Never mind the irony, just discuss...

[Snee]

Arguably the space programme has made as many advances as the needs in war.

Arguably the space programme would not exist if it were not for war technology

You are the one who who was talking about need versus desire.

If it hadn't been for wars keeping the population down, there had been more of us, and if there had been more of us, there had been a bigger need for more space, and since there's only so much space to go around here, the only way is off this planet.

Therefore one could argue that without wars to keep the population down, we'd had another kind of space-program: One with the purpose of colonization rather than exploration/being there before the enemy is so we can show how great we are.



That goes for a lot of what we've gained through "war", ie that we might well have something better if there hadn't been a war in the way, and we still need a lot of things we don't have. Including cures for cancer and all manner of diseases.

If it hadn't been for wars we might well have had the resources to fix our problems. As it is wars are allowed to take priority over letting people live longer and better lives. And people put up with a lot just because there's a war on.

Desire and need is much the same thing anyway, if the desire is allowed to grow strong enough.

[vidcc]

Arguably the space programme would not exist if it were not for war technology

You are the one who who was talking about need versus desire.

.

The need versus desire comment is about the speed of development, "motivation", war tends to speed things up through "need right now" rather than "this could make life better".

My point about the space programme is because it couldn't exist without the tech gained through the needs of war, in this case the "rocket science" of delivering missiles with the object of destruction. I raised by reality and not a "what if" scenario

[Snee]

A lot of people need a cure for cancer right now, and a lot of people really need somewhere to live

[vidcc]

A lot of people need a cure for cancer right now, and a lot of people really need somewhere to live

And your point is?

war will not speed up some developements and peace will not slow down others.

[Snee]

A lot of people need a cure for cancer right now, and a lot of people really need somewhere to live

And your point is?

When it comes to priorities and budget, the army gets much more than research towards the cure of any disease, for instance.

So if there had been no wars, then more money would have put into that research. Seeing as how we haven't been without wars, there's no way someone can say that things are better becuse of the war, or that a certain branch of science, or an invention wouldn't have existed, excluding weaponry of course.

For all I know, as the priorities had been different had there not been wars, all those good things that came out of a war might have been there anyway, as the percieved need for them hadn't been blocked out by the needs of the war.

This thing about "need right now" when it comes to wars is flawed, as there will always be needs, it's the priorities that change.

[Busyman]

And your point is?

When it comes to priorities and budget, the army gets much more than research towards the cure of any disease, for instance.

So if there had been no wars, then more money would have put into that research.

Oh man and if I had more toilet tissue that time, then wouldn't have had to use my shirt.

There will always be war. Without war there would just be invasions with no resistance (a la France).

[Snee]

When it comes to priorities and budget, the army gets much more than research towards the cure of any disease, for instance.

So if there had been no wars, then more money would have put into that research.

Oh man and if I had more toilet tissue that time, then wouldn't have had to use my shirt.

There will always be war. Without war there would just be invasions with no resistance (a la France).

Are you trying to compare toilet-paper with the cure for a deadly disease?

And have you never opened a history book?

[Busyman]

Oh man and if I had more toilet tissue that time, then wouldn't have had to use my shirt.

There will always be war. Without war there would just be invasions with no resistance (a la France).

Are you trying to compare toilet-paper with the cure for a deadly disease?

And have you never opened a history book?

Of course and I was being facetious.

War spurs an immediate threat to one's very life and the life of their family. This sense of urgency is what spurs the technological advances.

If their was an actual plague that affected almost everyone then this sense of urgency would evident as well.

Notice that rich folk tend to give money to a particular disease charity especially when they have a loved one dying or has died from said disease.

[vidcc]

Snny.

as I said I made the point on "what happened" and not a "what if" with space developments.
The "need right now" isn't flawed because it is based on what actually happened in history. Some developments took off at the speed of light because of the urgent need.....perhaps it was a case of "give a man a day to do a job and it will take all day, tell him he can go home when he is done and it will take half a day". It is perhaps fortunate that we can benefit from the initial research by adapting it for peace time uses.

Of course it is possible that more money may be put into medical research if war didn't exist but then it is possible that it wouldn't. A lot depends on political beliefs. Look at the USA compared to the UK with healthcare. The USA tends to think it's better to have private health insurance where we are all responsible for ourselves... affordability is a low priority.. and drug research should mainly be the responsibility of private companies driven by profit.
The UK believes that the "common good" is the best approach where everyone is covered by a social fund.

The point being that human nature may not divert the funds saved by no wars to the common good..


there are so many variables in a "what if" subject.... where would we be with medical research if we had no religion?

[Tikibonbon]

Look at the USA compared to the UK with healthcare. The USA tends to think it's better to have private health insurance where we are all responsible for ourselves...

Yup, I like being able to chose my own doctor. I also like being able to switch doctors if I feel my doctor isn't doing his darnedest to keep me at my best.

I also like not have to be put on a waiting list for the simplest things.

If I wanted the "common good" thing, I could just pretend I am in the UK and go to the free clinic like all the junkies, drunks, and women who can not keep their legs closed to prevent children from falling out.