Fastest Theoretical Tech Development

[Spacescifi]

 

Some claim that war is a necessary evil because it serves their evolutionary belief system and also advances technology.

 

Fictionally the B5 shadows are famous for this, although there are IRL people who agree with them on some level.

 

I really do not agree with the shadows though, and given their unwillingness to change their minds or destructive methods, I think the B5 universe would be better off if someone put them down permanently, since they are essentially like rabid dogs who won't stop attacking people. Though in canon they just leave the galaxy.

As a counterpoint to the shadow idealogy, consider this, how fast technology would advance in a peaceful civilization without any wars.

While impossible for us to achieve, I think that their level of tech would be higher than ours.

Why? War is not the only motivator for technological development, and war actually can and does hinder technological developments at times due to all the death and destruction of minds involved that could be creating instead of destroying.

It is easier to destroy than it is to build, so the less focused on killing a civilization is on killing each other, the more constructive they can be with other tech pursuits.

For example, if humans were peaceful, we could already have project Orion up and running.

The reason we have hindered it for decades?

Humans kill humans.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Spacescifi

[Bill Phil]

Ah, the moral equivalent to war.

Something like war in that we dedicate immense resources to it, but unlike war in that it is a moral pursuit.

Definitely could advance real fast with and without warfare. War mainly produces weapons and then applies them to civilian pursuits, swords into ploughshares. But advancements have been made for civilian pursuits without the motivator of war, though it can be effective.

I suspect the main reason war advances technology is the simple desire to have an edge over the enemy, so large resources are invested in things that could give that edge. War justifies the research costs - at least to the people making the budget.

[magnemoe]

Wars has an impact, WW1 and 2 boosted airplanes a lot and started rocketry. 
However it also focus on weapon systems and ignore other stuff. 

You need conflict and needs however but this does not have to be violent. 
The industrial revolution, going from transistors to internet, the space race. 

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

War justifies the research costs - at least to the people making the budget.

The consequences of losing a major war justify pretty nearly all costs.

[Nuke]

people just need new frontiers. this is why the leaders of man find it so easy to get people to go to war. the thrill of battle certainly attracts its young fools. of course then you have the space race show that there are other ways to fulfil the same role traditionally filled by war. it simply doesn't have the same capacity at present. its simply easier to join the army than it is to join nasa. technology has advanced so far that the cost of war is so high now and warfare is on the decline as a result, mostly asymmetrical proxy wars. or perhaps its just a temporary lull. way i see it is people can squabble over the same diminishing horde of resources or they can unlock new hordes within the whole of the solar system. then we will do this again when we get to type 2. 

[kerbiloid]

Both Shadows and Vorlons are Lorien's tools for pokemon training.
Shadows are short-periodical. Vorlons are long-periodical. Just as two phases, selection and development.
(Doesn't anyone think that Lorien is a plushy Santa?)

Edited September 9, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Shpaget]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Wars has an impact, WW1 and 2 boosted airplanes a lot and started rocketry. 
However it also focus on weapon systems and ignore other stuff. 

Technological development due to wars spill over to civilian purposes to a great extent.

Radar was developed for war, but led to the development of a device which you can find in basically every household today, and I personally would have starved to death without - a microwave oven.

Antibiotics, found before the WWII, but drastically developed during it are a cornerstone of modern medicine.

Metallurgy developed for tank armor is used in construction today.

Computer science had a significant boost during WWII, of course to break ciphers, but can you imagine a world without computers today?

I don't think you can point a finger at many objects around you and claim that one war or the other had no influence on its development.

[YNM]

8 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

consider this, how fast technology would advance in a peaceful civilization without any wars.

While impossible for us to achieve, I think that their level of tech would be higher than ours.

For sure, their psychological and sociological state would be better than us.

Technology-wise ? Not necessarily.

 

Conflicts can happen in the name of progress - see highway revolts.

Conflicts can stay below the point of war for extended periods of time. (I'd have to break a few rules if I want to point at examples I guess.)

 

Conflicts are unavoidable.

What differs is how do we deal with them.

 

But wanting to win, that is human. At least you'd ensure you don't lose out to much to the other side. And that's what wars is - trying to avoid terrible defeat, or to subjugate as quickly as possible.

There are cases where if you relent yourself, you'd win as well. Those cases would often end up that way - peacefully.

