4 ms·

The most depressing thing is that our generation can achieve so much more. We have more scientists, more engineers and much larger economies than babyboomer gen

by sytelus 12y ago

The most depressing thing is that our generation can achieve so much more. We have more scientists, more engineers and much larger economies than babyboomer generation. But most of these money ends up corruption in underdeveloped countries and in wars and busted healthcare system in developed countries. For example US spent 1 trillion dollars [1] just for stupid Iraq war alone. With same amount of money we could have vaccinated kids of entire world, could have had multiple missions to Mars, permanent bases on moon, accelerated research on all kind of diseases, funded more research on fusion and alternate power sources, and could have built sanitation facilities for all in multiple under developed countries for free - and even then we would have some money left over. Just 1 trillion dollars is more than enough to make huge progress on all of these front but we spend it out on wars and busted healthcare system. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

robomartin 12y ago
The problem is easy to identify: Our various forms of government are simply obsolete. In the case of the US you have very small groups of people interested in nothing more than the survival of their respective political clans. Despite what they say, they consistently fail to represent us and always, always, always make decisions based on their own self interest (or that of their party). Remember: Governments and politicians cause and fight wars. It's politicians, not the people, who make a mess out of society and the world. I can't think of many wars that were not the product of politicians run amuck. I am not proposing anarchy. That helps nobody. Yet I do think we need to collectively figure out how to correct the political landscape in order to ensure that politicians understand they work for us and always towards the common good (whatever that means).
- slgeorge 12y ago
  > I can't think of many wars that were not the product of politicians run amuck. I don't think you know of many wars then. Let's see: - World War II (Europe) Not caused by a politician, caused by a dictator (a different thing). Arguably caused by economic and social forces applied to Germany after WW1. - World War II (Asia) Not caused by a politician. Arguably caused by either nationalism which was an outgrowth of their forced modernisation; or caused by encirclement and the risk of losing their new empire. - World War I (Europe) Not caused by a politician. Simplistically caused by nationalism, perhaps caused by economic issues. I'm sure there must be some examples of wars caused by politicians - but it's doing a disservice to the complexity of issues to point at a single person, and giving them too much power.
  - robomartin 12y ago
    You missed my point in a grotesque way: GOVERNMENTS start wars, not people. I used the term politician because I was making a commentary about our government. Governments are the sole decision makers in all of the major wars for centuries. People, regardless of culture, do not want war. People do not wage wars. People just want to live a decent life and be left alone. I don't know many who wake up every day thiking about going to war against someone thousands of miles away. Neither World War would have happened if a set of governments had not decided to either trigger them (after various events) or participate in them.
tsotha 12y ago
>The most depressing thing is that our generation can achieve so much more. We have more scientists, more engineers and much larger economies than babyboomer generation. You're proceeding from a false assumption here. The quality of your scientists matters far more than the quantity. The tail end of the curve is where you get the big breakthroughs, and those people are no more likely to be scientists than ever. Maybe less, since there's so much money to be made in Wall St. And research was much more efficient back then. You could mix a bunch of nasty stuff together, get your results, and then dump the rest down the sink. It may not have been a good idea, but that's a whole lot cheaper than wading through the hazmat bureaucracies we have today today. There are all kinds of ways a larger and more intrusive government "taxes" efficiency. Each regulation makes sense on its own, but add them all together and you have a big drag on progress. As the writer says, it's easier just to write software than to do anything in the physical world. And the military spending point really favors the present. During the cold war we spent as much as 10% of GDP on the military trying to contain the Soviets. The Iraq war was nothing compared to that - we haven't spent more than 5% GDP on the military since the 90s.

by sytelus 12y ago

robomartin 12y ago

The problem is easy to identify: Our various forms of government are simply obsolete. In the case of the US you have very small groups of people interested in nothing more than the survival of their respective political clans. Despite what they say, they consistently fail to represent us and always, always, always make decisions based on their own self interest (or that of their party). Remember: Governments and politicians cause and fight wars. It's politicians, not the people, who make a mess out of society and the world. I can't think of many wars that were not the product of politicians run amuck. I am not proposing anarchy. That helps nobody. Yet I do think we need to collectively figure out how to correct the political landscape in order to ensure that politicians understand they work for us and always towards the common good (whatever that means).

slgeorge 12y ago
> I can't think of many wars that were not the product of politicians run amuck. I don't think you know of many wars then. Let's see: - World War II (Europe) Not caused by a politician, caused by a dictator (a different thing). Arguably caused by economic and social forces applied to Germany after WW1. - World War II (Asia) Not caused by a politician. Arguably caused by either nationalism which was an outgrowth of their forced modernisation; or caused by encirclement and the risk of losing their new empire. - World War I (Europe) Not caused by a politician. Simplistically caused by nationalism, perhaps caused by economic issues. I'm sure there must be some examples of wars caused by politicians - but it's doing a disservice to the complexity of issues to point at a single person, and giving them too much power.
- robomartin 12y ago
  You missed my point in a grotesque way: GOVERNMENTS start wars, not people. I used the term politician because I was making a commentary about our government. Governments are the sole decision makers in all of the major wars for centuries. People, regardless of culture, do not want war. People do not wage wars. People just want to live a decent life and be left alone. I don't know many who wake up every day thiking about going to war against someone thousands of miles away. Neither World War would have happened if a set of governments had not decided to either trigger them (after various events) or participate in them.

tsotha 12y ago

>The most depressing thing is that our generation can achieve so much more. We have more scientists, more engineers and much larger economies than babyboomer generation. You're proceeding from a false assumption here. The quality of your scientists matters far more than the quantity. The tail end of the curve is where you get the big breakthroughs, and those people are no more likely to be scientists than ever. Maybe less, since there's so much money to be made in Wall St. And research was much more efficient back then. You could mix a bunch of nasty stuff together, get your results, and then dump the rest down the sink. It may not have been a good idea, but that's a whole lot cheaper than wading through the hazmat bureaucracies we have today today. There are all kinds of ways a larger and more intrusive government "taxes" efficiency. Each regulation makes sense on its own, but add them all together and you have a big drag on progress. As the writer says, it's easier just to write software than to do anything in the physical world. And the military spending point really favors the present. During the cold war we spent as much as 10% of GDP on the military trying to contain the Soviets. The Iraq war was nothing compared to that - we haven't spent more than 5% GDP on the military since the 90s.