6 ms·

Historically the way out of these sorts of downward trends has been war of some sort. It would be interesting to see if a "science" war such as a renewed space

Historically the way out of these sorts of downward trends has been war of some sort. It would be interesting to see if a "science" war such as a renewed space race without the militaristic/jingoistic overtones of the moon race would serve the same purpose. I think I read too much utopic sci-fi, though.

eru 17y ago
Moore's second law states that `fabs' to produce chips are increasing exponentially at about the same rate as chips get better. If this law holds in the future, the building of fabs will force GDP growth on a race of its own. (However even if world GDP would stagnate, the cost of a producing a single fab would overtake GDP no sooner than 2040 or so. (I should dig out my calculation for that..))
dantheman 17y ago
War in no way creates wealth, it is an act of destruction and while it may employ people and kill off lots of people, everyone's standard of living is lower and they lose wealth. Instead of producing goods to improve the lives of those around them they waste time, effort, and material on tools of destruction.
- smhinsey 17y ago
  I am certainly not saying that with approval, but I think it is undeniable that war has served, intentionally or otherwise, throughout history as a way of getting out from under economic crises of various forms. We can see examples of this in many of the British Empire's colonial conflicts. Without the growth sparked by WW2, it's hard to imagine the American economic boom of the post war period. Obviously this doesn't mean everyone benefited from it or that it was good, hence my musing about the benefit of a "science" war, although perhaps I should have been more clear that I am using the term as analogy only. I mean it as an intense period of competition, which surely you can agree can be beneficial.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    This is the standard broken window fallacy (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken_window http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken_window). Just a hurricane destroying a city doesn't improve its economic well being even though there will be a boom in construction and other such industries -- at the end of the day everyone involved is poorer. If you want to talk about the post war boom, it could be explained by the complete destruction of europe and an industrial america able to sell to them. There can be big technology improvements during war due to individuals working night and day to save their lives, but in general the same thing can happen in peace time by people working night and day. It won't happen because they want to enjoy their lives.
    - smhinsey 17y ago
      It seems that a somewhat flippant comment has ended up with us talking around one another and me appearing pro-war in some weird way, which honestly couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not sure what is to be gained by continuing this discussion, so I will concede the point. I probably could've avoided this whole thing by quoting the word war instead of science. Mea culpa. All I was really trying to say is that I'd love to see a space race to Mars.
- gaius 17y ago
  War in no way creates wealth I'm not sure that's actually true. How much wealth was created via the development of jet engines, radar, satellite communications, antibiotics, computers? The unprecedented economic growth of the latter half of the 20th century was driven by civilian applications of technologies developed for the purpose of fighting WW2.
  - eru 17y ago
    In the fifties Germany used industrial technology from the thirties to get back on her feet. Had the Reich used the twenties years in between for something other than destroying itself and the rest of Europe, it would have surely been richer and more advanced. "In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly and efficient -- a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete -- was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, [...]" (from "Chapter 3: War is Peace" of Emanuel Goldstein's `The Theory of Hierarchical Society' (from 1984)) Anyway, the greatest life-altering technologic advances have been made during the long and relatively peaceful period of the 19th century. And no, it was not all an application of inventions from the Napoleonic wars.

eru 17y ago

Moore's second law states that `fabs' to produce chips are increasing exponentially at about the same rate as chips get better. If this law holds in the future, the building of fabs will force GDP growth on a race of its own. (However even if world GDP would stagnate, the cost of a producing a single fab would overtake GDP no sooner than 2040 or so. (I should dig out my calculation for that..))

dantheman 17y ago

War in no way creates wealth, it is an act of destruction and while it may employ people and kill off lots of people, everyone's standard of living is lower and they lose wealth. Instead of producing goods to improve the lives of those around them they waste time, effort, and material on tools of destruction.

smhinsey 17y ago
I am certainly not saying that with approval, but I think it is undeniable that war has served, intentionally or otherwise, throughout history as a way of getting out from under economic crises of various forms. We can see examples of this in many of the British Empire's colonial conflicts. Without the growth sparked by WW2, it's hard to imagine the American economic boom of the post war period. Obviously this doesn't mean everyone benefited from it or that it was good, hence my musing about the benefit of a "science" war, although perhaps I should have been more clear that I am using the term as analogy only. I mean it as an intense period of competition, which surely you can agree can be beneficial.
- dantheman 17y ago
  This is the standard broken window fallacy (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken_window http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken_window). Just a hurricane destroying a city doesn't improve its economic well being even though there will be a boom in construction and other such industries -- at the end of the day everyone involved is poorer. If you want to talk about the post war boom, it could be explained by the complete destruction of europe and an industrial america able to sell to them. There can be big technology improvements during war due to individuals working night and day to save their lives, but in general the same thing can happen in peace time by people working night and day. It won't happen because they want to enjoy their lives.
  - smhinsey 17y ago
    It seems that a somewhat flippant comment has ended up with us talking around one another and me appearing pro-war in some weird way, which honestly couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not sure what is to be gained by continuing this discussion, so I will concede the point. I probably could've avoided this whole thing by quoting the word war instead of science. Mea culpa. All I was really trying to say is that I'd love to see a space race to Mars.
gaius 17y ago
War in no way creates wealth I'm not sure that's actually true. How much wealth was created via the development of jet engines, radar, satellite communications, antibiotics, computers? The unprecedented economic growth of the latter half of the 20th century was driven by civilian applications of technologies developed for the purpose of fighting WW2.
- eru 17y ago
  In the fifties Germany used industrial technology from the thirties to get back on her feet. Had the Reich used the twenties years in between for something other than destroying itself and the rest of Europe, it would have surely been richer and more advanced. "In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly and efficient -- a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete -- was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, [...]" (from "Chapter 3: War is Peace" of Emanuel Goldstein's `The Theory of Hierarchical Society' (from 1984)) Anyway, the greatest life-altering technologic advances have been made during the long and relatively peaceful period of the 19th century. And no, it was not all an application of inventions from the Napoleonic wars.