Major inventions

[John_James]

@The Bomb19

I don’t understand your point. There was demand from the military for this technology, and in the long run it has benefited everyone. How could there have been public demand for a product not yet invented, and when 99.999% of the population had yet to hear of such a device?

You’re trying to approach this from a moral point of view, probably because you realise that if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly. So once again, in the absence of government, why would the private sector have developed satellites and invested so heavily in computers during WW2 and the Cold war?

Under what circumstances would you have seen the invention of the internet occurring without CERN? How many lost decades would we have had before the internet was invented? In fact, why did the private sector not invent such a communication earlier?

I assume you’re talking to me. (If you’d like to see how to quote, click here. It will help you be able to cleanly address specific statements).

And to address your assumption, no, I most certainly have no problem debunking your claim from a utilitarian perspective either. I just feel the moral one is more important. (Would you torture a baby if it meant you could save the lives of 10 people? From a utilitarian perspective, your answer should be yes.)

First of all, I’m still waiting to see any of this evidence that proves “if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly.” You have made claims like this many times now and have offered absolutely zero emprical support for them. And second, if you would at least attempt to answer a couple of my questions you wouldn’t have to ask me yours. But let’s spell out the premises you’re operating under:

1. Satellites and computers are a good thing.

2. The overall total investment in satellites and computers was worth the result we’ve gotten.

3. There is no possible way that a company in the 1940s or 50s could make any money from investments in computing technology until the 1980s or 90s.

4. Because of #3, those investments wouldn’t have taken place.

5. Therefore, it is a good thing that war took place, because it allowed a small group of elites the opportunity to justify forcibly taking ever more resources from the rest of the population to finance the development of technology to more efficiently wage war.

6. And out of war, technology was developed that has been adapted for purposes other than killing people, and that makes us better off.

There are many problems with this. As mentioned above, first and foremost, you have offered absolutely no support for the claim that all of this stuff wouldn’t exist if not for government. Second, you have offered no evidence to even suggest a company would not be able to see a return from investments in technology for 40 years. (Frankly it sounds like you just pulled that out of the air.) Third, aside from assuming war is the only reason these things exist, you seem to be automatically assuming their existence was worth the price. For someone who wishes to analyze from a utlitarian perspective, I would love to not only hear the data you are using to run this cost-benefit analysis, but I would also be very interested to hear by what metric you’re determining your result. So please, share exactly how you have calculated the utility of satellites and technology versus the utility of the lives lost, the property destroyed, and the productive capacity lost due do those things. Not to mention the personal, emotional impact.

Next, we have to recognize the overall implication you are making…namely that a small political elite knows better about what the people want and need, than the people do themselves. Because of course that is the overall argument you’re making. You’re essentially saying the market is wrong…the people don’t know any better. They don’t realize that satellites and computers would be good for them, because if they did, it would be profitable to invest in them. So because these ignorant rubes don’t know what’s good for them it’s a good thing the elites were there to enroll agents to take their money by force so that it can be put to a proper use…as, if people were allow to spend their own money, it would be squandered on something less useful. (And of course “useful” implies “as determined by the elites”).

So basically your argument is that a small group of people knows more about what everyone needs than everyone does themselves. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, I’m wondering how exactly this small group is able to make that calculation.

And finally, since you made your assumption about me, I’ll make one of my own: “You keep dodging questions and asking new ones, and keep trying to focus on a utilitarian point of view, probably because you realize you have no response to the moral question, and you think the utilitarian argument is in your favor.” So I respectfully ask you, to please address the questions I’ve asked you. I have been courteous enough to answer yours.

1. Why does the will of the elite few take precidence over the will of everyone else? Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they clearly (i.e. demonstrably) don’t want?

2. Where is your proof that these things would not have been invented?

3. Where is your support for your claim that a company would not be able to see a return from investments in technology for 40 years?

4. What data did you use to run your cost-benefit analysis of satellites and computing technology vs. the effects of war?

5. What metric did you use to make that calculation?

6. What makes you think a small group of people can know more about what an entire population wants and needs, than the population does itself?