3 ms·

The idea that "military development advances technology" is very popular but not entirely accurate. The micro-processor, for example, was invented while working

The idea that "military development advances technology" is very popular but not entirely accurate. The micro-processor, for example, was invented while working on a handheld calculator project, and advanced through the consumer market. Sometimes military development advances technologies in ways that might not have happened otherwise but it's hard to compare to the way development would have gone otherwise. Take the development of aircraft from their invention through WWII. Unquestionably there was a rapid pace of development during, and due to, WWI and WWII. But there was also a rapid pace of development outside of the wars. The design of the iconic WWII fighters the Supermarine Spitfire and P51 Mustang owe much to the advancement of high performance aviation spurred by the entirely civilian Schneider Trophy competitions through the 1920s and '30s, for example.

rjurney 13y ago
However, the increasingly large-scale integrated circuits that led to microprocessors were largely defense driven: missiles, etc.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Not "largely" but rather "initially". IC development was probably accelerated by missile development, but it's difficult to say by exactly how much.
  - abalone 13y ago
    Here's a quick overview of the history of ICs. It gives many strong examples of how DARPA propelled their development and decisively rescued the U.S. industry from Japanese competition -- definitely a large role. There's really not a lot of controversy about the massive role that DARPA and other agencies play in American high tech. http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/marketfundamentalism/microchip http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/marketfundamentali...
    - InclinedPlane 13y ago
      Hold on, so you're arguing that DARPA "rescuing US industry from Japanese competition" is proof that the technology absolutely required government investment to advance it? Need I really demonstrate the fault in that logic?
      - pyre 13y ago
        I don't know if it affects this case, but I know that the Japanese government was doing a lot to prop up their companies, so it's possible that "Japanese competition" isn't entirely private sector.
      - abalone 13y ago
        You just shifted the goalpost ("absolutely required"). The logically fallacy is yours. I merely claimed a "massive role," which is accurate.
abalone 13y ago
"In the United States, the development of the computer was underpinned by massive government investment in the technology for military applications during WWII and then the Cold War. The latter superpower confrontation made it possible for local manufacturers to transform their machines into commercially viable products. It was the same story in Europe, where adoption of computers began largely through proactive steps taken by national governments to stimulate development and deployment of the technology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment -- particularly in the highest-risk, most capital-intensive stuff. And that's why Hyperloop doesn't get funded.
- privong 13y ago
  > You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment I'm not sure about the history, but perhaps the internal combustion engine? More generally, the line of reasoning in this thread assumes "this is how things have happened" to imply "this is the _only_ way things can happen". It is entirely conceivable that the private sector would, in the absense of government funding, step up and perform/fund fundamental research. But, in the current fiscal climate where there is still, generally speaking, copious government funding available (e.g., to the military), why would a private group spend money to do that when they can let someone else (the government) take the risk (with someone else's money).
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    Indeed. There were 3 of the largest wars in history during the 20th century (WWI, WWII, and the Cold War). That's going to necessarily skew the statistics on development of technology in recent history.

rjurney 13y ago

However, the increasingly large-scale integrated circuits that led to microprocessors were largely defense driven: missiles, etc.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
Not "largely" but rather "initially". IC development was probably accelerated by missile development, but it's difficult to say by exactly how much.
- abalone 13y ago
  Here's a quick overview of the history of ICs. It gives many strong examples of how DARPA propelled their development and decisively rescued the U.S. industry from Japanese competition -- definitely a large role. There's really not a lot of controversy about the massive role that DARPA and other agencies play in American high tech. http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/marketfundamentalism/microchip http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/marketfundamentali...
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    Hold on, so you're arguing that DARPA "rescuing US industry from Japanese competition" is proof that the technology absolutely required government investment to advance it? Need I really demonstrate the fault in that logic?
    - pyre 13y ago
      I don't know if it affects this case, but I know that the Japanese government was doing a lot to prop up their companies, so it's possible that "Japanese competition" isn't entirely private sector.
    - abalone 13y ago
      You just shifted the goalpost ("absolutely required"). The logically fallacy is yours. I merely claimed a "massive role," which is accurate.

abalone 13y ago

"In the United States, the development of the computer was underpinned by massive government investment in the technology for military applications during WWII and then the Cold War. The latter superpower confrontation made it possible for local manufacturers to transform their machines into commercially viable products. It was the same story in Europe, where adoption of computers began largely through proactive steps taken by national governments to stimulate development and deployment of the technology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment -- particularly in the highest-risk, most capital-intensive stuff. And that's why Hyperloop doesn't get funded.

privong 13y ago
> You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment I'm not sure about the history, but perhaps the internal combustion engine? More generally, the line of reasoning in this thread assumes "this is how things have happened" to imply "this is the _only_ way things can happen". It is entirely conceivable that the private sector would, in the absense of government funding, step up and perform/fund fundamental research. But, in the current fiscal climate where there is still, generally speaking, copious government funding available (e.g., to the military), why would a private group spend money to do that when they can let someone else (the government) take the risk (with someone else's money).
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Indeed. There were 3 of the largest wars in history during the 20th century (WWI, WWII, and the Cold War). That's going to necessarily skew the statistics on development of technology in recent history.