Thread: Alien Life

Originally Posted by dajo

But, talking about space travel, the Hubble Telescope, all the research
centers and astronauts are not included in military spending.

True, but the bulk of the technology they use was developed during the cold war as a part of the space race.

Originally Posted by dajo

If you'd
have a more curious and educated public in a time of peace, more of
the government spending would be directed towards this realm than
it would be in new defense systems and such. (I would think). This
would be decided by the voter, through voting.

That's how things should be, but that is not how things are or were. I must admit I don't have high hopes of things actually working themselves out.

Originally Posted by dajo

And to be a little more exact - a lot of the scientific exploration in, say,
nuclear weaponry, was not so much due to war, but due to fear of war.

Again, we are talking about slightly different things. The Manhattan project was the big thing, a milestone. Everything else related to nuclear technology fits into "small increments".

Originally Posted by dajo

With communication I was talking about the immense technological advantages
that have been and are constantly achieved and that shape our very culture
by the day - not because they were needed for war, but mainly because of a
very promising market and the important benefits they bring for a nation.
This technology defines our time right now.

I disagree with this. Most products of technology that we use are just by-products of what the technological solutions were originally designed for.

Originally Posted by dajo

Technology can be influcenced
by war, or it can further be used in combat situations, but my point was
that there are certainly other catalysts for technological leaps.

Those leaps are inconsistent, unless you have a lot of brain power (in numbers) working together. This almost never happens in science. It's just how scientists work. They are competing against each other, both for funding and for 'getting there first'. During peace, you have labs competing against each other. During war time you get a bigger motivator to put those people together and make them solve big problems.

To put it in short: the more hostile the environment, the more technological prowess is needed to survive it and prosper. This is a big motivator.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Those leaps are inconsistent, unless you have a lot of brain power (in numbers) working together. This almost never happens in science. It's just how scientists work. They are competing against each other, both for funding and for 'getting there first'. During peace, you have labs competing against each other. During war time you get a bigger motivator to put those people together and make them solve big problems.

The problem in general funding I think is that more money should be
directed towards the scientific sector. Something to improve, more control
over government funding, perhaps.

And a competition can also be very healthy, especially in science. Look at
where we are right now in physics. That's mainly due to years of physicists
trying to passionately disprove the theory of one another and to get to the
next golden grail first. It inspired creative thinking and motivated them, to
dig deeper. None of them were motivated by war.

To put it in short: the more hostile the environment, the more technological prowess is needed to survive it and prosper. This is a big motivator.

Yes, another environment in which technology is desperately needed are the
ecological problems that we need to face, in order to sustain ourselves.

Consider that we are in a war situation right now. A lot of spending goes into
the military, not only in the states, but in many European countries or China
as well. If we were living in peaceful times (hypothetically), there would not
be much need for this kind of spending and the public could actually have
the chance to redirect government spending directly to NASA for example.

I would agree that this is how things are, but I'm rather talking how things
should be. In that sense, technology could be achieved through far more
effective means. Which in turn would be more beneficial to reaching space.