My minimal beliefs

[Viking]

You might want to rephrase the first sentence slightly. Many technological advancements are because of war or the belief that war is coming.

Some involve the very thing we are sitting in front of typing away on. Not saying that its a benefit that outweighs the negative - only that your first sentence is inaccurate.

Does not alter the fact that, if the money was spent on civil science, we could have gotten to this techonolgy at a much earlier point. War is costly.

It is good at driving competetition, but in todays world, the technological development is as fast as ever and war/war preparation is not driving it; money is.

Apparently, society can't do without it, and man can't do without the depth of feeling that comes with war.

Wars came with society and civilization; but that society needs it is as wrong as....look around where you live, Adrian, ask the people one the street, do they want more war? No.

[drone]

A great, but deranged, man once said:

Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is... destroyed... Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life.

Be careful around cherry pits, AdrianII.

[Adrian II]

[..] look around where you live, Adrian, ask the people on the street, do they want more war? No.

History is not a committee, and the validity of my views does not depend on what my neighbours think, or say they think.

Even though most (western) citizens have been firmly conditioned to publicly abhor violence, they are nonetheless fascinated by war, crime, etcetera. Violence is a constant backdrop to our popular culture, not just books, films and comics, but even fashion (the 'victim look', anyone?) and music (gangsta, death metal, but also rock-'n'-roll or country & western can have some very violent themes). People surreptitiously long for what I called the depth of feeling that comes with extreme violence, true drama, true tragedy.

Man is at odds with himself. A famous Chinese curse says: "May all your wishes come true!" That is wisdom; the purest acknowledgment that man is torn between opposing desires, fears and views.

[Kaidonni]

History is not a committee, and the validity of my views does not depend on what my neighbours think, or say they think.

Oh dear, I'm afraid you're going to have to learn to care about what other people think a bit more. Otherwise, I should believe the best way to end over-population is in one foul swoop, massive genocide, and whatever you say does not invalidate that view in anyway. In fact, let's let murderers, Nazis and fanatical Muslims get their way - the validity of their views doesn't depend on what we think, afterall. You aren't a man alone on this world, there are other people to think about too.

I'm gonna leave my contributions to this thread there. Have fun without me. Not too much, though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does not alter the fact that, if the money was spent on civil science, we could have gotten to this techonolgy at a much earlier point. War is costly.

It is good at driving competetition, but in todays world, the technological development is as fast as ever and war/war preparation is not driving it; money is.

You've got one basic disconnect there. Absent the war (hot or cold) the money WOULD NOT BE SPENT on civil science. It would be spent to placate the voters or to further feather the nests of the "haves." Only when the nation/state/group believes their very existence to be threatened do they pony up the money/time/effort to make amazing things happen. AFTER that, many of these developments get used to make money and make our lives better.
The computers we use to publish our arguments for one another exist because we needed to break enemy communication codes and calculate the probable impact points of large shells traveling dozens of miles under changing conditions. We have smaller computers because they HAD to cram one into an Apollo Command Capsule and we HAD to get to the moon so that the Soviets wouldn't put a base there and hold the ultimate in "high ground" (Heilein had some interesting points about what you can do with a rock from the top of a gravity well -- high gound matters).

Wars came with society and civilization; but that society needs it is as wrong as....look around where you live, Adrian, ask the people one the street, do they want more war? No.

Violence/death is a necessary component of existence. The food you consume is usually the result of something's death, or the harvesting of the reproductive components of that plant. Conflict is the antecedent OF society. Without the conflict for resources, without the conflict among other groups of similar beings for resources, what drive for social order beyond the hunter/gatherer level would there have been?

Adrain is NOT saying "war is good, let's go have a bash at the Flemish for a bit of fun." He's asserting that it is an integral component of society itself and that to dismiss it, or assume it can simply be done away with is polyanna thinking at best.

Re-channeled, perhaps. Ritualized to minimize the horrific cost, often done in the past and still done today. Done away with entirely, impossible.

[Fragony]

Violence/death is a necessary component of existence. The food you consume is usually the result of something's death, or the harvesting of the reproductive components of that plant. Conflict is the antecedent OF society. Without the conflict for resources, without the conflict among other groups of similar beings for resources, what drive for social order beyond the hunter/gatherer level would there have been?

Not conflict, necesity. It isn't conflict that makes us plant seeds it's the simple fact that we need food, conflict arises when one party feels it's necesary to conquer other's recources. In the meantime we have probaby been developing new methods to harvest more efficiently, that is progress as well.

[Adrian II]

Good points there, Seamus.

The computers we use to publish our arguments for one another exist because we needed to break enemy communication codes and calculate the probable impact points of large shells traveling dozens of miles under changing conditions.

Indeed, after WWII large computers were developed primarily for military nuclear research and for calculating ballistic missile flightpaths. In fact, that is exactly what Higginbotham was tasked with at Brookhaven National Laboratory at the time when he developed "Tennis for Two"

Adrain is NOT saying "war is good, let's go have a bash at the Flemish for a bit of fun." He's asserting that it is an integral component of society itself and that to dismiss it, or assume it can simply be done away with is polyanna thinking at best.

