
    America is preventing Russia from antagonizing Europe, all the while we foot the bill for maintaining a capable military. China is a looming threat. If you don't see that, I don't know what I can say. Take away America's military and see what happens. Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Spratleys, 9-dash, water rights, Belt+Road indebtedness, Crimea, Ukraine... The US has to be strong out of necessity, and we get treated like shit for it. America is far from perfect, but it's Democratic and celebrates individualism and free speech. And I'm not persecuted for being LGBT. I'd hate to be in Russia or China where I'm told I can't think my own thoughts or have my own preferences. If we didn't have to pay so much for our military capabilities, maybe we'd all get to enjoy the same free health care and social programs that Europe, Canada, and other nations enjoy. Europe needs to carry some of this weight.
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      > America is preventing Russia from antagonizing Europe? Er, Ukraine is in Europe. Out of 10, how would you rate the USA's efforts at stopping Russia there so far?
      - nradov 5y ago
        "Europe" is probably the wrong term here. The USA's efforts to stop Russia from antagonizing NATO members probably rates 8/10. Part of Russia is also in Europe.
        throwaway210222 5y ago
        No, no. Ukraine paid the 'entry price' that was asked of them to be protected by USA, (and France, UK, Russia, China) by surrendering their nuclear weapons. This was a level of vulnerability and trust in third parties the good citizens of USA (and the others above) would never for a second countenance. The USA (and the others) willingly signed up to the deal [1]. And then failed to do any deterring when it was time to walk the talk. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  - qaq 5y ago
    Well could you point to the downside of this? From teflon to internet and countless other things you use every day that came out of DARPA and other def. research, what would have changed if it was funded via different model?
    - BenAufero 5y ago
      I think the complaint is not that the government funds research for defense, it's that it could be funding energy, medical, etc research. I honestly don't know if I fully agree with his complaint, because I'm fairly sure the government does fund a lot of other research that isn't defense focused (see a lot of universities).
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        It funds many sorts of research but much less development. Research ideas do not develop themselves and so the story of modern academia is zillions of abandoned ideas.
    - jack_riminton 5y ago
      History shows that conflict has actually been rather useful for our development
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        That's circular — it's important precisely because nothing else created the political will for that much state-run development. We should at least try to do non-military development, even if military dev will continue to have an edge.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - AQuantized 5y ago
      The problem is privileging technologies that have defence capabilities. There are likely countless ideas that could have similar success to DARPA projects if they had similar access to capital and state support. However, unless it can show off some military capability its funding can't be justified using the current model, leaving a gigantic subsections of technologies that could have similar innovative impact underserved by this level of support.
  - Atlantium 5y ago
    Straw Man noun 1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. My comment speaks directly to to above post as follows: "It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Their website says they're "creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security". Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when it should be human progress." As for the world being difficult to predict, or to use your phrasing "non-ergodic", it is in fact easy to predict that security will be necessary. It is difficult to predict exactly what the threat to security will be. This uncertainty alone justifies development. Also, DARPA tech is well known for spreading outside of it originally intended remit. Ie the research itself can be of use in other areas.
vmception 5y ago
Just assume its technologists that wanted to trick Congress into giving them free money You know you can get entire new agencies created for yourself by the same lobbying process that private sector uses for laws that benefit them
5faulker 5y ago
Human progress can be itself a trap too, but often we can only tell how history rolls out in retrospect.
throwaway803453 5y ago
I suspect you know this but it was ARPA until 1972: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpa-name-change https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpa-name-change
xvilka 5y ago
