Increase Defence Spending

Scroll to see replies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Would the exploration of space have happened so quickly if the Cold War hadn't have happened? Both the USA & USSR competed to out do each other during it.

With well developing liberal economy, probably yes. Somebody would likely wish to check is this possible to make profit from space exploration, while others would simply be curious or look for fame.

[QUOTE=Tempest II;67456986
It comes down to the matter that mankind tends to do better when facing adversity rather than trying to co-operate, perhaps unfortunately.

If this was true, civilizations would never have existed.
Stress and competition created us, but cooperation (combined with competition) is way more efficient
Existence of civilizations and morality are definite proofs.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 61

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Tempest II

As much as I don't want to sound like I'm advocating war, the greatest leaps forward in human history have generally been in times of conflict. The amount of technological & in even social progress made in the Second World War exceeded any other point in history.
Would the exploration of space have happened so quickly if the Cold War hadn't have happened? Both the USA & USSR competed to out do each other during it.
It comes down to the matter that mankind tends to do better when facing adversity rather than trying to co-operate, perhaps unfortunately.

I don't think it's surprising that warfare promote rapid leaps in technology, but there have also been many leaps since and aside from the main wars. It appears to be military systems that do the most innovating in wars, which is hardly a source of comfort for the future of our race.

Many modern inventions happened outside wars but inside competitive environments and scientific 'races' - it is possible to create intensely competitive striving that stimulates people without descending into mutual barbarism.

Reply 62

PTMalewski

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I don't think it's surprising that warfare promote rapid leaps in technology,

No. Wars are slowing down development, even wars that didn't happen.
Figure out on your own, there are several reasons but still it's simple.

Reply 63

That Bearded Man

We should go the other direction, as Europe cuts back, so should we.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 64

Tempest II

Original post by PTMalewski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

With well developing liberal economy, probably yes. Somebody would likely wish to check is this possible to make profit from space exploration, while others would simply be curious or look for fame.

If this was true, civilizations would never have existed.
Stress and competition created us, but cooperation (combined with competition) is way more efficient
Existence of civilizations and morality are definite proofs.

That parable & Military Keynesianism misses out the emotional aspect of conflict driving technology - certainly in world war type conflicts & even during smaller ones, individuals & groups don't just chase technological improvements for money or fame; they also want their side to win because they believe what they're doing to be right, whether it's through idealism, patriotism, political or religious beliefs. So there's a very good chance that people will work harder than during peacetime for less monetary reward.

Before the Second World War, bi-planes were still fairly common throughout air forces but by 1945, jet fighters were already starting to rule the skies. The Apollo space program's beginning was actually the German V-2 rocket. Most of the navigation tech in your smart phone was developed due to military necessity as GPS was initially built for the US military & its allies.

Then you've got the positive changes in society - the aftermath of the First World War saw UK saw to implement universal suffrage; the aftermath of the Second World War saw the desegregation of the US armed forces & the understanding that America couldn't continue to treat ethnic minorities in the same way as before.

Other than satellite tech, very few private initiatives have ventured into space. It's very much been nation state driven; I'd argue JFK wanted to beat the USSR to the moon to prove American dominance rather than for the benefit of science or exploration.

Civilisations have always been tribal; there needs to be co-operation within the tribe but it's competition with other tribes that certainly helps drive technological advancement. There's absolutely no way the Manhattan Project would have happened if not for Second World War; there was certainly co-operation between Allied scientists but the conflict with the other "tribe" was what really pushed development.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Many modern inventions happened outside wars but inside competitive environments and scientific 'races' - it is possible to create intensely competitive striving that stimulates people without descending into mutual barbarism.

