Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2024 February 15

= February 15 =

What do experts say about Guns, Germs, and Steels' "war speeds tech level rise" idea?
I could cherrypick and say look at maglevs, war is bad for tech. Or look at NASA budget and time to next aircraft carrier class, war is good for tech. Or look at Moore's Law, war has little effect either way. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but this is kind of a common-sense thing. Turning potentially useful results of basic science into mature technology that can serve a larger market is in many cases a costly complicated process marked by failed attempts and other setbacks. Progress is slow, mainly coming from university labs and small startups not capable of siphoning lots of money to the efforts. Private companies capable of navigating the trajectory successfully, financing it from their own coffers, are rare. More importantly, their shareholders may be less than happy with the company undertaking such ventures. This situation changes dramatically if the cost is largely borne by public funds, which is normally a no-no but becomes normal in war times. --Lambiam 13:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The effect of war on the average tech level of society is a net sum of various speeding and delaying effects that's a bit less obvious. Sure much was invented sooner i.e. iron warships, microwave ovens and practical jets but WW2 really fucked NY's transportation system for one. I have details if you want. Do we not have fusion yet cause we had one world war too many or one or two too few? I don't know. I bet we'd have more cool space and upper atmosphere tech with a Hot Cold War that stayed non-nuclear through great luck though. Horrible but true. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)