There are also IARPA[1] and ARPA-E[2] (and few others as well). ARPA-E is more "peaceful" agency. [1] https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs [2] https://arpa-e.energy.gov/ https://arpa-e.energy.gov/
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  Have they produced any breakthroughs?
  - thawcixr4R 5y ago
    IARPA has produced quite a few: - https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/sciences-breakthrough-of-2010-a-macro-scale-quantum-device/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/sciences-breakthroug... - https://web.archive.org/web/20160312133713/http://www.deltek.com/blog/home/b2g-essentials/2015/08/the-national-strategic-computing-initiative-a-not-so-new-program https://web.archive.org/web/20160312133713/http://www.deltek... - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-government-launches-a-100-million-apollo-project-of-the-brain/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-governmen... Those are just recent, unclassified ones. ARPA-E being the "peaceful industry" is a lot more open about private partnerships and generally just funds and provides oversight: https://web.archive.org/web/20100527161846/http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/ARPA-E_Project_Selections.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20100527161846/http://www.energy... Some renewable fuel projects: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/blog-posts/refueling-carbon-neutral-liquid-fuel-development-refuelit https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/blog-posts/refuelin... They're focused on renewables, lessening waste, etc. and have made some contributions in that space, just not as sexy as "borgsects" and "space lasers" like DARPA or advancing nation state surveillance and electronic warfare capabilities like IARPA. Everything is starting to get an ARPA though because of how it's somewhat allowed to cut through red tape for innovation which is hard for usgov: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01878-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01878-z
bobthechef 5y ago
> Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when it should be human progress. I don't understand the point of comments like this. Are you lamenting that human beings are such that such defense programs are necessary? Okay, I can sympathize with the general sentiment, but it's weird bringing that up in this specific context, especially since the tech in question is defensive. Yes, the need for defense is an unfortunate necessity given the reality of the world. No sense in pretending we can achieve some world where defense is not needed (we can of course try to cultivate cooperation and peace, but these are delicate arrangements that are constantly in flux). The most dangerous belief is believing you can achieve this utopian peace on earth because it makes you defenseless.
BobbyJo 5y ago
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but functional Scramjet technology does very little for humanity outside of defense. As is the case with most of what DARPA funds, no? If that wasn't the case, then the market itself would be chasing the technology. Like, what would this be useful for? I guess I'm just fundamentally questioning what you mean when you say 'human progress'. I assume you mean it more in terms of improvement as opposed to preservation, but given the fact that life itself is a struggle against entropy on all levels, preservation is a very important foundation on which to build.
- science4sail 5y ago
  What about the ARPAnet? That seemed to have found several applications outside of national defense.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Shrinking the world would be a good use of it if we could get it to work for commercial air travel (and if we solve the sonic boom problem, but that's another issue a different part of government is working on)
  - silexia 5y ago
    The faster you go and the further you go, the more energy you use. We have limited resources and these technologies damage our planet.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    It's very hard for me to imagine a world in which scramjet technology is both useful for commercial travel, and impossible to develop without massive government funding. It seems to me like technology needs to reach a point that it can be developed entirely commercially before it can be made safely and consistently enough enough for commercial passengers. Take rockets for instance. Technology had to catch up to make them commercially viable to develop before they were commercially viable to operate.
    - 5y ago
qq4 5y ago
I would argue that in order to make great progress a nation needs great security.
speedybird 5y ago
> It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Time for a new euphemism? The U.S. Department of Defense was called the U.S. Department of War until the end of the 1940s. Maybe this time we can call it the Department of Peace since defense apparently doesn't sound so good to people anymore.

