Peak Oil
DarkATi
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Spin-off from the "Bush does it again..." thread</div>'ello everyone,
I thought I'd start a new topic instead of de-railing the "<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=6320500172469810176&showtopic=99933" target="_blank">Bush does it again</a>" thread.
First of all, do some googling on "Peak Oil" and "The End of Oil".
Here's one of the best summations I've found regarding Peak Oil:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.
Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Source: <a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/" target="_blank">http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/</a></i>
I believe this is something our generation needs to deal with. Of course the best solution would be a more efficient fuel that would run correctly in existing internal combustion engines yet this seems highly unlikely.
Let's put it this way, oil <b><i>will</b></i> reach it's peak and eventually run out entirely. (Or become so expensive and impractical to drill that it might as well have run out.) It's only a matter of time.
What should we be doing?
What energy alternatives do we have?
When will oil reach it's global peak?
Here's another good link from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>.
Discuss.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
I thought I'd start a new topic instead of de-railing the "<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=6320500172469810176&showtopic=99933" target="_blank">Bush does it again</a>" thread.
First of all, do some googling on "Peak Oil" and "The End of Oil".
Here's one of the best summations I've found regarding Peak Oil:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.
Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Source: <a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/" target="_blank">http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/</a></i>
I believe this is something our generation needs to deal with. Of course the best solution would be a more efficient fuel that would run correctly in existing internal combustion engines yet this seems highly unlikely.
Let's put it this way, oil <b><i>will</b></i> reach it's peak and eventually run out entirely. (Or become so expensive and impractical to drill that it might as well have run out.) It's only a matter of time.
What should we be doing?
What energy alternatives do we have?
When will oil reach it's global peak?
Here's another good link from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>.
Discuss.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
Comments
As far as peak oil, if I understand lolfighter's sarcasm correctly, I agree with him on this. It's not the first time humanity's had to adapt; won't be the last, either. In fact every single time someone has looked at an issue on the horizon and used it as the harbinger of the end days, we've instead treated it like a speed bump and kept right on rolling.
Short of the earth exploding or something equally devastating, I feel that humanity will keep on going. Though I think scenarios like "Road Warrior" are pretty overblown, even in those stories humanity is surviving. I think we have in us the strength to take any hit in stride, and it's just a matter of time before we're back on our feet.
So much money is already poured into the military and much of that goes towards the research and development of technologies that can and have been converted to civilian use. A B-52 bomber has little consumer value but the advanced technologies that went into making that B-52 carried over to making commercial jetliners. Why do you think so much of today's high tech aerospace firms cater to both civilian and military markets?
With all of this in mind, you also need to realize that historically, the United States is near an all time low in terms of military spending relative to GDP. 3-4% of the economy diverted towards military spending isn't that much. 400-500 billion might sound like a lot, but considering that the Congressional budget is over 2.3 trillion dollars, it starts to seem smaller and smaller, especially considering that all national governments are responsible for the creation and maintenance of a national armed force.
In regards to peak oil, it really is exaggerated. Coal reserves can last well into at least a century more, and by the time that oil will have outlived its life as an energy source, we'll have successfully transitioned to new and better ones. Heavy crude oil, when exploited properly, will field even more barrels of oil. And the biggest thing we can do in the mean time is to conserve our existing supplies or use it more efficiently. For example, about 40% of the electricity produced in the United States was produced from oil. We can simply burn more coal to make up the shortfall and save oil exclusively for internal combustion engines for transit vehicles. That alone can give us many more years to research new alternatives. We can also make more fuel efficient vehicles and consider reviving railroads as a primary method of goods transportation (Federal highway subsidies led to the rise of the mac trucks in the first place).
There is so much we can do that by the time conventional light crude becomes economically unfeasible, we'll have something new in store. GG declinism *******s.
Jesus christ, Nadagast. Doing that would be the most stupid thing you could ever do for the United States. Many economists argued that the massive amount of Reagan's spending in the military sector help fueled private sector, in a move called military Keynesianism even if his supply side economics weren't that great.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the money spent in the military can't be used to fuel the private sector if it's not used on the military? This seems like a false dilemma.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So much money is already poured into the military and much of that goes towards the research and development of technologies that can and have been converted to civilian use. A B-52 bomber has little consumer value but the advanced technologies that went into making that B-52 carried over to making commercial jetliners. Why do you think so much of today's high tech aerospace firms cater to both civilian and military markets?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States</a>
we spent $70 billion out of $470 billion on R&D, testing, and evaluation, last year. I don't see any reason to think that taking money away from military research and moving it to purely civilian research would make the product <b>worse</b> for civilians. I won't deny that we have gotten some very useful technologies from the military, but I see no reason why they couldn't be developed by someone intending for purely civilian use.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With all of this in mind, you also need to realize that historically, the United States is near an all time low in terms of military spending relative to GDP. 3-4% of the economy diverted towards military spending isn't that much. 400-500 billion might sound like a lot, but considering that the Congressional budget is over 2.3 trillion dollars, it starts to seem smaller and smaller, especially considering that all national governments are responsible for the creation and maintenance of a national armed force.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look at how much the US spends compared to the rest of the world...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldMilitarySpending.jpg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldMilitarySpending.jpg</a>
I'm not saying we need to only spend $5 billion a year on the military, but $470 billion seems a little excessive, especially after looking at that chart, no?
And I think talking down the value of $470 billion really... I dunno, it doesn't look good. You could save a LOT of people around the world from dying with $470 billion a year.
If it were up to me I'd take a decent chunk out of our (America's) military budget and spend it on research. Not only for alternative energy, but many other things (medicine for one). Seems like an extra $400 billion a year (ok maybe you don't have to take that much, but you get the picture) would help scientific progress a decent amount.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The interests of those in power are in opposition of these ideas. There is plenty of oil still out there, a lot of it is undiscovered and untapped. Crashing the demand for that oil is pretty much the last thing to do on the list for those who profit from its production and marketing.
