| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Mental Priority of projects |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 58
|
|
| Author |
|
|
watzkej
Cruncher Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Post Count: 12 Status: Offline |
I think we could get a lot more done if we stopped spending money on wars and used that money to buy a thousand Blue Genies for the scientists. Think of all the money that Bush spent in Iraq and figure how many Blue Genies that would have bought. Or how many programmers could have been hired to fix the deficiencies in BOINC, Rosetta, HPF2, etc. Think also of all the dollars spent on oil that is/was way overpriced just because of wars. You see, it's not really the alien hunters that are slowing down FAAH it's people like president Bush. Do you want to know the real irony of you anti-Bush post here? Many of the technologies that you enjoy today were born from war-time technology. Before going on a rant about the President and a war, you should get your facts straight on what to rant about. Do you know why many technologies come from war? Because research costs money and a lot of money at that. In war-time, no expense is spared to research that which can give you an advantage over your enemy. Things such as radar, sonar, and EVEN the transistor (although invented in 1947) benefited from the research done during WWII. Here are some other things that you can thank WWII for: jet engines, plastics and synthetic rubber, canned food, jeeps, and even computers. The current war is blooming new medical technologies that saves lives on the battlefield and will help save lives with new emergency medicine technologies such as patches that help stop bleeding. Once proven in the battlefield, these technologies will move over to saving lives in your nearby hospital. So, back off the War rants. It isn't a part of this forum especially when the facts are all wrong. Without WWII which is one of the worst wars of all time, you wouldn't even be here posting on this forum. Let's keep the discussion about the AIDS project and World Community Grid. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It's a common misconception. Even if it were true, it's no excuse for going to war - the other negative effects of war are far-reaching and hard to quantify.
But it's not true. War has little to no effect on the overall advancement of technology. The outbreak of war is generally thought to shift the fields in which research is conducted. As a result, military conflict has historically been credited with being the catalyst which has caused decisive technological advances. It is also generally suggested that warfare has a systematic impact on the intensity of inventive activity. Most scholars have claimed that wars increase inventiveness, although a few argue that conflict is a hinderance to research. This question has not received extensive empirical examination. Using United States data, we show that a basic pattern is repeatedly observed. Immediately after the outbreak of a war, there is a significant decline in inventiveness, which is followed by a marked surge. The average net result is a virtual negation of the two trends. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I would have to disagree that war doesn't technically advance our civilization. The Iraq war alone is causing many advancements and creating many high paying jobs for private corporations and government jobs.
Here in Albuquerque, New Mexico they have Kirtland Afb, Sandia Labs, Los Alamos(isn't far) among many other corporations feeding off their existance and making big money. The war machine is big business here. They are trying to develope nuclear fusion at Sandia labs on Kirtland Afb right here in Albuquerque,NM. It is called the "Z-machine" and can be found on their website or a google search. Sustainable nuclear fusion would be a revolutionary advancement in our technology. Private companies have now developed full chest body armor to stop multiple hits from an AK-47(7.62 cal) which was considered impossible without heavy, rigid, bulky ceramic plates(level III) before this war. I was in the USAF for 6 years and all we had overseas was flakvests from 1981 that would be lucky to stop a handgun round much less a long gun. The body armor they are using now is called "dragon skin" by Pinnacle Armor. The are making ground and airborne lasers on base to destroy ICBM's and other threats which come from the sky. They are making more intelligent designed war robots among countless other projects. War might not seem morally right yet it is our nature and our evolution. One day our weapons and defense technologies might even be tested against another civilization around a star for a precious little blue planet(G.E.M) with water. I don't like war personally yet I believe an overall good can come from it. Become educated and watch the history, discovery and science channels. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I forgot to attribute my quote, sorry. It's from "The impact of warfare on the rate of invention: A time series analysis of United States patent activity". Where's your source?
And what does controlled fusion have to do with war? Any really useful advances are expected to come from ITER. The Z-machine doesn't involve a sustained fusion reaction. I think you are actually referring to inertial confinement fusion - the Z IFE project. All the other technologies you mention seem to me to have no use outside the context of violence. Some way of progressing humanity! If all the money directed into weapons research went to basic science research, then we could have achieved amazing things. I believe projects like CERN, ITER and so on demonstrate that the science estiblishment is capable of great things if they get the funding they need. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello rbolo29,
The best book about progress due to war that I have ever read came out several decades ago. It was written by the former president of (? TRW or Bendix?). For more than a decade, because of the Depression, engineers and scientists could not find jobs in their field except maybe for teaching in high school. There was very little money available for any research and development. Then the war came, money became available and a great deal was accomplished. But it was not the war that caused progress. It was the end of the Depression putting a vast number of technically trained people to work. War involves directed (targeted) research and development, which is inherently inefficient. This sort of industrial policy is very wasteful, because the decisions are made by people who know very little about the possibilities and problems in any particular line of research. Instead, they know what is needed, which is very different from what is possible. Progress is fastest if money goes where results are possible, even if these results are not what is most desired. After WW II, some people started saying that war was good for progress or economic development. But they are wrong. It is just a fallacious argument that they drew using the 'Post hoc, ergo propter hoc' argument. Lawrence |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Modern cellular phones use Frequency Hopping and digital spread spectrum. This was technology originally used in military and proven in military applications.