Atlantium 5y ago

Many humans are quite aggressive. Pacifists are easily defeated by force. How can you have progress without security?

Ericson2314 5y ago
That's a straw man. The problem is tons of research and development won't happen without the state, but the main avenue the state funds development (as opposed to research) is the military. There are many possible futures, and the world is highly non-ergodic, so there is a real cost here to biasing the development of technology in this matter. "Opportunity cost" doesn't do the concept justice. We don't have to stop military research, but we should bring up the Arpa-E and other such things to bring balance to the situation.
- eganist 5y ago
  > That's a straw man. The problem is tons of research and development won't happen without the state, but the main avenue the state funds development (as opposed to research) is the military. The reason the op's comment is not actually a straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is because the first governments were developed out of a necessity to ensure a unity of peoples, the functioning of essential systems, and the protection of said peoples and systems. It's also why (for instance) the very first sentence of the US constitution has multiple touch points with national security: > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, *establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty* to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. To summarize: defense is how so much of our monetarily non-viable societal advances take place because defense is primarily why governments exist at all. Even arpa-e (thanks for your edit—it's a good topic to bring up) exists to minimize our reliance on foreign energy, which is directly motivated by national security.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Come on, nobody knows how the first governments were developed. No written records exist.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Yeah, and as far as we can tell those first states massively sucked for almost everyone, too.
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      We know what government is per se, regardless of the motives of the earliest state governments. But here we miss an important point which is that government is natural to human societies. The mistake is to think that government is some artificial construct at odds with human nature. Tribes are governed. Families, the smallest society, are governed. What we call "government" is just a modification of the most basic form of government of the family (kings, for example, were analogically fathers of the kingdom). The authority of the state is derived from the authority of parents through the principle of subsidiary.
      - Ericson2314 5y ago
        I agree with the spirit, but I prefer to reject the natural/artificial distinction. Societal and biological evolution can be a very "arbitrary" processes. Sometimes something just happens, and is good enough, and sticks around. It's ultimately pretty subjective which things are "over-determined" and what wasn't (photosynthesis? agriculture? Something like eukaryotes from endo-symbiosis?), without being able to run a bunch of difficult experiments. Government and money are two institutions who's origins are much debated, but I would be find replacing them with something else, "self-perpetuation" replaces "natural" for me. I also so think this is dovetails with the best argument for reproducible bootstraps (as the follow up to reproducible builds). Without that, and like with our socials institutions, we have a a "historical bootstrap" we are constrained by. But by making an artificial bootstrap, we gain some freedom to tinker rather than being completely constrained by historical happenstance. With software it is clear what this looks like. With something like governance and money it is less clear. Certainly it's hard to imagine the John Locke style arguments bootstrapping from "primitive man" working out, as children must be raised in a culture before they get the privileges of democracy, and are thus biased. But perhaps there are other more feasible ways.
- echelon 5y ago
  America is preventing Russia from antagonizing Europe, all the while we foot the bill for maintaining a capable military. China is a looming threat. If you don't see that, I don't know what I can say. Take away America's military and see what happens. Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Spratleys, 9-dash, water rights, Belt+Road indebtedness, Crimea, Ukraine... The US has to be strong out of necessity, and we get treated like shit for it. America is far from perfect, but it's Democratic and celebrates individualism and free speech. And I'm not persecuted for being LGBT. I'd hate to be in Russia or China where I'm told I can't think my own thoughts or have my own preferences. If we didn't have to pay so much for our military capabilities, maybe we'd all get to enjoy the same free health care and social programs that Europe, Canada, and other nations enjoy. Europe needs to carry some of this weight.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > America is preventing Russia from antagonizing Europe? Er, Ukraine is in Europe. Out of 10, how would you rate the USA's efforts at stopping Russia there so far?
    - nradov 5y ago
      "Europe" is probably the wrong term here. The USA's efforts to stop Russia from antagonizing NATO members probably rates 8/10. Part of Russia is also in Europe.
      - throwaway210222 5y ago
        No, no. Ukraine paid the 'entry price' that was asked of them to be protected by USA, (and France, UK, Russia, China) by surrendering their nuclear weapons. This was a level of vulnerability and trust in third parties the good citizens of USA (and the others above) would never for a second countenance. The USA (and the others) willingly signed up to the deal [1]. And then failed to do any deterring when it was time to walk the talk. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- qaq 5y ago
  Well could you point to the downside of this? From teflon to internet and countless other things you use every day that came out of DARPA and other def. research, what would have changed if it was funded via different model?
  - BenAufero 5y ago
    I think the complaint is not that the government funds research for defense, it's that it could be funding energy, medical, etc research. I honestly don't know if I fully agree with his complaint, because I'm fairly sure the government does fund a lot of other research that isn't defense focused (see a lot of universities).
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      It funds many sorts of research but much less development. Research ideas do not develop themselves and so the story of modern academia is zillions of abandoned ideas.
  - jack_riminton 5y ago
    History shows that conflict has actually been rather useful for our development
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      That's circular — it's important precisely because nothing else created the political will for that much state-run development. We should at least try to do non-military development, even if military dev will continue to have an edge.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - AQuantized 5y ago
    The problem is privileging technologies that have defence capabilities. There are likely countless ideas that could have similar success to DARPA projects if they had similar access to capital and state support. However, unless it can show off some military capability its funding can't be justified using the current model, leaving a gigantic subsections of technologies that could have similar innovative impact underserved by this level of support.
- Atlantium 5y ago
  Straw Man noun 1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. My comment speaks directly to to above post as follows: "It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Their website says they're "creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security". Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when it should be human progress." As for the world being difficult to predict, or to use your phrasing "non-ergodic", it is in fact easy to predict that security will be necessary. It is difficult to predict exactly what the threat to security will be. This uncertainty alone justifies development. Also, DARPA tech is well known for spreading outside of it originally intended remit. Ie the research itself can be of use in other areas.

