4 ms·

Why did this study take so long? So much spent on war in the meantime

jack_riminton 3y ago
What calculus do you propose everyone uses to work out where the funds should be allocated? Who decides? How do we account for technology that was created as part of the war effort i.e. computers, jet engines, the internet etc?
- joenathanone 3y ago
  Things that sustain life (intentionally) should take priority in my opinion.
  - genman 3y ago
    So weapons should be the priority as weapons have again and again saved lives.
    - aqme28 3y ago
      Are you arguing that war is a net good for humanity? It’s quite a take
      - aaomidi 3y ago
        American propaganda has completely shifted the ways people think.
        genman 3y ago
        You completely miss the point. If we want to have better future then two values must become together - superior philosophy and superior weapons. It is clear that nothing good come out when only one is presented.
      - genman 3y ago
        This is your imagination. I didn't say that. I didn't say anything about war. I said weapons save lives. We can see again and again and again that if you don't have weapons then the people who hate you will attempt to kill you.
  - jack_riminton 3y ago
    Ok what about medicine that was developed largely as a result of war? I'm not pro war by the way, I've seen it and it's ugly, but "money should go to good things not war" is such a facile statement
mc32 3y ago
Without war, societies implode; they get taken over. Keeping a society going means lots of ‘work’. Did the Egyptians, Macedonians, Romans, Mughal, etc., stand long on the shoulders of peace? It doesn’t happen. Why did Siberians come over to the Americas? To explore and spread peace? Populations encroach and you stand and fight or seek out new land. We've run out of new land so equilibrium is achieved through other means, including war.
- 4ggr0 3y ago
  Are you implying that war is necessary?
  - mc32 3y ago
    Unless you have superpowers to sway people like Putin, Xi, the CIA, Ayatollah, etc., yes, else those with aspirations will trample the pacifists.
    - 4ggr0 3y ago
      I disagree. You take the attackers POV (I'd say every example you've listed is viewed negatively by the vast majority of global citizens). So in the eye of an attacker, war is necessary. To me that's not enough to prove that wars in general, as a concept, are necessary for societies to move forward. They're more of a shortcut for dictators or institutions to get things they otherwise couldn't get, or at least not as fast/efficient as they'd like.
      - mc32 3y ago
        In theory you’re right. In reality we have people who seek power or in some popular cases a popular mandate to cause change or negate change through war (many civil wars, for example). This isn’t unique to people. Lots of organisms and even systems operate in similar manner.
        4ggr0 3y ago
datadeft 3y ago
I think is partially because we look at the past as the people who existed there were subpar in every way compare to us.

What calculus do you propose everyone uses to work out where the funds should be allocated? Who decides? How do we account for technology that was created as part of the war effort i.e. computers, jet engines, the internet etc?

joenathanone 3y ago
Things that sustain life (intentionally) should take priority in my opinion.
- genman 3y ago
  So weapons should be the priority as weapons have again and again saved lives.
  - aqme28 3y ago
    Are you arguing that war is a net good for humanity? It’s quite a take
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      American propaganda has completely shifted the ways people think.
      - genman 3y ago
        You completely miss the point. If we want to have better future then two values must become together - superior philosophy and superior weapons. It is clear that nothing good come out when only one is presented.
    - genman 3y ago
      This is your imagination. I didn't say that. I didn't say anything about war. I said weapons save lives. We can see again and again and again that if you don't have weapons then the people who hate you will attempt to kill you.
- jack_riminton 3y ago
  Ok what about medicine that was developed largely as a result of war? I'm not pro war by the way, I've seen it and it's ugly, but "money should go to good things not war" is such a facile statement

mc32 3y ago

Without war, societies implode; they get taken over. Keeping a society going means lots of ‘work’. Did the Egyptians, Macedonians, Romans, Mughal, etc., stand long on the shoulders of peace? It doesn’t happen. Why did Siberians come over to the Americas? To explore and spread peace? Populations encroach and you stand and fight or seek out new land. We've run out of new land so equilibrium is achieved through other means, including war.

4ggr0 3y ago
Are you implying that war is necessary?
- mc32 3y ago
  Unless you have superpowers to sway people like Putin, Xi, the CIA, Ayatollah, etc., yes, else those with aspirations will trample the pacifists.
  - 4ggr0 3y ago
    I disagree. You take the attackers POV (I'd say every example you've listed is viewed negatively by the vast majority of global citizens). So in the eye of an attacker, war is necessary. To me that's not enough to prove that wars in general, as a concept, are necessary for societies to move forward. They're more of a shortcut for dictators or institutions to get things they otherwise couldn't get, or at least not as fast/efficient as they'd like.
    - mc32 3y ago
      In theory you’re right. In reality we have people who seek power or in some popular cases a popular mandate to cause change or negate change through war (many civil wars, for example). This isn’t unique to people. Lots of organisms and even systems operate in similar manner.
      - 4ggr0 3y ago

datadeft 3y ago

I think is partially because we look at the past as the people who existed there were subpar in every way compare to us.