1) Sure it wastes. Doesn't mean that technology doesn't get better.
That's exactly what it means. Again, broken window fallacy. You see the tech that appeared, but not all the tech that would have otherwise appeared.
Profitability is not the only earmark to go by.
Which is why I'm going by cost-effectiveness. Take all the tech the war drove, then buy it for a reasonable price instead, by sacrificing speed and/or military applications. Spend the extra money on more tech. It is logically impossible for war tech to avoid being wasteful.
If there is a civilian use for the tech, it will be found and used, notwithstanding patent insanities and other government misadventures.
War effects everything, for better or worse. Its just what you choose to look at.
Alright. Here I'll address the idea that certain people find war profitable; indeed, I don't dispute that. It's done because they're allowed to externalize costs - no business, for example, cares whether war is popular, because they're not directly affected. Ditto war deaths.
Similarly, when the politicians involved can dodge the popularity issue, they have no dog in the fight at all. A win is a win and a loss is just an opportunity to train spin doctors.
Which is why I talk about war vis a vis societies, not individuals or special interests. The society as a whole always suffers.
Wars do not improve the societies involved.
2) Business driven tech? Replace Business with Profit and you can put it in better context.
This is dodging my question. Did I phrase it wrong? You said:
Modern day, yes, business develop tech, but most only use it if its profitable.
So when, exactly, did 'modern day' start? As many specifics as possible will be appreciated.
It starts with an idea, action and most likely some money to get it going.
An example of Profit-driven tech would be medicines. A lot of money is put into R&D. The main goal behind a profit-driven pharmaceutical is not to make a cure, but to make a product that alleviates symptoms temporarily, sustainable sales essentially.
They essentially have no incentive to research and produce cures unless they can patent it and sell it at exorbitant prices. They do it now. And whats worse is that they can lobby to extend these patents, which is also a reality.
If the government completely fucks up the patent system, it's not Big Pharma's fault for taking advantage of it. An incentive system set up by the mad hatter is not going to work so hot. I could say lots more but I don't want to get too far off track.
Good for humanity and profit do not go hand-in-hand all the time.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, as this is not something I asserted.
If a biological war broke out. The Gov't would break patents and would increase availability of cures(if available) to combat whatever disease/virus gets thrown around in a bio-war. If Avian Influenza/Swine Flu/Cancer were being spread around like that, you can bet the Gov't would fund whatever they can toward fixing it, damn profit and patents.
I also don't recall ever saying that wars and similar emergencies should not be fought. Only that they should be avoided if possible, because it's wasteful.
Can you point me to where you got the impression that I did? I would like to learn not to give these mis-impressions in the future.
You can also google world war 2 medical advances to see what medicinal technology were further developed to what we have today because of WW2...
You can also google 'broken window fallacy.' You see what we got due to WWII funding. You don't see how much further we'd be if WWII had never occurred.
Just the number of potential medical researchers who died, alone, would probably have advanced medicine by an entire generation or so, let alone the funding they might have had if it wasn't necessary to spend the wealth on destruction and reconstruction.
I also don't see the sense not to use certain research...
Huh? That's awfully vague. Care to clarify?
In short, profit-driven is not necessarily the best. Its not a gold standard to go by.
This is not something I asserted.
Need-driven is what gets things done and there tends to be many needs in war.
How are the needs of say, the sick, actually promoted by the needs of war?
You have to whip up a firestorm of nationalism, propaganda, fear and/or hate... add a dash of supposedly valid reason and then you get into stuff like Afghanistan and Iraq... among other things...
Does not this huge orgy of effort go on the liability side of the balance sheet?
Its short term affects are fucking awful, and for some sides irreversible.
What kind of short term effects are you thinking of here?
And there is a lot of it though. Most of it between warring factions, and inside countries themselves. They're mostly in Africa and South America.
So you're saying that, by whatever arbitrary definition of 'a lot' we're using, there's a lot of war in the poorest countries in the world?
If indeed war is profitable, shouldn't they be getting richer, at a fairly quick rate? Let's use China as a benchmark for getting richer peacefully. By leveraging the tech advances of the West, China is able to catch up at roughly 12-15% per year. (Obviously the Gov stats of 20% are self-serving and overblown. I've fudged them back down.) If indeed war is profitable, why aren't those countries getting richer even faster?
Author
Topic: Sure, let's spy on our own ally! No way that'd ever backfire! (Read 3058 times)