3 ms·

You listing 3 inventions that came from peaceful times is simply inviting an adversarial response. [1] Penicillin - it was not until 1939 when Dr. Howard Flore

by ZenPro 12y ago

You listing 3 inventions that came from peaceful times is simply inviting an adversarial response. [1] Penicillin - it was not until 1939 when Dr. Howard Florey’s research was able to prove the effectiveness of penicillin without a shadow of a doubt and with the aid of Andrew J. Moyer he developed the most powerful antibacterial substance in the world. Invented during conflict - >> Hydrogen Peroxide (forerunner to fuel-cell & synthetic fuel technology >> Synthetic Rubber >> Air Traffic Control >> Superglue >> Tampons / Tampax / Sanitary Pads (WW1 Cellulose Bandage) >> Jerry Can >> Pressurised Cabin >> Radio Navigation >> Cryptography / Cryptanalysis >> Radar >> Synthetic Oil >> V-2 Rocket (forerunner to the R7 & Mercury) >> Jet Engine >> Nuclear Power >> Paper Money (greenbacks) >> Canned Food >> Sewing Machine >> Standardized Clothing Sizes >> Telegraph Network I could go, as I am sure could you. The point is that you assumption that the net effect of conflict is simply a loss does not stand up to rigorous academic thinking. The variables are too complex. Also, your comment about $20 / raining money as an analogy is absurd. The majority of the workers on Camp Bastion are unskilled and were earning less than $1 a day in subsistence agriculture prior to the arrival of military forces. Regardless of the war aims etc the median income has risen as an effect of troops being located with the populace. The ffect of war on a western or advanced market economy might be different but for Afghanistan it increased the amount of capital in the country.

PavlovsCat 12y ago
You still weren't able to show how medical inventions needed war for anything but acceleration, or how peaceful inventions don't outnumber those made for war. Paper money was invented in China, canned food was invented because of 12k, not because the french military happened to offer them, and the jury is kinda still out on nuclear power since we have no real way of dealing with the garbage it produces yet. But okay. I think if you focus closely and selectively enough, you can always find benefits. The NSDAP was very useful and positive for a select few Germans at the time, and I am sure the results of medical experiments made in Japanese concentration camps were useful, too. Who knows, there are probably even inventions made by a racist for racist purposes. But whoever can make that calculation with a straight face, I don't want to meet them in a dark alley.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  And you have still failed to present any compelling evidence that military conflict is detrimental to society. I did not make the original hypothesis, you did. I simply said there are too many variables, many of which you fail to accept as evidenced by your comments.
  - xyzzy123 12y ago
    > And you have still failed to present any compelling evidence that military conflict is detrimental to society. You mean apart from thousands or millions dead, cities destroyed, children orphaned, starvation, depredation and death? I don't think I understand your moral system, but I'm going to take a stab that you're thinking in a utilitarian way. Well all the dollars and inventions and stuff you're talking about? Their purpose is to make people happy. But the economic bead game you're talking about starts looking pretty irrelevant when you compare the relative happiness that some people get from having more beads with the sheer cost of war in human misery and destruction.
    - ZenPro 12y ago
      Are you arguing that the thousands and millions of dead would not have died without warfare? Are they immortal apart from military conflict? I am a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan and have been considerably closer to war than, arguably, 99% of the collective posting on Hacker News. My point was not a moral position and most of you seem incapable of grasping the nettle of the original discussion thread. The gist was the sum total economic impact. Moral, ethical and sentimental values do not matter and, like in most economical discussion, they are to be discarded. At no point have I stated I agree with war (I do in certain circumstances) - the original question was does war create more wealth than it destroys? Your emotional appeal about dead children is nothing to do with the original question. Without war however, we would still live under Feudal yokes or Patriarchal societies. War was required in many cases to establish the liberal democracy most of us exist in. When you talk about moving the beads from one side to the other you look only at beads such as money, dead bodies, widespread crime and the gory side of conflict. How about those conflicts that resulted in freeing slaves, securing indepdendence and democracy? What about the civil wars fought to ensure that men and women are treated fairly under the law and not at the whim of a Royal Family? Do you make any allowance for the benefits (however callous) to the reduction of the human population? I expect the storm of downvotes but I attribute them to HN respondents being unable to separate the rational academic question from the emotional impact of warfare.

by ZenPro 12y ago

PavlovsCat 12y ago

You still weren't able to show how medical inventions needed war for anything but acceleration, or how peaceful inventions don't outnumber those made for war. Paper money was invented in China, canned food was invented because of 12k, not because the french military happened to offer them, and the jury is kinda still out on nuclear power since we have no real way of dealing with the garbage it produces yet. But okay. I think if you focus closely and selectively enough, you can always find benefits. The NSDAP was very useful and positive for a select few Germans at the time, and I am sure the results of medical experiments made in Japanese concentration camps were useful, too. Who knows, there are probably even inventions made by a racist for racist purposes. But whoever can make that calculation with a straight face, I don't want to meet them in a dark alley.

ZenPro 12y ago
And you have still failed to present any compelling evidence that military conflict is detrimental to society. I did not make the original hypothesis, you did. I simply said there are too many variables, many of which you fail to accept as evidenced by your comments.
- xyzzy123 12y ago
  > And you have still failed to present any compelling evidence that military conflict is detrimental to society. You mean apart from thousands or millions dead, cities destroyed, children orphaned, starvation, depredation and death? I don't think I understand your moral system, but I'm going to take a stab that you're thinking in a utilitarian way. Well all the dollars and inventions and stuff you're talking about? Their purpose is to make people happy. But the economic bead game you're talking about starts looking pretty irrelevant when you compare the relative happiness that some people get from having more beads with the sheer cost of war in human misery and destruction.
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    Are you arguing that the thousands and millions of dead would not have died without warfare? Are they immortal apart from military conflict? I am a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan and have been considerably closer to war than, arguably, 99% of the collective posting on Hacker News. My point was not a moral position and most of you seem incapable of grasping the nettle of the original discussion thread. The gist was the sum total economic impact. Moral, ethical and sentimental values do not matter and, like in most economical discussion, they are to be discarded. At no point have I stated I agree with war (I do in certain circumstances) - the original question was does war create more wealth than it destroys? Your emotional appeal about dead children is nothing to do with the original question. Without war however, we would still live under Feudal yokes or Patriarchal societies. War was required in many cases to establish the liberal democracy most of us exist in. When you talk about moving the beads from one side to the other you look only at beads such as money, dead bodies, widespread crime and the gory side of conflict. How about those conflicts that resulted in freeing slaves, securing indepdendence and democracy? What about the civil wars fought to ensure that men and women are treated fairly under the law and not at the whim of a Royal Family? Do you make any allowance for the benefits (however callous) to the reduction of the human population? I expect the storm of downvotes but I attribute them to HN respondents being unable to separate the rational academic question from the emotional impact of warfare.