Have a drink on me sometime. I know that some of my views concide with yours, still it's good to see someone address the main point instead of speculative side-issues.

Re-channeled, perhaps. Ritualized to minimize the horrific cost, often done in the past and still done today. Done away with entirely, impossible.

To a certain extent, people and societies can be taught to control these urges. Too much control is unrealistic and detrimental though.

I compare this to raising children. Contrary to popular belief kids are no innocent angels who are gradually corrupted and sexualised by adult society. Children are born egomaniacs. They are egoistical, vindictive, jealous and lustful. That's okay, those are preservation instincts that have served mankind for ages. Nonetheless, kids need to learn to control them, channel them, suppress or postpone them in their own interest and that of society. Apart from education and quality time and all that, they need to have the crap beaten out of them every now and then, accompanied by a good lecture on how their egoistic urges, if uncontrolled, will make their lives brutal, miserable and lonely. On the other hand, if you beat them into submission and they lose the will to assert themselves, to follow their opinions and inclinations, to covet their neighbours' position, possessions or women etcetera, you will turn them into listless zombies.

[Vladimir]

I'm not surprised as to how many people default to war when conflict is mentioned or fixate on it once the actual word us used.

Remember that war is the ultimate form of conflict and nuclear war, currently, is the penultimate form (sorry, I like using that word because it reminds me of Stewie). Generally there are many conflicts that lead up to war. If war is waged, one or both sides have already faced a string of defeats and start out in the hole. Seamus' goal of ritualized warfare will most likely never come about as the Romans, French, et al have demonstrated the ultimate futility of it. I've made my 3rd decade my strategic thinking one and beg everyone here not to wait so long.

This is a good thread.

[Fragony]

I compare this to raising children. Contrary to popular belief kids are no innocent angels who are gradually corrupted and sexualised by adult society. Children are born egomaniacs. They are egoistical, vindictive, jealous and lustful.

Talk about Houellebecq

edit, ah well, no reason to not repost the deliciously cynical take of Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Bit outdated when it comes to international politics but very easy to apply on any level of society when it comes to conflict.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Have a drink on me sometime. I know that some of my views concide with yours, still it's good to see someone address the main point instead of speculative side-issues.

Glad to, and I'd gladly stand you to a 2nd round. Might have to work on the co-location portion a bit first...

This in incorrect. Only in the past have nations ponied up the money/time/effort. It's a fallacy to assume that society can't advance itself. Adrian is arguing that this won't happen because people love violence, which is also false. People love pretend violence. Even boxing and those shakycam streetfights are pretend to a certain extent, just enough real stuff to make them fun. There's a line you don't want to cross though.

Well, it's a fallacy to state my point in the phrasing I did. It would be more correct to say that:

Historically, a large majority of cultures have not made significant efforts at funding such "civil science" efforts absent the prompting of war or analogous emergency. Barring a broad alteration in human attitude and practice -- of which I currently see no evidence -- I will conclude that this "prompted only by war or dire emergency" approach will continue.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's an interesting discussion, and an intriguing premise. What we don't have of course, is a control experiment.

One can wonder what the world might look like, and how far it may have advanced, if conflict was not a defining characteristic of Mankind to date.

Unless one counts the Harry Lime Thesis, of course.

[Vladimir]

It's an interesting discussion, and an intriguing premise. What we don't have of course, is a control experiment.

One can wonder what the world might look like, and how far it may have advanced, if conflict was not a defining characteristic of Mankind to date.

Unless one counts the Harry Lime Thesis, of course.

It figures that I'd Google something Banquo says and the top hit is a JSTOR article.

[Adrian II]

It figures that I'd Google something Banquo says and the top hit is a JSTOR article.

Google "cuckoo clock".

[Viking]

History is not a committee, and the validity of my views does not depend on what my neighbours think, or say they think.

Yes, because ultimately your neighbours make up society.

Even though most (western) citizens have been firmly conditioned to publicly abhor violence, they are nonetheless fascinated by war, crime, etcetera. Violence is a constant backdrop to our popular culture, not just books, films and comics, but even fashion (the 'victim look', anyone?) and music (gangsta, death metal, but also rock-'n'-roll or country & western can have some very violent themes). People surreptitiously long for what I called the depth of feeling that comes with extreme violence, true drama, true tragedy.

Movies and books always make a strong impression; it is not war-exclusive siutations that make people like to watch/read war movies/books. Furhtermore, violence is not war. It's the stright forward violence that impress, the one where the star's family is not bombed to pieces and his best friends die at the frontline. That is when violence is "sad". People like to watch the movies, but they do not wish that their country was invaded and that they had to save it.

You've got one basic disconnect there. Absent the war (hot or cold) the money WOULD NOT BE SPENT on civil science.

That is hard to tell.

