Trump

[Darkflame]

Money/Investment spurs tech.
That can come from war spending, or just healthy economy's though peace.

I would point out, however, I think the most simple reason for the huge increase in tech over the last two hundred years is population with a side dollop of education. Other effects are probably a small effect by comparison to the massive increase in the number of literate people in the world.

[gumboot]

Pissing contests are helpful, too. Like America's Cup, or the space race.

[gravy]

Yeah conflict in general.

The space race was ludicrous, had a strong military edge to it, government funded yet hugely influential.

The private sector can't fund that level of investment where the benefits aren't obvious. Intra country conflict is an excellent way for science to turn into practical technology without the distorting pressure having to make short term profit.

[F-ZeroOne]

Amusingly, it's on the Wikipedia page.

So maybe it's wrong .

But the same article notes that the research on swept wings, while not influencing the Me262 itself, was completed and planned to influence the jet-powered follow-ups.

Oddly enough, though I have an interest in fighter aircraft I don't think I've ever done more than skimmed the Wikipedia entry, which is probably why I haven't encountered that fact before. Certainly none of the various books on the subject I've read in the past seem to have mentioned it!

[F-ZeroOne]

Peace spurs science and engineering, much more than war.

By what metric?

I mean other than "I reckon"

The broken window fallacy is one reason: there is no dividend from reconstruction. But some do argue that, despite this, war drives innovation which outlasts the war. There are many arguments against this.

First the innovation is overwhelmingly focussed on winning war, even winning this particular war even surviving it. Little of it has civilian applications. If the war had not happened chances are the innovations would have happened anyway, along with many others that war postponed or disrupted.

One real world example. The first programmable computer was created in secret at Bletchley Park, part of the codebreaking effort there. But the intense secrecy led to it being destroyed, its existence hidden for decades, so it did not kick-start the computer revolution. Except at the same time as it was being destroyed work was already underway on computers in the US, and the computer revolution started there instead.

That's not right. The first programmable, stored program computer was made in the Manchester just after the war. And hugely influenced by experiences of many people do computing war work. Turing's EDVAC paper pretty much describes a working, modern day computer.

That wouldn't have existed without the huge investment into code break during WW2 IMHO. That's an opinion obviously but at least it doesn't derive from a faulty view of the past.

If you want to keep on that tack have a look and see why the first integrated circuit was invented.

But didn't Turing invent the idea of a universal computing machine before the war; presumably if the war hadn't diverted his talents and those of others in the field the electronic programmable computer might even have been developed earlier?

[gravy]

There was a lot of academic work done on computing before the war.

But I'd say advancement comes from technology rather than science.

They do overlap a lot but at one end of the continuum is a working technology you can widely use and at the other is theory.

War can be a big factor in pushing science in to technology because it can command resources that could never be applied by the private sector in pursuit of profit. In turn that push to technology can often result in a lot more new science.

The manhattan project, the UK cyrptanalysis push and the V weapon programme are all examples of war projects that provided a massive leap forward in technologies that affect our current lives and all spawned big theoretical advances that lead to technology the private sector could pick up, invest in and profit from.

[gumboot]

A lot of stuff, probably basically everything, existed in principle well before it took off in mainstream development; and there's plenty of stuff that's been forgotten because it never did take off.

The ideas existing means very little. What counts is the catalyst that makes them into real and useful stuff. War is definitely number one on that list.

Thankfully we do also have rich men's pissing contests which don't usually involve killing a bunch of people or diverting from funds from caring for poor people.

[gravy]

That's true, but those contests seem to concentrate on refinement and optimisation. Cars and space exploration are going to be benefit hugely from the money of fragile egoed man children but they rely less on innovation than some of the major advances taken through some form of global conflict.

All IMHO of course

[venusian]

Also from WWs I and II the post-war social consensus emerged. This enabled a far broader range of people to go into higher education and then into STEM fields, driving progress in the late 60s through to now.

Is being undone by repeated waves of peaceful ideology: Thatcher, austerity and now brexit. Another WW is probably not the answer though.

[Darkflame]

That's true, but those contests seem to concentrate on refinement and optimisation. Cars and space exploration are going to be benefit hugely from the money of fragile egoed man children but they rely less on innovation than some of the major advances taken through some form of global conflict.

Space Ex, sure, but I am not sure electric cars can be that tied to war.
Unless you count looking for alternative for oil dependency and how that ties to international conflicts but that's hardly "from war" - in fact, its probably far more significantly from battery development driven by mobile phones.

Some solar panel work does benefit from US Army research meanwhile, but again, its more or less just because its a big pot of money that anyone can dip their hands into it if they can tie it to war usage. (or, today, "anti-terrorism" will probably give you money)

[gravy]

I'm not tieing electric cars to the war.

I'm agreeing with Gumboots point that ego driven vanity projects can also command considerable resources.

But also saying that both commercialised space travel and electric cars are refinements on existing tech with a visible profit source rather than pure science turned into something practicable.

