-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That is largely a myth that technology invention needs warfare also technology and Everything else today is far far more sophisticated than it was during early 1900s which can give very wrong impressions. The fancier Products you are talking about is actually in raw numbers a complete different League than stuff from the early 1900s even if it may not look like that.
The western World atleast seems to have reached post scarcity level in terms of basic needs but humans are seldom satisfied even if the poor today are better of than the nobles of the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it though? I said survival drives technology advancement. War is just the greatest catalyst for that.
I'd love to see some examples. I'll give you that the theory behind technological leaps do not require any specific background, but it's in dire moments that resources are placed into executing that. Don't forget that private capital technological sites are something extremely modern. It was all government based or some guy in their house experimenting.
I'd love to see some examples. I'll give you that the theory behind technological leaps do not require any specific background, but it's in dire moments that resources are placed into executing that. Don't forget that private capital technological sites are something extremely modern. It was all government based or some guy in their house experimenting.
I would say that the period between the Napoleonic wars and WW1 seen the most drastic change and advancement in technology in Europe and some other parts of the world.
Yet the number and scope of wars been quite limited.
Yet the number and scope of wars been quite limited.
No, that's crazy. I daresay that war leads to a lot of technical innovation for weapons, military vehicles etc and possibly in treating battlefield injuries but nothing else. Everything else gets its budget cut and its scientists / engineers drafted into war work.
Building up domestic industry to be self-sufficient is also on the list. Not that good old-fashioned tariffs cannot achieve this.
For R&D war has the advantage that there are much laxer requirements for efficiency (it is not a waste of taxpayer/investors money, but the way to produce the war winning wonder weapons).
On the other hand what comes out is rarely commercially viable in peacetime.
I would say economic prosperity is a good indication how advanced the world is, as can be seen the GDP per capita increase in absolute terms more during the period 1960-2018 than rest of human history: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD
And World GDP also increased many times during the same time period: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD
This may give some idea: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth
Basically the enormous economic growth may have only happened very recently, one graph that World economic output was (inflation adjusted):
Warfare technology have advanced enormously, for example see what happended in Iraq war in which just being behind a few decades lead to complete once sided war.
And World GDP also increased many times during the same time period: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD
This may give some idea: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth
Basically the enormous economic growth may have only happened very recently, one graph that World economic output was (inflation adjusted):
- $180 billion year 1
- $1.2 trillion year 1820
- $3.4 trillion year 1900
- $9.3 trillion year 1950
- $63.1 trillion year 2000
- $108.1 trillion year 2015
Warfare technology have advanced enormously, for example see what happended in Iraq war in which just being behind a few decades lead to complete once sided war.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two things I would say about that:-
a) This is partly due to how awful Arab militaries are. The Saudis may have all the latest shiny weapons but they wouldn't last as long as Saddam's forces against any Western country.
b) This was generally the case until World War Two. Western militaries generally stamped all over those of any random African / Asian / Latin American country with impunity. Computers have made almost as much impact on the battlefield as gattling guns.
Building up domestic industry isn't technological innovation though.
The advantage of R & D in war is largely that everything gets battle tested. The old cliche is that generals are always prepared to fight the last conflict. Most modern wars lead to changes in military thinking. Things that were not perceived to be problems suddenly need solutions. The weapon that everyone thought was going to win the war turns out to have drawbacks / limitations.
You often need to do something better than others or offer lower wages so yes to build up an industry you need in some way be innovative and the more industralized the World become the more technology progress in absolute terms. Technology develop more quickly now than it have ever done but it may not look like that because we only see the outside not the inside but technology from the past was incredible simple compared to the stuff today, like some of the american Aircraft Projects could maybe found their whole ww2 effort which maybe tell how basic stuff was at ww2.
There is a fundamental difference between science and technology. During wartime, existing scientific knowledge is utilized and focused to create or improve weapons and industrial technologies. It does very little for the underlying scientific principles upon which that technology is built. During peacetime, more money is available for pure research, to build the knowledge base for the next generation of technology. Some of the scientific research is dependent upon the tools and technologies which warfare tends to push, but that's only part of the story. A cycle of war and peace, or a "cold war" where the threat of war forces some sustained long-term effort to create new weapons and manufacturing techniques, can lead to both scientific research and product development at high levels. I think that's what the post-WWII science and technology boom stems from. It may be a perception that we need to be prepared for a high-tech war (or at least strong international competition), but without the devastation that an actual war would inflict or the sacrifice of long-term research projects in order to further short-term military goals.
The prime example of science versus technology would be the rivalry between Nichola Tesla and Thomas Edison: Tesla was involved in pure research with little thought to how it would be utilized or if it would be profitable, while Edison was heavily focused on ideas for entirely new products for profit based on existing science. Edison's work provided a host of new consumer products during his own lifetime, while Tesla's work remained relatively obscure but laid the foundations for a later generation of inventions in the fields of microwaves and radio transmission.
Ultimately, you need both.
The prime example of science versus technology would be the rivalry between Nichola Tesla and Thomas Edison: Tesla was involved in pure research with little thought to how it would be utilized or if it would be profitable, while Edison was heavily focused on ideas for entirely new products for profit based on existing science. Edison's work provided a host of new consumer products during his own lifetime, while Tesla's work remained relatively obscure but laid the foundations for a later generation of inventions in the fields of microwaves and radio transmission.
Ultimately, you need both.
I would say that it is more to do with stronger economies and educational opportunities for more people. If it was just about preparing for the next war then you would have expected the USSR to rival the USA in terms of producing new technologies.
But it is a requirement for it, because the scientists doing research need feedback from the (domestic) industry to identify the "hot" topics. Furthermore innovations must be brought to the market otherwise they remain some obscure stuff in some obscure laboratory. How many people knows e.g. this guy outside Hungary?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ányos_Jedlik
If we are talking about building up domestic industries in wartime, typically they are a poor substitute for what was available before the war, there aren't scientists doing research on "hot topics", those guys are trying to build new weapons to win the war.
You may keep (part of) those industries during the peacetime. And at some point they may become centers of innovation.
Many of the war industries in USA during ww2 was stuff oriented for other things Before the war and for example the Willow Run plant was built by Ford who had alot of knowledge about mass production even if they did not have much knowledge about military Aircrafts, the basic principles of mass producing cars or bomber Aircrafts was basically the same and they did not have to design the Aircrafts anyway since that was done by other companies who in turn did not know really anything about mass production becasuse that was maybe not what you did with military Equipment during peacetime.
So a key was to combine the experience of the civilian industry with the military industry.
So a key was to combine the experience of the civilian industry with the military industry.
Generally this has not been the case. I don't know what domestic industries came out of WWI. I would imagine that crappy domestic imitations were forgotten once normal trade resumed. I think if the war had a legacy for innovation it was "We have all this military production that is suddenly useless, what alternative use can we put it to?".
After WW1 autarky was a goal for quite a few countries as world trade did not reach the same level for quite a long time.
I daresay but that's not the same as necessitated self-sufficiency during WW1 leading to technical innovation in civilian production.