Someone may be a huge fan of popular science, but would that someone really care if its Stephen Hawking on tv or Bill Nye? To the point of being a groupie?
Yes, and it has become a massive problem. People just cheer the idea of science knowing very little about what is going behind the scenes. Science, unfortunately, is the new meme. Heck, most advances of space science (the most popular one) comes directly from military funding. People cheer for Star-trek like dreams while the drones bomb the shit out of people somewhere far far away. Tragic really.
Ah, well, most significant advances in everything come from military funding since probably the 19th century. Be it space science, surgery or the basis of the internet.
The sad part isnt that the military is funding technological progress, that's probably the best part of the military budget. The sad part is, how easy it is to twist reality about what these advances are used for. Even to the point of making people cheer for the actual bombing.
But that's not groupie-ism, just plain old propaganda and disinformation.
agree 1000% . Hitler did the same thing. Ancient Egyptians pushed medicine centuries ahead by operating on conscious slaves. I have a question for you. Would you look yourself in the mirror and say it was worth it? If so, for what "ultimate" purpose?
But this is what happens exactly.
Check this out:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/neil-degrasse-tyson-us-vs-china-militarised-space-race-would-spur-innovation-1502945
I would say that you are mixing up two distinct or at least distinguishable things.
While wars certainly sucked, doctors figured out how to amputate without killing. Was it "worth" the wars? Were your examples "worth it"? No, of course not. That's like saying that drone bombing a wedding to kill one guy was worth it. Maliciousness married to lunacy.
The development of penicillin on the other hand, while happening during WWII, would have been funded by the military without WWII as well, simply to have an advantage.
So is throwing money at medical advancements (or others) for a military advantage worth it? Yes! It could be done through a civilian agency of course, but it wont be. You dont get votes for that.
So is space advancement worth a military space race? Certainly. And not just for techie reasons. The very real threat of complete annihilation by asteroid certainly isnt scaring anyone into space travel. If China can, good on them.
The point is: the creation of the technology is not the problem. It's the people applying it.
Or to turn the question upside down in a rather unfair way: Would you prefer penicilin, space travel, the internet. etc. would not exist just because they were funded by the military?
The last space race ended almost causing a nuclear war between Russian and USA. It was so close that it was prevented from the disobedience of one guy to push THE button. Sure, asteroids are dangerous but there are far greater dangers here on earth.
They would eventually come to existence whether they were sponsored from the military or not. I made this argument in an earlier post. Science progresses in small steps. If it wasn't for Einstein then another guy would fill in. If it wasn't for the military the funds that push the research would generate similar outcomes.
That was the nuclear arms race. They may have been intertwined to some extent, but they are still two distinct endeavors.
Sure. But you wouldnt want technology to get rid of those.
Of course. But how much longer would it have taken? 100 days? 100 years?
How much spacerelated funding is there if you take away military or military-related funding? (That includes NASA, ESA and every other space agency even if they don't count into the defense budgets)
How much research money flows into prosthetics if you takeaway military research budgets in that field?
Point being: any technological research funding is beneficial. It's not a very efficient route but the world is full of stupid so it is what it is.
I think it would have taken around the same time.
Don't you think is a bit weird to argue that if there was no "arms" motivation we wouldn't do shit?
In some cases it may have taken about the same time, in others infinitely longer. Either way, it's just speculation.
I never said that. Just less "shit" and more of this, more useless consumption.