But winning is in the eyes of beholder.

 

Conflict is not avoidable, yet winning is desirable. Take from it how you want.

[kerbiloid]

War is not about a sport, but about the economics.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Technological development due to wars spill over to civilian purposes to a great extent.

Radar was developed for war, but led to the development of a device which you can find in basically every household today, and I personally would have starved to death without - a microwave oven.

Antibiotics, found before the WWII, but drastically developed during it are a cornerstone of modern medicine.

Metallurgy developed for tank armor is used in construction today.

Computer science had a significant boost during WWII, of course to break ciphers, but can you imagine a world without computers today?

I don't think you can point a finger at many objects around you and claim that one war or the other had no influence on its development.

This is true, you got a lot of spillover.

Now before the industrial revolution the effect was pretty minimal and military was generally pretty conservative. 
This changed with steam engines and cheap steel who made steam powered armored ships practical. 
But with an industrial revolution you will get lots of innovations, one reason is need, you need better steam engines and processes. You also have the ability to make lots of stuff cheaply so people invent stuff to produce.  
 

[kerbiloid]

Concentrated resources can be managed more diversely and effectively than scattered ones.
The war is either a concentration of resources in hands of one part of human population by expropriating them from another part, or their redistribution between several winning sides.
Depending on circumstances, the resources can be either material goods, or human resources working in a way economically effective for the winners.
So, all developed civilzations originally were aggressive.

Also, often the wars were used to utilize excessive human resources of the winning sides. The population grows, the plowland doesn't.
Since postindustrial society when population stops growing, this reason gets obsolete.
(Probably, a median age of population is the measure. When < 30 - needs moar land, when > 30 - needs to save what has already.)

A war does not necessary cause a technological progress directly (most part of human history it didn't).
But as it brings a resources concentration, the winning side can manage resources more effectively, found and fund projects not available when resources are scattered.
Say, build roads and bridges; experiment with building technics; develop arts and science.

While its economics grows, it expands and requires more and more complex and developed resources and works, from the defeated sides as well.
At some point this starts causing technological development in colonies. Later the process gets self-sustaining, the colonialism gets ineffective and obsolete.
Then, after several attempts a colony gets independent, as the empire finds more it effective to trade with it than to own it, so it lets it escape.

Later the wars become less popular, and are mostly used to keep the established market structure or to change it.
Also they become "local" and hidden, and at some point stop distinguishing from police/swat vs partisans/criminals actions.

***

Emotions make sense in two senses.

1. The more emotional is the population - the easier it can be mobilized.

2. In any war in fact only a couple of percents of warriors actually fight effectively and with pleasure; about ten percents fight, too. Others provide their support and background.
Say, ancient and medieval battles usually finished when several percents of one army was defeated. Then others start retiring.
In any epoch a militarized high class (noblemen, etc) were 1..2% of total population, and knight armies were defeating armies of armed peasants in 1:20 ratio.

In XX century: say, 40% of soldiers are killed by artillery.
And there is a lot of champions (machine-gunners, snipers) with 200-300 killed enemies.
Also, there are some soldiers who killed 5-10 enemies.
But as total casualties of sides are comparable, even more or less equal, so when one killed 300, this means that ~300 next to him didn't kill anybody.
Also a soldier fights for, say, 4 years (WW I,II). But according to final casualties (when, say, even every second is killed), almost all his shots have missed.

So, basically,, a company (150 humans) contains
1-2 professional killers doing what are they purposed for by nature, combining the work and the hobby. Usually machine-gunners or snipers;
~10 artisans, usually sergeants, who fight and kill because its a job like any other job:
100+ casuals who dig the ground, carry cargo, shoot at that direction (like "this side to enemy"), and by their presence guard the champions when they are having a rest.

In a feudal army, again 1 knight + 2 squires + several armed servants, and a hundred of armed peasants.

In a modern army they focus on special forces hiring them from that 1..2% of natural born killers.

But this is just an implementation, but in no degree a reason of war.

Edited September 9, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Elthy]

War just increases the technological developments in small but highly visible areas (e.g. aviation), but drasticaly hinders everything else. Also look at the current times, the western nations havent had a military conflict on their homeland for decades. At the same time we see technoloigical revolutions in ever increasing speeds, especialy in information technology. If you dont have to worry about being shot or bombed to death you will have more time for science...