vmception 5y ago

Just assume its technologists that wanted to trick Congress into giving them free money You know you can get entire new agencies created for yourself by the same lobbying process that private sector uses for laws that benefit them

5faulker 5y ago

Human progress can be itself a trap too, but often we can only tell how history rolls out in retrospect.

throwaway803453 5y ago

I suspect you know this but it was ARPA until 1972: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpa-name-change https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpa-name-change

xvilka 5y ago

There are also IARPA[1] and ARPA-E[2] (and few others as well). ARPA-E is more "peaceful" agency. [1] https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs [2] https://arpa-e.energy.gov/ https://arpa-e.energy.gov/

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Have they produced any breakthroughs?
- thawcixr4R 5y ago
  IARPA has produced quite a few: - https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/sciences-breakthrough-of-2010-a-macro-scale-quantum-device/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/sciences-breakthroug... - https://web.archive.org/web/20160312133713/http://www.deltek.com/blog/home/b2g-essentials/2015/08/the-national-strategic-computing-initiative-a-not-so-new-program https://web.archive.org/web/20160312133713/http://www.deltek... - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-government-launches-a-100-million-apollo-project-of-the-brain/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-governmen... Those are just recent, unclassified ones. ARPA-E being the "peaceful industry" is a lot more open about private partnerships and generally just funds and provides oversight: https://web.archive.org/web/20100527161846/http://www.energy.gov/news2009/documents2009/ARPA-E_Project_Selections.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20100527161846/http://www.energy... Some renewable fuel projects: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/blog-posts/refueling-carbon-neutral-liquid-fuel-development-refuelit https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/blog-posts/refuelin... They're focused on renewables, lessening waste, etc. and have made some contributions in that space, just not as sexy as "borgsects" and "space lasers" like DARPA or advancing nation state surveillance and electronic warfare capabilities like IARPA. Everything is starting to get an ARPA though because of how it's somewhat allowed to cut through red tape for innovation which is hard for usgov: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01878-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01878-z

bobthechef 5y ago

> Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when it should be human progress. I don't understand the point of comments like this. Are you lamenting that human beings are such that such defense programs are necessary? Okay, I can sympathize with the general sentiment, but it's weird bringing that up in this specific context, especially since the tech in question is defensive. Yes, the need for defense is an unfortunate necessity given the reality of the world. No sense in pretending we can achieve some world where defense is not needed (we can of course try to cultivate cooperation and peace, but these are delicate arrangements that are constantly in flux). The most dangerous belief is believing you can achieve this utopian peace on earth because it makes you defenseless.

BobbyJo 5y ago

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but functional Scramjet technology does very little for humanity outside of defense. As is the case with most of what DARPA funds, no? If that wasn't the case, then the market itself would be chasing the technology. Like, what would this be useful for? I guess I'm just fundamentally questioning what you mean when you say 'human progress'. I assume you mean it more in terms of improvement as opposed to preservation, but given the fact that life itself is a struggle against entropy on all levels, preservation is a very important foundation on which to build.

science4sail 5y ago
What about the ARPAnet? That seemed to have found several applications outside of national defense.
bobthepanda 5y ago
Shrinking the world would be a good use of it if we could get it to work for commercial air travel (and if we solve the sonic boom problem, but that's another issue a different part of government is working on)
- silexia 5y ago
  The faster you go and the further you go, the more energy you use. We have limited resources and these technologies damage our planet.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  It's very hard for me to imagine a world in which scramjet technology is both useful for commercial travel, and impossible to develop without massive government funding. It seems to me like technology needs to reach a point that it can be developed entirely commercially before it can be made safely and consistently enough enough for commercial passengers. Take rockets for instance. Technology had to catch up to make them commercially viable to develop before they were commercially viable to operate.
  - 5y ago

qq4 5y ago

I would argue that in order to make great progress a nation needs great security.

speedybird 5y ago

> It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of the acronym. Time for a new euphemism? The U.S. Department of Defense was called the U.S. Department of War until the end of the 1940s. Maybe this time we can call it the Department of Peace since defense apparently doesn't sound so good to people anymore.