I believe side benefits or "spin offs" eventually come from technologies the military developed. The United is willing to spend anything on war related purposes if it furthers that mission goal. Without war there would be alot less well paid jobs and no need to spend big money on projects like building megawatt lasers. Maybe, the megawatt or gigawatt lasers can be transitioned and used in mining or some other useful civilian application? Maybe, these same lasers will be need to start hydrogen fusion reactions for sustain nuclear fusion? The military developed Global Positioning Satelites(GPS) which is now a world wide valuable tool used everywhere and everday. Geologists can now track movements in the Earth down to the cm scale as a result of refinements. GPS is located in nearly most new cellular phones making 911 calls trackable. Airlines also use it. Hikers can carry a Garmin GPS like mine and know their position within 8 to 15 feet on a color map of the area. The advancement in body armor technologies might someday be useful in space craft design to protect against high speed projectiles in space. Maybe, this technology can even be used on airlines in an age of terror? The military is spending money or war bots which have are proving effective at saving lifes through disarming bombs, blowing up bombs and finding them. They are also developing version to drag men off the battlefield and even patrol streets and instantly firing a rocket into a building where AK-47 gunshots come. Technologies developed from these robots might one day advanced ideas for robots in hospitals, space, other planets or search and rescue operations. Striking fear in the enemy alone can save lives and prevent wars. The military was one of the first to become interested in spy satelites and relay satelites and now we have high resolution landsat and google Earth as a result plus much more. If the military didn't fund things then who would? Nobody else is big or bad enough to fund major projects with an uncertain outcome. The government is notorious for miss spending and mismanaging money especially relating to war purposes. There is no doubt about it. The has fiscal years and they are required to spend 'x' amount of dollars this year before the next. If they don't spend it then they get less next year. Holloman Afb, NM would come up with ways to spend that money to justify needs for it. Sometimes it would be things like changing colors of the rocks or landscaping. It may seem like a waste yet it employes people in a small town with little to no future without the Air Force Base. If nothing else then alot of people depend on war and military related purposes to make the big money or to live a quality life. Maybe, contractors even depend on money from military bases to provide for their families. I knew alot of people in the military who would have had no real future if they didn't join or if they left the military. Thousands of younger people look to the military for hope in an economy with not enough good jobs. Joining the military is now a way to pay for an expensive college eduation. Private corporations are more efficient in the long run. The basic research and development is still very expensive and needs to start somewhere. I haven't read no books on this stuff. It is only real world experiences I've seen. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm reminded of a song...
Let me put this as simply as I can: some inventions are the result of war research. Your assumption (and the fallacy) is thinking that these inventions can only come about through war research. Real world experience isn't a good indicator, I'm afraid - it's hard to see the bigger picture from down on the ground. |
||
|
|
Gollumer
Senior Cruncher Joined: Mar 23, 2006 Post Count: 194 Status: Offline |
All the other technologies you mention seem to me to have no use outside the context of violence. Some way of progressing humanity! I would argue that many of these technologies that came out of war have had a great impact on benefiting humanity: The submarine The snorkel Repeating rifles Scopes for rifles Steel Ships Hospital ships Anesthesia for wounded/First Aid theory Camouflage Jet Powered Aircraft Modern Crypography Aircraft Carriers Silly Putty Spam (YUM!) M&M's RADAR Microwave Oven Computers Hang Gliders Integrated Circuts Communication Sattellites Space Program ARPANET Smoke Detector Supercomputer GPS |
||
|
|
watzkej
Cruncher Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Post Count: 12 Status: Offline |
Let me put this as simply as I can: some inventions are the result of war research. Your assumption (and the fallacy) is thinking that these inventions can only come about through war research. No one is saying that any war-time invention would never have come into existence if it wasn't for that war. What is true is that many things wouldn't have come into existence when they did and some may not even be here today without the fat cash that came from the funding provided for war. After all, 50 years ago who the heck would care to have a handheld device that you could see exactly where you were on the planet especially since it would have cost $10,000 coming from a private corporation. I can assure you that the military thought it was a darn good idea to spend cash on. Please understand that I don't think war is good. I'm simply saying you can't say war is causing the downfall of research as I was pointing out in my first post. To relate this to research of diseases, I recently got a letter from the CF Foundation. In that letter they said that not a lot of effort is put behind finding a cure for CF simply because it won't make someone super rich which is why they need help funding from private donations. I certainly don't see a CF distributed project although protein folding might help but a direct CF project would be nice. However, Small Pox is of interest to the US military.... and wouldn't you know... it was one of our first projects. Got the cash? It can be done. CF would be solved quickly if an enemy had a weapon that could give CF to soldiers. I can promise you won't see some kind hearted corporation just give away the millions and millions it will take to research the cure for CF so the money will have to come somewhere. Thus it will come slowly from private donations. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Interesting thread
|
||
|
|
|