[DDE]

6 hours ago, Elthy said:

At the same time we see technoloigical revolutions in ever increasing speeds, especialy in information technology. If you dont have to worry about being shot or bombed to death you will have more time for science...

*clicks fingers*

*"research" machinery explodes*

[magnemoe]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

War is not about a sport, but about the economics.

Wars was a lot about economic back in the days. WW 2 was about resources on the axis side. Cold war and forward they was rarely about it, they was about strategic positioning and ideology.

Buying resources was cheaper than trying to hold an country the other side was funding every sort of resistance movement in. 
Or why did the colonies got dropped so hard and fast, add that you had to treat them as kind of citizens. 

Stuff get a bit weird lately as in how do you explain ISIL grand strategy? Pulling more enemies than Germany did in WW 2 while having no air force, perhaps 10 tanks and and a couple of divisions of militia at the top. You might say the quality of enemies has gone down a lot. 

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Cold war and forward they was rarely about it, they was about strategic positioning and ideology.

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Later the wars become less popular, and are mostly used to keep the established market structure or to change it.

 

[magnemoe]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Later the wars become less popular, and are mostly used to keep the established market structure or to change it.

Don't need wars to do that: Netflix, Amazon, SpaceX. Before them Dell, Microsoft AoL. Note that this predates WW2 by an large margin. Electricity and telephone was game changers in it self, more so than internet. 

[wumpus]

It is entirely possible that the Great War (WWI) solidified poor "best practice" in aircraft design.  Aircraft went form wildly experimental to engine in front, one set of wings (as the biplanes slowly died) somewhat behind the engine and a tail at the end of the fuselage.  A lot of great ideas where put aside to standardize on this form.

 I'd expect that the modern explosion of computing and communications (especially the internet) had a technological increase that put WWII to shame.  Moore's law holding for nearly 50 years of exponential improvements is not something that even a prolonged war can match.

While some may point to the Cold War as a great example of military spending pushing tech, it might help to look at exactly how (at least in the US) defense systems were constructed, especially compared to the commercial world (which was busy obeying Moore's Law).  The defense world was controlled by MIL-SPEC, and had to use MIL-SPEC parts.  These parts required a full bureaucratic system to allow anyone to use such a part, and couldn't be improved without a similar bureaucratic approval.  Once a manufacturer was certified to manufacture such a part, there was little reason to drop the price.  By the 1990s, the US had completely dropped this system for COTS, which was building defense equipment from off the shelf parts and then using whatever engineering needed to meed the MIL-STD requirements (basically hit the equipment hard enough to know if it survives a wartime attack).  The timing of this shows that by the end of the cold war, that instead of the massive DoD budget improving the commercial world, the "tail was wagging the dog" with the DoD having to buy far more advanced commercial products if it wanted state of the art equipment (and them try to get them to pass MIL-STD).  - PS: This was my first taste of design engineering, and I did this between 1997-2001, so have some idea how it went...

The US Civil War seems to show little advancement on the battlefield, but I suspect that the logistics experience (especially in the North) provided plenty of ready-made executives for gilded (and pre-gilded) age corporations.  While there *were* repeat-fire rifles used in the war, they were used pretty sparingly and only for the biggest attacks (you *really* didn't want to be issued one).  It seems the Indian Wars had much quicker advancement in rifle design, quickly working toward a repeating (and rarely-jamming) Winchester Rifle.  I'm guessing that the US Army bought rifles in smaller batches more often during the Indian Wars, and wasn't as picky about specific requirements (Civil War rifles were likely stuck with the Minie ball).  -- Note: most of my Civil War knowledge comes from tramping around battlefields somewhat near Washington DC.  I'm sure other members of this board have far more detailed knolledge).

[YNM]

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

War is not about a sport, but about the economics.

Economic-wise it'd have been easier if you can put your enemies to submission without a single physical conflict.

And, speaking of war and computers...

12 hours ago, Elthy said:

the western nations havent had a military conflict on their homeland for decades. At the same time we see technoloigical revolutions in ever increasing speeds, especialy in information technology.

The warfare have just shifted to the cyber landscape entirely. What are cyber attacks then if not some form of aggression ?

There's also this - US citizens might want to spare their time to watch.

