It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit.
We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.
My cattle dog will be begging for food and giving me all the looks that she's hungry, but if I put a bowl of food down and then grabbed a ball she wouldn't give the bowl a second glance. I can't even give her a treat for bringing the ball back and dropping it, she's too focused on the ball. As soon as I put the ball away, she'll do anything I want for the treat. I think she considers the ball her job and it overrides anything else.
I think the most likely case is that electricity prices go down but demand goes up as devices more eagerly use power so you end up with an electricity bill that stays consistent.
It would be nice if the research could be just for the general public good instead of having to have an explicit use for the military to get the money.
Imagine how much better it would’ve been if not for the military involvement. Imagine how many things developed purely to enhance the efficiency of destroying other humans could have been developed instead to enhance and improve lives instead. So many trillions wasted on imaginary borders and in service of imaginary friends over the last… ever.
How do you explain scientific advancement in less armed nations? Some of the most advanced research in the world happens in states with incredibly small forces.
Perhaps you've confused the economic advantage of a militaristic state with a connection between military science and progress.
For example, the space program basically died when the Cold War ended and it took a long time for it to restart and we still have yet to achieve things in the commercial space that the government could do in the 60s like reach our nearest satellite. Same goes for the cancellation of the SSC which could have achieved what the LHC discovered but 10 years earlier. Saying that other states are making discoveries is ignoring the fact that it takes them longer to achieve those goals than with the military or other emergency situation propelling them forward.
Certainly all of the rapid progress of the 20th century was because of military funding. The Cold War made it quite clear how when you drastically changed priorities how quickly various programs started getting canceled and our achievements started falling away (eg beating Soviets to space killed any desire of either party to continue, the Cold War ending killed the SSC, etc). You have WW2 to thank for nuclear technology, lasers, rapid advancements in aircraft, modern cryptography and directly leading to the space race. Even QM takes on military funding to take it from niche curiosity to applied research and real world impact. It’s all indelibly linked.
I’m not sure why you’re having such a reaction to a pretty mundane observation that military funding on technology gets further and faster than the civilians can. Heck go look at how far military is in the math behind cryptography consistently comparing discoveries civilians make and when we learn the military had that tech once it’s declassified decades later.
> I’m not sure why you’re having such a reaction to a pretty mundane observation that military funding on technology gets further and faster than the civilians can
Because it is just plain wrong. And it glorifies military spending and war. Just because the military complex has so much money that their spare change dwarfs many other sources of research funding doesn't mean it is money that couldn't have been used much more efficiently if it was spent wisely from the start.
And about the plain wrong part:
> You have WW2 to thank for nuclear technology,
The fundamental research was done before the war by the international scientific community, and in particular people from Germany and Italy. The hard part done during the Manhattan project was to develop the industrial processes to produce enough fissile material to make the bombs, but making the bombs from that was fairly trivial.
> lasers
Were first created in 1961.
> the space race.
It has been argued that the reason we stopped going to the moon and beyond is that the rush during the Cold War made it too expensive to continue. A more paced development would have been sustainable and would have gone much further.
> Even QM takes on military funding to take it from niche curiosity to applied research and real world impact.
Why do you think so?
In the end, imagine a world where even a fraction of all the money spent on military was spent on research directly instead.
> Because it is just plain wrong. And it glorifies military spending and war. Just because the military complex has so much money that their spare change dwarfs many other sources of research funding doesn't mean it is money that couldn't have been used much more efficiently if it was spent wisely from the start.
And yet time and time again, funding follows the military. I don't disagree it's an economics problem. I'm just highlighting that historically large groups of people generally aren't fans of "lets spend money on science" but are more OK with it being laundered through the military under the guise of defense. I'm passing no moral judgement nor glorifying. I'm simply representing how people as groups have behaved historically. It's irrelevant where/when the fundamental research was done. Applied science is a critical component in the flywheel for research as it enables new instruments, equipment, and more understanding of the problems with theoretical research when models and reality disagree. Modern fundamental research in astrophysics today would not be possible without the applied research that was carried on the backs of military spending (this includes lasers, various secret algorithms that were eventually declassified, etc).
> Were first created in 1961.
Early research into lasers was primarily academic and civilian, but once demonstrated the military poured a lot of money into them during the Cold War which advanced materials sciences that was required for making better & better lasers.
