5 ms·
That same innovation could be funded without also funding weapons development and other destructive wastes of resources. How much more innovation would there be
by canvia 12y ago
That same innovation could be funded without also funding weapons development and other destructive wastes of resources. How much more innovation would there be if 100% of the funds went to R&D of non-military applications?
Yes some good does come of it, but at what cost? The whole point of MAD was that it was no longer necessary to develop better killing tools, because any war should be unthinkable. Yet we continue to waste valuable resources, 100s of billions of dollars that could be used for education or humanitarian efforts, on shit like this: http://www.wired.com/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/
What's the point, other than making a small number of people rich?
- rayiner 12y ago> What's the point, other than making a small number of people rich? Its an interesting thing to say, because much more so than in SV, DOD R&D money is spent on engineers. The profit margin at Lockheed Martin is 4-7%, versus 20-30% at Google, Apple, Yahoo, etc.
- selmnoo 12y agoJust wanted to say thanks for providing contrarian nuggets of thoughts. I once used to think SV was the powerhouse of American innovation and that gov't only retarded its growth, you've been a big part helping me in the process of seeing better on these things. Working now at a place that is pretty much all funded by the gov't - NIH, specifically - and is decidedly good (medical stuff) has been another datapoint.
- canvia 12y agoNice straw man. Profit margins have nothing to do with the fact that the money is being spent to develop tools to kill humans instead of helping them. Not all engineering jobs are equal.