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by YNM

[farmerben]

5 hours ago, wumpus said:

 

The US Civil War seems to show little advancement on the battlefield, but I suspect that the logistics experience (especially in the North) provided plenty of ready-made executives for gilded (and pre-gilded) age corporations.  While there *were* repeat-fire rifles used in the war, they were used pretty sparingly and only for the biggest attacks (you *really* didn't want to be issued one).  It seems the Indian Wars had much quicker advancement in rifle design, quickly working toward a repeating (and rarely-jamming) Winchester Rifle.  I'm guessing that the US Army bought rifles in smaller batches more often during the Indian Wars, and wasn't as picky about specific requirements (Civil War rifles were likely stuck with the Minie ball).  -- Note: most of my Civil War knowledge comes from tramping around battlefields somewhat near Washington DC.  I'm sure other members of this board have far more detailed knolledge).

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton rejected repeating rifles saying the troops would waste too much ammo.  He might have imagined that the logistics systems would have to improve by an order of magnitude, along with the budget.  Those troops who received repeating rifles did outstandingly well.  Abel Straight's Lightning Mules with Spencer repeating carbines were the shock troops of Sherman's march on Atlanta.  At Chickamauga they were hugely outnumbered, and did well.  There is a popular myth that the revolver style rifles would detonate multiple chambers and blow off the left hand of the shooter.  However there is not a single recorded case of this actually happening.  I would believe it could have happened.  But it seems to be one of those rumors that gets repeated and greatly exaggerated.  Nearly every innovation was carried out privately, and many were ready when the war started.  The difficulty was getting the US government to spend more money.  Some of the Indians at Little Big Horn were better armed than the US cavalry.  Because at that time the US government was not willing to buy the best, because of seemingly more economical options.  

In the case of WWII, we saw massive funding into several technologies that would never have received that support otherwise.  But in nearly every case, the fundamental discovery or invention was already around, it was the funding for development that mattered.  Many technologies were not developed as much as they could have been during the war, because the protagonists wanted quantity and they wanted it now.  For example the half-track troop carrier was a quick and dirty improvisation on existing trucks which was totally dropped after the war, while no attempt for a better troop carrier was conducted during the war. And the decision to focus on quantity rather than quality was a good decision at the height of the war.  The Panther tank and the Me 262 didn't impact the outcome of the war as much as the T-34 and IL-2 which were both developed before the war.  

Edited September 10, 2019 by farmerben

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Don't need wars to do that: Netflix, Amazon, SpaceX. Before them Dell, Microsoft AoL.

Don't need them to do almost everything, so what?

4 hours ago, YNM said:

put your enemies to submission

"enemies" = "another group of people who owns useful resources or (usually, "and") wants ours"
'submission" = "they let us use the resources formerly owned by them and don't pretend to take ours. And maybe can work for us consuming less resources for their own purposes."
Pure economics. "Nothing personal, just business". Sports and emotions just help to hire a required army, but usually don't start wars.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton rejected repeating rifles saying the troops would waste too much ammo. 

Lol. the same was said in pre-WW I about Fedorov's automtic rifles.

P.S.
probably, military applications don't force the progress and development, but just redistribute efforts between technological spheres.

[farmerben]

On 9/9/2019 at 5:15 AM, kerbiloid said:

 

In XX century: say, 40% of soldiers are killed by artillery.
And there is a lot of champions (machine-gunners, snipers) with 200-300 killed enemies.
Also, there are some soldiers who killed 5-10 enemies.
But as total casualties of sides are comparable, even more or less equal, so when one killed 300, this means that ~300 next to him didn't kill anybody.
Also a soldier fights for, say, 4 years (WW I,II). But according to final casualties (when, say, even every second is killed), almost all his shots have missed.

 

.This is partly right, but it also depends on exceptional circumstances and exceptional odds.  Like catching the enemy by surprise, or defending against a frontal assault.  In 1918 the German army stripped all its infantry units of the best men to create stormtrooper units.  They were very effective.  On the attack they took fewer casualties than the defenders,  but not that much more.

