Competing with Russia

[Stumpfoot]

Where do you think we would be technologically speaking if we had not been competing with the soviets during the cold war (i.e. defense, space race) would we have the tech we have now?

[Phidippides]

No we would not have the technology we have now.  Warfare seems to be one of the greatest stimulants for technological advancement (needless to say, the same does not hold true for diplomatic advancement).  In another thread we discussed the way European technology seemed to quickly surpass that of other ancient civilizations over the course of thousands of years.  One of the things I think this was due to was the frequency at which Europeans were engaged in war or preparing to defend themselves against invaders.  Because of necessity - their very survival was at stake - civilizations adopted new practices in metallurgy, weaponry, transportation and more.  Of course, these sometimes had practical applications in non-military ways as well.  As one technology benefits another, advancement begins to take hold.

The same is true for the U.S. during the Cold War.  Without it, it's likely that we would not have as many technological advancements as we do now.

[DonaldBaker]

Economic competition breeds more technological advancements over a longer period of time.  War stimulates advancements for war purposes primarily which are not transfered to the civilian sector until many years later.  Vietnam introduced the use of mobile phones on the battlefield.  Those phones were the prototypes of our cellular phone technology in the next decade.  The transference of technology via economic competition is prioritized because the quicker it is introduced to the public, the quicker the return on the investments made in development are returned.  In the military sector, the technology is withheld to maintain technological superiority over the enemy's technical abilities.  Cost is not a concern in this case.  I guess an argument can go either way.

[Phidippides]

Donnie, interesting post.  I'm going to have to disagree with you, though, in that military efforts do bring about more technological advancements.  When motivated, the government has far greater means and resources to accomplish its goals than even the private sector has.  Businesses need to ensure a cost-effective design; they need to make sure profit is attainable; they need to offer high enough compensation to their employees.  The government doesn't have these obstacles. 

Think about the development of the atomic bomb.  One of the hugest technological advancements ever, and I think this could have been done at that point in time only with governmental resources.  Think about Rome's sytem of roads throughout the Empire.  Think about shipbuilding in England, metallurgy throughout the Bronze Age and beyond.  Think about gunpowder. 

Once this technology has left the confines of the government, I think that the private sector is able to run with it and make advancements on their own.  However, I think this might be more true nowadays than it was in the past; I don't think that R&D would have been such a priority for, say private sector Medieval Europe. 

I am a big fan of private enterprise and I think it can do wonders.  However, I guess what I'm trying to say is that governments can justify technology at any price when they're facing potential destruction, so they should be able to come up with greater advancements. 

[Stumpfoot]

I agree with Phid, It is amazing how fast tech grows before, during and after a war. Even the Civil War is a good example. Government resources are vastly superior then the private sector, and they can get away with more.

[Phidippides]

Looking back on my post, though, I see Donnie said "over a longer period of time".  So yes, economic competition does bring about more advances for the duration,  but perhaps this is only because wars don't usually last for that long comparitively speaking.  Advancements during times of strife are quick and significant, but economics drives steady advances plentifully in times of peace.

[Stumpfoot]

  but perhaps this is only because wars don't usually last for that long comparitively speaking.  

It doesnt seem we go too long in between wars either.