So, like Capitalism? ;-)

Reply 65

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Tempest II

So, like Capitalism? ;-)

It's been like that to date (although the Soviets tried something called 'Soviet Competition' - without particularly brilliant results), but maybe it doesn't have to remain that way. Oh and lots of innovation has happened outside what you might call a capitalist environment, for example, things like the Internet and the World Wide Web, both developed inside government-funded institutions by tenured academics completely unexposed to the icy winds of capitalist intensity. :teehee:

Reply 66

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Original post by Tempest II

So, like Capitalism? ;-)

You posted your comment using technology that exists only because of a chain of discoveries and insights that began with fascination-driven research in the late 19th century.

If Balmer hadn't studied spectral lines, Planck may not have proposed the quantum. Then Bohr may not have conceived his model of the atom, which means Heisenberg and Schrödinger wouldn't have developed their formulations of quantum mechanics. That would have left Bloch without the tools he needed to understand the nature of conduction in metals, and then how would Schottky have figured out semiconductors? It's hard to imagine, then, how Bardeen, Brattain,and Schockley would have developed transistors. And without transistors, Noyceand Kilbey couldn't have produced integrated circuits.

Almost every major technological advance of the 20th and 21st centuries originated with basic research that presented no obvious or immediate economic benefit. That means no profit motive, and hence no reason for the private sector to adequately fund it.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 67

PTMalewski

Original post by Tempest II

Europe from France up to Moscow was completely demolished. Industrial resources were wasted for military production and destroyed in battles and strategic bombings. Part of the Cipher Bureau team was killed, while their understanding and skills in maths were of highest value. Same happend to lots of other valuable scientists.

Original post by Tempest II

Before the Second World War, bi-planes were still fairly common throughout air forces but by 1945, jet fighters were already starting to rule the skies.

Monoplane of efficient design was designed by Constanin Ciołkowski already in XIXth century, and planes as such were in use already before WWII. Bi-planes were still in wide use, because military specifications required such planes, because they worked well i WWI.
It was purely obsolote, backward-experience thinking.
Bristol Blenheim is a good example: air force didn't want anything like such, but though the motivation behind this plane was militaristic, the first prototype was designed as fast passenger-cargo plane. Bristol or other manufacturer would build plane as such anyway, because it was good and useful, not because it could bomb well and quick.

Original post by Tempest II

The Apollo space program's beginning was actually the German V-2 rocket. Most of the navigation tech in your smart phone was developed due to military necessity as GPS was initially built for the US military & its allies.

I know it very well as well. What you seem not to know, is that more sophisticated rocket designs existed in 20ties. We don't know what would happen to them if the continent was not destroyed in the war, but we do know that losses of all kinds were extreme, and no doubt affrected badly living condition and education levels.

Original post by Tempest II

Then you've got the positive changes in society - the aftermath of the First World War saw UK saw to implement universal suffrage; the aftermath of the Second World War saw the desegregation of the US armed forces & the understanding that America couldn't continue to treat ethnic minorities in the same way as before.

So it is necessary to kill millions and ruin whole states, so the leaders can learn?
Experience is a moron's teacher.

Original post by Tempest II

Other than satellite tech, very few private initiatives have ventured into space. It's very much been nation state driven; I'd argue JFK wanted to beat the USSR to the moon to prove American dominance rather than for the benefit of science or exploration.

This is an example of peaceful competition. But how much resources were wasted for tanks and rockets that were never used, and if they were, the result would be even worse?

Original post by Tempest II

Civilisations have always been tribal; there needs to be co-operation within the tribe but it's competition with other tribes that certainly helps drive technological advancement.

There is a difference beetwen competition and mutual destruction.

[QUOTE=Tempest II;67465724
There's absolutely no way the Manhattan Project would have happened if not for Second World War; there was certainly co-operation between Allied scientists but the conflict with the other "tribe" was what really pushed development.

Most of work was done in theory. Those psysycists and mathematicians could probably do same or better but a bit other way around in times of peace. What does the CERN does? Pretty much nothing useful in predictible future, but we pay for this, and during the Cold War, capitalist and communist countries were cooperating around this project and scientifical results are splendid.