Ancient and medieval armies did adapt constantly, but the adaptations don't seem that dramatic from our perspective.  In some ways it was rock-paper-scissors adaptation rather than clear technological advance.  The Roman pilum and later plumbatum seem superior to normal javelins, but were eventually abandoned by the Byzantines.  I don't believe they forgot, maybe they just decided the expense was not worth it.  The Dane Axe was briefly popular, and might be great against heavily armored enemies in disorganized formations, but sucks otherwise.  

Hernan Cortez was one of the most badass champions who ever lived, and he had enourmous technological advantages.  Yet when the fighting for Teotihuacan was at its most intense, he and his most elite troops were arrayed as pikemen with partial plate armor. They would not have looked too strange outside the gates of Troy.  Indeed the Mexica had overcome their initial terror of horses, cannons, and steel armor and engaged in circumstances where the Spanish really only had an advantage in armor and that was not covering the whole body.  

[Terwin]

46 minutes ago, farmerben said:

Hernan Cortez was one of the most badass champions who ever lived, and he had enourmous technological advantages.  Yet when the fighting for Teotihuacan was at its most intense, he and his most elite troops were arrayed as pikemen with partial plate armor. They would not have looked too strange outside the gates of Troy.  Indeed the Mexica had overcome their initial terror of horses, cannons, and steel armor and engaged in circumstances where the Spanish really only had an advantage in armor and that was not covering the whole body.  

Don't forget that the Aztecs were stone age and an Aztec 'sword' was basically like a cricket-bat with pieces of sharp flint along the edge.  Every successful parry with a steel sword would shatter those sharpened rocks along a chunk of the edge, making that section basically club-like.  Even the Trojans had bronze.

Also, armor made from feathers or quilted cotton did not hold up terribly well against steel weapons or cannons.

 

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

In 1918 the German army stripped all its infantry units of the best men to create stormtrooper units.  They were very effective.  On the attack they took fewer casualties than the defenders,  but not that much more.

But the army in whole did not consist of these best men. It was usual.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

The Roman pilum and later plumbatum seem superior to normal javelins, but were eventually abandoned by the Byzantines.

Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire was exisiting for 1000+ years, so equipment and habits of various epochs were distinct from each other like a barbarian crowd of -753 from... oops... a barbarian crowd, too, lol, of +476.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

Hernan Cortez was one of the most badass champions who ever lived, and he had enourmous technological advantages.  Yet when the fighting for Teotihuacan was at its most intense, he and his most elite troops were arrayed as pikemen with partial plate armor. They would not have looked too strange outside the gates of Troy.

They would. Only gods could be wearing overexpensive iron armor and weapon, lol. Or at least their favorites.
Reread Iliad, iirc, the place about the narrow iron row on ceiling.
As unlike the Trojans, Aztecs were not familiar with iron, they could not realize how much should this armor cost.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

Indeed the Mexica had overcome their initial terror of horses, cannons, and steel armor and engaged in circumstances where the Spanish really only had an advantage in armor and that was not covering the whole body.  

Afaik, the South/Central American civilizations had mostly fallen before the European arrival. Cortez et al. were just a fatality. So, unlikely they could do something a century or two before.
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Samurai

Edited September 10, 2019 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

Don't forget that the Aztecs were stone age and an Aztec 'sword' was basically like a cricket-bat with pieces of sharp flint along the edge.  Every successful parry with a steel sword would shatter those sharpened rocks along a chunk of the edge, making that section basically club-like.  Even the Trojans had bronze.

Also, armor made from feathers or quilted cotton did not hold up terribly well against steel weapons or cannons.

This on the other hand the Spanish had plate armor, at least the front group had. Something the Aztecs had no idea how to counter. No you can not penetrate it without something like an two handed war axe hitting with the pointy back or an lance from an charging horse. And yes the stone swords would also shatter hitting the armor. An heavy club would be more effective. 
Aztecs had copper, not sure about bronze, still stone was more common than bronze in the bronze age. 

Two other factors, one was that the Spanish got the people the Aztec has conquered to rise up and an disease who killed most of the population 

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This on the other hand the Spanish had plate armor, at least the front group had. Something the Aztecs had no idea how to counter. No you can not penetrate it without something like an two handed war axe hitting with the pointy back or an lance from an charging horse. And yes the stone swords would also shatter hitting the armor. An heavy club would be more effective. 

In absence of Molotov they weren't aware of a cocktail.
Otherwise they should know that armored tanks can be fought with burning pots of oil.