[gravy]

Also from WWs I and II the post-war social consensus emerged. This enabled a far broader range of people to go into higher education and then into STEM fields, driving progress in the late 60s through to now.

That's kind of full circle on the discussion, we started with war being a kicker for social change, specifically female emancipation.

I think it's a fair point.

[KlaxonCow]

I find it odd that Elon Musk would be called a "fragile-egoed man child" as he aims for technological progress, yet the fragile-egoed man-children of politicians, dictators and terrorists starting wars that kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people because of their own personal insecurities goes without comment and are even being implicitly praised for spurring tech?

By the way, I'm not saying that he isn't a fragile-egoed man child open to criticism of his motives. But, let's be frank, who isn't? And of the vast array of motives that ought to be questioned and criticised, his is surely way down on the priority list in comparison to, say, all the death and destruction that Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussein wrought on the world with their respective fragile egos and insecurities.

Saddam lived in a golden palace, for pity's sake. Can you say "over-compensation"? I thought you could.

Bush had familial scores to settle and what the fuck was going on psychologically with Blair's "I'll be with you always and forever, my love" promises to Bush is a psychiatrist's wet dream.

I'm very much of the opinion that we dig a big pit, throw all the world leaders into it and then throw in some knives. Let them sort it out amongst themselves, leaving the rest of the planet to get on with things.

Look, it's a mythology. You're never going to get this magical perfect human being who does all these great things for unquestionably selfless reasons. That's just not how human beings nor reality functions. Yes, there'll always be some ego there. Or that they're compensating for a lack of love from their mother. Or are getting abstract revenge on the school bullies by showing them who's now mega-successful. Or whatever. There's no such thing as an unquestionable selfless motive.

Of course there's some fucked up psychological thing going on somewhere. That's the human condition. That's all of us. Every last one.

But I'm of the pragmatic "realpolitik" opinion that if someone's fucked up psychological problem is making them do good things for the planet and human progress, just leave it be.

Because there's vastly, vastly more people out there with their fucked up psychological problems - "I'm a multi-billionaire with more money than can possibly be spent in three lifetimes. But, nonetheless, I must have more money. More money! Money! More money! I will destroy this small company and asset strip it, I will fuck over all these poor people who can't fight back, I will dodge taxes that represent less than a drop in the ocean compared to my vast wealth. I must have more money! My self-worth is entirely contingent on the number of zeros in my bank account!" - causing irreparable damage to the planet and society.

Priorities. Leave the man child who's actually incidentally doing some good alone, as there's a vast legion of arseholes wrecking things with their "daddy issues" out there who need the criticism far more urgently.


(I'm reminded of a video I saw on YouTube - unfortunately, I can't find it now - where a guy wants to criticise George Lucas for how he fucked up Star Wars. But he repeatedly keeps stopping himself, because Lucas did give the $4 billion he made selling off Lucasfilm to charity. It's an amusing illustration of my point, as he keeps wanting to go into a rage at Lucas for the prequels but then a "Lucas gave $4 billion to charity" text appears on the screen and makes him calm down again. Which happens repeatedly in the video for comic effect. Priorities. It's not that Lucas didn't fuck up the prequels but, in the grand scheme of things, $4 billion to charity and now in the hands of Disney who seem to be reviving it all properly. Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be. Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.)

[gravy]

I find it odd that Elon Musk would be called a "fragile-egoed man child" as he aims for technological progress, yet the fragile-egoed man-children of politicians, dictators and terrorists starting wars that kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people because of their own personal insecurities goes without comment and are even being implicitly praised for spurring tech?

They're not mutually exclusive.

And no argument is being made for war being a good thing. It's just a thing. Same that I'm not arguing fragile egoed man children are a bad they thing. They're just things as well.

I'm making the point that global conflict has lead to huge advances and that the instigation of wars is often a shitload of irrationality.

Denying that seems reactionary to me.

IMHO rational thought is great at rationalising things but it's weaker at instigating situations that need rationalising.

I really believe you can't think society better and being in a comfort zone is a double edged sword.

I'm very much of the opinion that we dig a big pit, throw all the world leaders into it and then throw in some knives. Let them sort it out amongst themselves, leaving the rest of the planet to get on with things.

Well yeah. That's what I'm reacting at I suppose. We've hit on system where occasionally the whole world gets thrown in that pit and we have no option but to clever our way out of it and in turn it's been driver for big, positive changes.

I don't like the the : this group good, this group bad simplification when the truth is we live in an interconnected system that it's very hard to isolate and remove one part of it without changing that system.

I really don't like YAY SCIENTISTS! BOO RELIGION! BOO POLITICIANS! not because I like / dislike any of that because they're all components of the engine that's got us where we are.

[gravy]

Of course there's some fucked up psychological thing going on somewhere. That's the human condition. That's all of us. Every last one.

But I'm of the pragmatic "realpolitik" opinion that if someone's fucked up psychological problem is making them do good things for the planet and human progress, just leave it be.

Well I agree with that, more saying is it an essential part of progress? I don't know but it is worth asking.

And if it is, the does it warrant being called 'fucked up'?

And worse should it be encouraged