> the rush during the Cold War made it too expensive to continue
It was always too expensive to continue. The only reason the space program was ever funded was for military purposes. It was completely borne out of V2 rocket research the Nazi's started & the US just kept funding the same Nazi scientists to keep working in the US after the war as a counter to the USSR. And even today's space race was made possible due to privately acquired artifacts piggy backing on the corpse of the civilian run / military funded space program. No military investment and I think you more likely end up with NO space program whatsoever.
> Why do you think so?
The Manhattan project had many of the founders of QM on the payroll and QM was completely essential for the atomic bomb to work. Radar development required R&D into QM. QM magnetometers are being funded by the Navy today & there's all sorts of exotic QM applications the military is funding that we're not privy to I'm sure.
> In the end, imagine a world where even a fraction of all the money spent on military was spent on research directly instead.
You're imagining a counterfactual that has no example of it necessarily existing. Indeed, we see a consistent push to cut everything but the military from one US political party while the other side funds the military and tries to fund other things as well. Prior to the 20th century, scientific research was in academia and some private funding of commercial applications. The pace of innovation though is incomparable. So the question is probably closer to "do you want huge amounts of R&D tied to military spending" or "slower rate of progress". Whatever criticisms and failures you level against the US and its military (and there are many), I'm of the opinion that on net it still yielded a positive change to the world order during the 20th century.
Well we're getting into political territory, but recently that "subsidized" seems to have swiftly changed to "threatened", so, I don't know. What you say used to be true in the past, but it's not so clear anymore.
Also: only country that ever invoked article 5 was actually the US. In that sense the opposite is true ("lots of countries have subsidized US defense"). The US "subsidy" came from the strong conviction that "US would act if we needed it", but that conviction is quickly evaporating.
On the other hand the US is running a large deficit and has a large debt - >120% of GDP - so that spend is in part other people's money.
With the foreign countries holding the most US debt being Japan, China, UK, Luxembourg and Canada.
I would also point out that you could view US bases in places like Japan or Chagos Islands as 'subsidising' local defence or it could be viewed as simple occupation.
The United States is certainly providing far more value than they’re receiving back, especially given many partners in NATO aren’t even meeting their relatively paltry obligations to defense spending.
There’s of course some benefit here but it’s largely intangible. It extends the United States’ sphere of influence and diminishes Russia’s.
I’m not saying it’s altruistic because we’re definitely acting in our own self interest and there is perceived benefit to doing these things but the consequence is still that we are spending more money on defense than we need to and other countries get to spend far less than they should be.
Yeah, let's go back to heavily armed European countries at each other's necks every couple decades... The US benefits immensely from having a stable and not terribly militaristic trading bloc.
Depends on if the computer programs might respond in an interesting way or if my comment might help them respond in an interesting way in the future. Same as when interacting with humans, I guess.
The biggest cause of regime change seems to be the succession of power and the fears around change occurring during succession of power. A ruler dying through old age is a common source of regime change in history as people with varying interests start vying for that position and ensuring the new ruler holds their same interests.
I mean, I gave you multiple examples of some of the most powerful people that ever lived, none of which fall into this category you call the 'norm'. You just completely ignored that and continued with your baseless fantasy.
Upon his death, Genghis Khan was succeeded by his son. Mao was succeeded by Hua Guofeng, vice chairman of the CCP. Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
It also seems to remove my ability to contextualize things which means I can't find flaws in my understanding of something as easily. This works for both good/euphoric things, where I feel like I know something (but really I can't find the flaws in my reasoning), and for bad/anxiety things, where I can feel really bad and spiral on something because I get focused on one particularly bad aspect and can't see the full picture.
I feel like this is why drugs can sometimes help with creative things, especially if you're familiar with the drug, as long as you can harness this decontextualization to put more of your focus on one thing, kind of like clearing your mind. However, its usually fruitless/harmful in anything requiring complex reasoning/judgement because it is reducing your ability to see the big picture.
I don’t think it’s a very valid concern, but LLMs can already do a limited level of reasoning to create information not directly loaded into them. Sometimes that reasoning is even correct! The idea here would be that even if you didn’t load that kind of information into them, at a certain level of advancement, they can determine the necessary plans from other information that has been loaded into them.