The computers we use to publish our arguments for one another exist because we needed to break enemy communication codes and calculate the probable impact points of large shells traveling dozens of miles under changing conditions. We have smaller computers because they HAD to cram one into an Apollo Command Capsule and we HAD to get to the moon so that the Soviets wouldn't put a base there and hold the ultimate in "high ground" (Heilein had some interesting points about what you can do with a rock from the top of a gravity well -- high gound matters).

The computers we use today are a result of commercial development, scientific computers do not need hardcore graphics cards or a fancy OS.
If the military hadn't invented the computer, commercial forces would.

Violence/death is a necessary component of existence. The food you consume is usually the result of something's death, or the harvesting of the reproductive components of that plant.

Then again, this thread is not arguing against animals well.

Conflict is the antecedent OF society. Without the conflict for resources, without the conflict among other groups of similar beings for resources, what drive for social order beyond the hunter/gatherer level would there have been?

Conflict is not synonymous with with war. As well, the desire and need for better crops could also lead technological development early on.

He's asserting that it is an integral component of society itself and that to dismiss it, or assume it can simply be done away with is polyanna thinking at best.

Which is utterly wrong. Humans have a desire to be the better and the victorious; this points to any sort competition, including the 1 vs 1 on the Xbox 360, and not war in particular.

[Samurai Waki]

War is a veeerrry broad term anyway, from your Corporations who both advertise to the same client-type, Your Countries who attempt to remain on top of the economic and humanitarian scale, and of course your Shoot Outs. However the end result is always marked by strife, and of course somebody is always going to the low-blow (usually the Laborers, Peons, Grunts etc.) And even in countries where your Lifestyle is very good based on the items you have, or what your house is made of, somebody somewhere is actually get hurt (in the short or long term) because of it. Its easy being a Martyr for the Worlds Poor, Starving, Huddled Masses, when you drive around in your Car, have a comfy desk job, call your girlfriend on your cell phone, and Chat it up with friends online.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Its easy being a Martyr for the Worlds Poor, Starving, Huddled Masses, when you drive around in your Car, have a comfy desk job, call your girlfriend on your cell phone, and Chat it up with friends online.

Isn't it impossible by definition

[Big_John]

war can be seen as the corruption of competition, not the epitome thereof. the process consuming itself. not necessarily my views, but i've run into that idea somewhere before.

[Samurai Waki]

Isn't it impossible by definition

Sorry. Meant to be Tongue-in-Cheek.

[Husar]

You can really see it in Africa, they invent new techniques to use modern advanced machetes every day. They also invented children as soldiers and just look how the whole continent prospers!

[drone]

The computers we use today are a result of commercial development, scientific computers do not need hardcore graphics cards or a fancy OS.
If the military hadn't invented the computer, commercial forces would.

The foundations of modern computing were the results of military spending. Without the upfront capital for R&D supplied by the military, it would have never gotten off the ground. 30 years ago, nobody expected so many people to have PCs, the idea was considered absurd.

You are confusing current advancement with the technological leaps needed to get to the commercially viable point.

[Viking]

The foundations of modern computing were the results of military spending.

They are, but did not at all have to.

30 years ago, nobody expected so many people to have PCs, the idea was considered absurd.

And if the military had kept the computers to themselves, it'd still been. However, commercial forces saw the computer's use, and as a consequence we now find them in our homes.

You are confusing current advancement with the technological leaps needed to get to the commercially viable point.

A "leap" is highly relative.

[drone]

And if the military had kept the computers to themselves, it'd still been.

The military didn't, so PCs became part of the aforementioned "peace dividend". Taxpayer dollars well spent.

However, commercial forces saw the computer's use, and as a consequence we now find them in our homes.

Commercial forces saw the computer's use, but did not originally develop them. Sure, market forces have pushed processor and graphics tech, but this is a relatively new phenomenon. From 1946 (ENIAC) to 1977 (Apple][, TRS-80), the home PC was no driving force. Computing foundations in both hardware (transistors, size reduction, storage, etc) and software (OS's, languages, databases, communication protocols) resulted from either R&D or contracts funded by the military. Without these building blocks, computers would not be commercially viable.

[Viking]

The military didn't, so PCs became part of the aforementioned "peace dividend". Taxpayer dollars well spent.

Commercial forces saw the computer's use, but did not originally develop them. Sure, market forces have pushed processor and graphics tech, but this is a relatively new phenomenon. From 1946 (ENIAC) to 1977 (Apple][, TRS-80), the home PC was no driving force. Computing foundations in both hardware (transistors, size reduction, storage, etc) and software (OS's, languages, databases, communication protocols) resulted from either R&D or contracts funded by the military. Without these building blocks, computers would not be commercially viable.

Well, anyhow, the point that I am trying to make is that military is not at all necessary for our modern techonologies. It is like blaming USA for that the nuclear bomb ever was invented, or blaming a caveman way back in time for the invention of weapons.

[Faust|]

,,,