Never mind the irony, just discuss...

**bigboab** · 06-20-2005, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

...the incredible leaps in mechanical, medical, logistical (and other) technologies that have come to pass because of certain imperatives born of war?

I found myself wondering precisely where we would be, developmentally-speaking, if we'd fought no wars?

A large subject, I think.

Being slaves to the Sudanese or some such early rulers.

**Snee** · 06-20-2005, 09:03 PM

There's no way to say.

On the one hand we might not have had the drive to be better than the other side, and that has meant a lot for science. Our aircrafts might not have been what they are today, and nor might our surgery, for instance.

But on the other hand there's no way to say how many geniouses and artists we've lost throughout the ages before they ever got the chance to build an aircraft, paint the next mona lisa or cure the common cold, or something else entirely. And it's also hard to say exactly how bad it has been for our environment.

**bigboab** · 06-20-2005, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by SnnY

There's no way to say.

On the one hand we might not have had the drive to be better than the other side, and that has meant a lot for science. Our aircrafts might not have been what they are today, and nor might our surgery, for instance.

But on the other hand there's no way to say how many geniouses and artists we've lost throughout the ages before they ever got the chance to build an aircraft, paint the next mona lisa or cure the common cold, or something else entirely. And it's also hard to say exactly how bad it has been for our environment.

I agree. Take the First World War as an example. You make vast advances in technology and lose the prime manhood of the UK for example. The advances continue but what effect has the loss of so many young fit men had on the society today. A lot of young men who did not take part in the war had some sort of physical or mental deficiency. One would tend to think, rightly or wrongly, that this would have some long term effect on future generations.

**manker** · 06-20-2005, 09:29 PM

Well obviously, we'd be in the dark ages.

War is built of a desire to procure more and protect what you've already got. The same desire made man want to build cities and countries. In bygone times, fighting wars was the only way to protect what you had or get more -- If man had fought no wars throughout history then it would mean that he didn't have this desire. So yeah, the only possible answer to the question posed in this thread is that we'd be sitting in caves if man had fought no wars.

War is an ugly by-product of the very thing that sets us aside from animals. It used to be unavoidable in the days where man wasn't privee to the knowledge that we have today. We simply didn't know any better. Now we do.

It's easy to put a silver lining spin on war by harking to the technological advances that were made because of extreme pressure to be better than the opposition but by now we've reached a stage where the peace-time quest for knowledge is at an all time high. While progress and innovation may not be able to match the fervent pace of war-time advancement, it's a trade off that I'm more than willing to make.

**Snee** · 06-20-2005, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

True enough, as re: your mentions of artisans and others, however, you might further comment upon consideration of the fact much of the art and invention produced historically was funded/inspired/compelled/commissioned by whatever governing entities desired them.

That's interesting too, some of the inventions were commisioned for the sake of war, the aforementioned aircraft for example.

But many inventions, and artistic expressions, might have benefited if all the money hadn't had to be spent on warfare. In short, there's no way to say, again

I wonder if anyone has ever tried making a mathematical analysis of whether we win or lose in the long run, by having wars.

It'd even be interesting to see such an analysis regarding just one war.

I have a feeling that we lost out on a lot that could have been, during the first and second world war (if there hadn't been a first there might not have been a second) and that what we (and by we I mean the entire human race) gained, when it comes to development, is nowhere near enough to balance it out, but I can't say for sure.

EDit: obviously manker has a very valid point, in that it might have been the only means of pushing us forward in ancient times, much more so than today, but then again it cost resources and lives (of who knows who) back then too

EDitII: The misery and heavy costs of war makes people content just to survive, I think, in times of peace there is more room for people and civilizations to think, and consider what else they'd like, and what they'd want to become. Sorta' like Maslow's hierachy of needs, but on a societal rather than individual scale.

Well that's a notion I've always had anyway.

**vidcc** · 06-20-2005, 09:53 PM

I think war produces "need" which is more motivating than "desire".

The question in my mind is one of advancement for good or bad?....it's a balancing act.

Advances in medical procedures is a good thing. Take burn victims and the and the formation of plastic surgery made by the "guinea pig club", beneficial in civilian life.

Advances in Aviation...good.

But on the flip side there are advances in tools of destruction. The benefits of which are debatable depending on if you are in front or behind the device.

I don't want to go down a narrow lane but to me the defining advancement to come out of war is the atom bomb. No doubt it would have been invented even if WW2 hadn't taken place but is it good or bad.

Some will argue that it ended the war faster and saved more lives than it took and also that they have kept us safe as they are deterrents.... But have they? The saving grace so far is that we have been too scared to use them because we are not the only ones with them.... but with the prospect of a terrorist group getting hold of one in my opinion it was the worst thing man has invented.

So in answer to J2 my view is that war has sped up advancement for both good and bad..... Let's hope the good outweighs the bad

**bigboab** · 06-20-2005, 10:05 PM

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

**Rat Faced** · 06-20-2005, 10:09 PM

þæt Engliscgereorde (-geþiode ?) [would] beon befeallen

ge-sæliglic beon

It works both ways though..

Television won the Battle of Britain, in a strange twisted way.

If this had not already been invented, then the British wouldnt have had the Radar which made all the difference.