Barbaric vs Civilized

[Mark Dunder]

Who was it that said "An army marches on it's stomache?

My vote goes to Napoleon. Just a guess.

I think it's the lack of war, that promotes civilization. War promotes creation of better killing machines. Inadvertently, technology is invented that helps civilization, after the end of a war, to advance. Africa has problems with food, more because of war than that they do not have a way of producing food. Farmers can't farm land that has a battle being fought on it. IMO.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

I disagree- the needs of war have produced nearly every form of technology we use from modern medicene to computers. Progress actually slows in times of ease as people turn to more frivolous pursuits like the current era and squander resources in excessive levels of recreation. Need, pain and suffering are the best teachers but it's few who will embrace them willingly. Too mnay 'good' years like America has had and a civilization will rot out from its own ennui. Something Howard instintively knew. Barbarian are only more endurant than civilized people because they are not safely insulated from all the harsh challenges that slay the weak and strengthen those that are not- nothing more esoteric than that.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Technology does not equate to being civilized. Technology has been in the forefront of "causing" war more than that war has caused "technology." War mostly brings "faster" development of "known" technology to the table. All the best technology the world has today, comes from people that had enough time on their hands to go to school and get a good education and have time to really give what they have been taught a good thinking over, so they can think up ways to improve life.

Besides which, between the Chinese, Greeks, and Leonardo, most everything has already been invented.

"There's nothing new under the sun, only new ways to use it."

 

[migutse]

I disagree- the needs of war have produced nearly every form of technology we use from modern medicene to computers.

Quite a strong statement that many researchers would disagree with, yet you give no backing to the statement. I have read cultural history as a minor in university and know what you say is not true. I could give you hundreds of examples, here are a few to start with:
- It is impossible to say for sure how many early technologies were invented. However it seems unlikely that the invention of fire, pottery, alphabet etc. would have been driven by military purposes.
- Mathematics in Greece developed because too many clever men had too much time to spend thinking about abstract things during long periods of peace. They didn't have any military use at the time beign, allthough they have many now.
- Penicilin (and antibiotics) was invented in the period between World Wars and was first used to cure civilians.
- The early computers were developed in universities. The fact that they were used a lot by the military during the 2nd World War does not mean that they were developed by or for the military.

Progress actually slows in times of ease as people turn to more frivolous pursuits like the current era and squander resources in excessive levels of recreation. Need, pain and suffering are the best teachers but it's few who will embrace them willingly. Too mnay 'good' years like America has had and a civilization will rot out from its own ennui. Something Howard instintively knew. Barbarian are only more endurant than civilized people because they are not safely insulated from all the harsh challenges that slay the weak and strengthen those that are not- nothing more esoteric than that.

In history we have many examples where by warfare some civilizations "advanced" their technology by conquering more advanced civilizations and stealing their knowledge. A couple of examples (warring civilization->advanced civilization): Romans->Greeks, Arabians->Persians, Mongols->Chinese. Thus the technology and culture flourished between the times of war and during that time the civilization softened. Now the more barbaric tribes could easily conquer these older more advanced civilizations, often even with inferior weapons. Conflicts did seldom advance technologies since lots of knowledge was lost during them. What you see as advancement like with romans was normally just copying/stealing of existing ideas.

 

[Oly]

The early computers were developed in universities. The fact that they were used a lot by the military during the 2nd World War does not mean that they were developed by or for the military.

Picking up one point about which I know a certain amount.....

The first computer was "probably" (it's a decision) Colossus, it had the express intention of code cracking and was developed with that completely military intent. It was also developed in secret not in a university (it's secrecy is why many assume the Americans got there first with ENIAC, Colossus was top secret for years).

However it was developed mainly by civilian academics who had a fair amount of work published about the topic. It's fair to argue that in the end they would have got there without the war, however the war accelerated things tremendously. It gave them access to resources they would otherwise never have had as well as the added psychological impetus that lives could be saved by cracking the code.

Likewise look at aircraft. The 2nd world war saw a rapid progression in technologies. It began with planes not too dissimilar from those of the first world war and ended with the far sighted designs produced by the Germans under the immense pressure of loosing the war. Some of the things they were working on still looks high tech by today's standards.

No doubts aviation would have got around to the jet engine, supersonic flight, guided weapons and so on but left to it's own devices it would have taken longer.

WW2 clearly advanced knowledge in those fields. I'm sure that there are other examples that other people can contribute as well. While such advancement most likely would have occurred without the war the war compacted the timescale.

 

[Yogah of Yag]

Romans->Greeks, Arabians->Persians, Mongols->Chinese.

Don't forget India in your equation.
Indian pandits invented the concept of zero, which was later adopted into Persia, then Arabic-speaking cultures, then--much later--Western Europe.
Also, the earliest "computer program" was probably a form of Sanskrit Grammar, written circa 400 BC!

 

[Mark Dunder]

Also, the earliest "computer program" was probably a form of Sanskrit Grammar, written circa 400 BC!

Yeah, not all computers are electronic or even mechanical. I once made a computer out of matchboxes and beads, its' only purpose was to win at tic-tac-toe. I got this out some book I can't find anymore, but it was fun (for a kid) to teach matchboxes how to play tic-tac-toe!

 

[Damien]

Quote:
Who was it that said "An army marches on it's stomache?


My vote goes to Napoleon. Just a guess.

You would be correct. At least, the quote is -attributed- to Napolean. Whether he said it first and didn't just steal it from his best friend Jimmy is unknown.



In any event... War does not necessarily promote the advancement of civilization or technology, but it certainly promotes the dissemination of technology.

 

[migutse]

I totally agree that some technologies have had boosts from wars, Im just arguing against Ravens statement that wars "produced nearly every form of technology we use". In the case of computers the war quickened the development of the computers, but it was not produced by the war. All fundamental research on them had already been done by Turing et al. Only thing that was missing was the technical implementation (which of course wasn't easy or trivial).

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Okay let me rephrase. IMHO the R&D development rush produced by wars produced the vast majority of the meaningful technology we use- but the scientific principles and theories these technologies were created from existed prior to them. Yeah Einstein farted around in comfortable shoes figuring out the elemental concepts of the universe on his own free time but nobody built a bomb with those theories until they felt the need to kill millions of people. And then someone came up with the idea of a controlled nuclear reaction to produce power and we got nuclear power, Three Mile Island and then Chernobyl[sp?] etc. All because someone said "Wouldn't it be nice if I could make people die faster and cheaper?"

 

[Mark Dunder]

I do have to agree with Raven's point that a lot of technology, that has since proved beneficial (well...), would probably just have laid around for centuries before anyone bothered with it. No incentive. War does tend to give one incentive, if just to survive. And ain't survival what it's all about?

 

[Damien]

I'll point out that a HUGE amount of our 'useful technology' in the 21st and 20th centuries came from NASA - an entirely non-military organization (as far as we know, at least), and without the threat of any wars.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

I'll point out that a HUGE amount of our 'useful technology' in the 21st and 20th centuries came from NASA - an entirely non-military organization (as far as we know, at least), and without the threat of any wars.

And I'll point out that all the American [and Russian] know-how for rocket technology NASA uses originally came from scientists nabbed from the V-2 rocket program created by Nazis during WWII.....8)

 

[Mark Dunder]

Don't forget the Race to the Moon War and even the Cold War with the USSR!

Gosh, this is so much fun! I almost feel like I'm on the Paranoia board.

 

[Damien]

A Cold War is not actually war, though, in the conventional sense.

And I'll point out that all the American [and Russian] know-how for rocket technology NASA uses originally came from scientists nabbed from the V-2 rocket program created by Nazis during WWII.....

I'd say that's entirely beside the point. The point was that technology can and is often developed well outside any military application, outside of military groups, and without any military intent.

 

[Oly]

All fundamental research on them had already been done by Turing et al. Only thing that was missing was the technical implementation (which of course wasn't easy or trivial).

A key concept, that of storing programs in the same way as data, wasn't realised until 1945 by both Turing and John von Neumann (with a lot of uncredited input from the ENIAC team).

Without that key piece computers wouldn't really be as we know them at all. I think it's fair enough to assume that it would have happened eventually but the experiences that the war offered in that field undoubtedly made it happen quicker.

So it's not just practical implementations that are sped up but also the conceptual ideas themselves.

 

[Oly]

I'd say that's entirely beside the point. The point was that technology can and is often developed well outside any military application, outside of military groups, and without any military intent.

OK but putting aside where NASA's rocket research came from NASA was given a huge boost because of the competition between east and west. Some might argue that NASA's aims were in a way military, keeping the US on a par with the USSR and denying them sole control of space, but even putting that aside you've still got to consider that competition.

I guess it boils down to whether the struggle between the two ideological systems is seen as civilised society or barbaric.

I can see a whole link to Babylon 5 here what with the Shadows belief that progress was via kicking over the ants hill and struggle and the Vorlons enforcement of order and stability. I know that JMS has some HPL influences, maybe he read some REH too and liked the question that he posed.

 

[migutse]

You could summarize that a boost in technological development comes during times when there are lots of money available for development. During wartimes governments put a lot of money into developing new weapons which leads to technological advancements. There are other such causes like the last years tsunami, which led to the development of tsunami warning systems and propably the research of tectonics. SARS led to development of new testing systems for diseases. Oil crisis led to the development of better car engines. Propably long periods of droughts led to the development of granaries and irrigation in the ancient times. So the crisis is the key, not just war, for boosts in development. Also there might be other boosts that lead to a lot of resources beign put to a single development fields. Like an opening of a new market. It is also worth noting that some development of the military wasn't caused by wars, but the fear of war like during the cold war which was mentioned before.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

That's a more accurate statement- necessity being the mother of invention. Hmm- was it Ben Franklin who said that?

 

[Damien]

OK but putting aside where NASA's rocket research came from NASA was given a huge boost because of the competition between east and west. Some might argue that NASA's aims were in a way military, keeping the US on a par with the USSR and denying them sole control of space, but even putting that aside you've still got to consider that competition.

But remember that 'rockets' isn't nearly all we've gotten from NASA. I wouldn't deny that NASA's inception was almost assuredly partially military, only that what we've gotten from it in the years -since- it had any kind of military application would, thusly, be born of a non-military organization in non-war-times.

That's all I was saying.