And another thing, how would we divert public fends for private sector investment? Do we tax the money and give rebates to the corporations or do we tax less to let the investment bankers spend more? And where is the incentive to research? Most of the research done in America is already done in the universities. To put more money into the equation won't do because there is a shortage of talent in the United States. Money is never a problem in the United States, it is always about labor. Skilled labor.
Wartime economies are inherently strong because there is strong demand created on behalf of the government. The thing about the private sector is that it has a tendency to overheat, especially when given lots of money in an already strong economy, as the panics of the 19th century and the Depression of the early 20th century can amply confirm.
And saving people with 470 billion dollars a year? Since when did the United States have an obligation to other people around the world? Or is it simply because of our sole superpower status that it seems that we do have one? The typhoon that hit the South Pacific, guess who was first to arrive on the scene? The US Navy and its carrier battlegroups. The first people to respond en masse to situation and distribute clean water and supplies were on board the ships of the USN. All the money in the world doesn't matter if it can't get to the people in the first place. Logistics rule the day, and the United States military excels at logistics.
Also, 3-4% of the national budget isn't that much. But when people say that the United States budget for the military is larger than the next 12-15 nations combined, look at those nations for a second. How many of those nations are military partners with the United States? How many of them enjoy the umbrella of security provided by the United States armed forces? Over 300,000 of our troops are deployed overseas. About half of them are deployed in peaceful, industrialized countries that don't spend as much on their military because the United States will guarantee their security (Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc).
The oil craze of 2005-2006 happened because people anticipated shortages. In the late 90s, Exxon Mobil and all the other oil companies were barely making profits. The oil companies aren't manipulating the demand, the people in the NYSE and in the London stock exchange are. Even if you look at the profit margin of the oil companies, it's still within acceptable ranges. The largest companies are the oil companies, simply because of the equipment and logistics needed to maintain operations. If Exxon Mobil posts 30 billion dollars in profit, keep in mind that they spent 270 billion dollars to get it.
American pioneers killed who knows how many buffalo thinking the supply was too great to ever run dry. They almost killed them off entirely. The same thing is true with oil. America is oil crazy, we use WAY more than any other country in the world. (<a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption" target="_blank">source</a>)
And we use WAY more oil than is truely necessary. We aren't being efficient. This outraged the Native Americans in the pioneering days (the Natives used EVERYTHING from the Buffallo for something or other while the pioneers killed them simply for sport.) This is reckless waste and denial in my opinion.
We need to stop wasting this precious resource. And while we have this grace period (where oil supplies aren't running completely dry) we need to research and develop a more efficient replacement for oil.
My .02 of course.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
There is much more oil over there in russia then all the middle east countries have combined. So saying oil is going to run out in our lifetime is not true.
I do however agree that it wouldn't hurt to research more efficient ways of actually using oil... I also don't understand why the hell the hybride cars (electic/gass, electic/benzine) have to be so godamn ugly so only diehard environmentalists will buy them... Also the research put into making existing diesel egines run on oil extracted from plants (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed" target="_blank">click</a>). And of course the hydrogen cars.
These are all good examples of going in the right direction... The technology is there, but Oil companies like Shell and the likes are having way to much fun getting rich with the exising tech so they don't really see the need for this research. In their eyes the oil shortage is not yet a problem and as long as we all are so freaking oil hungy nothing is going to change any time soon...
Diverting the money spent on the military to civilian use won't have the same effect. For example, ARPAnet, the precursor to the internet, was developed for internal purposes for use of the DOD. Who's to say how long it might have taken the private sector to do the same thing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously it will be different, but I think it's hard to argue that funding for military projects produces greater civilian benefits than pure civilian research. Wouldn't you agree?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And another thing, how would we divert public fends for private sector investment? Do we tax the money and give rebates to the corporations or do we tax less to let the investment bankers spend more? And where is the incentive to research? Most of the research done in America is already done in the universities. To put more money into the equation won't do because there is a shortage of talent in the United States. Money is never a problem in the United States, it is always about labor. Skilled labor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry I just don't buy this. Obviously there isn't an infinite talent pool to push an infinite amount of money into, but ask any scientist what their number one problem is in doing research and I bet they will tell you money. And I don't think it would be very difficult to get scientists to come from other countries if we had such a huge surplus of money, right? It would be easy to offer scientists from other countries money to come here and research.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wartime economies are inherently strong because there is strong demand created on behalf of the government. The thing about the private sector is that it has a tendency to overheat, especially when given lots of money in an already strong economy, as the panics of the 19th century and the Depression of the early 20th century can amply confirm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah this might be accurate, but I think that the consequences of war are far worse than the benefits of having a slightly stronger economy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And saving people with 470 billion dollars a year? Since when did the United States have an obligation to other people around the world? Or is it simply because of our sole superpower status that it seems that we do have one? The typhoon that hit the South Pacific, guess who was first to arrive on the scene? The US Navy and its carrier battlegroups. The first people to respond en masse to situation and distribute clean water and supplies were on board the ships of the USN. All the money in the world doesn't matter if it can't get to the people in the first place. Logistics rule the day, and the United States military excels at logistics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you telling me you don't care at all about people starving to death or dying of AIDS or malaria in Africa? I think it's great that our Navy helped out... But don't you think that the funds would help MORE if they were spent just on helping people?
Of course we aren't obligated to do anything to the other countries, but I think that sitting here while ~25000 people starve to death a day, if we have the extra money to save them, is just a terribly evil thing to do. (Yes I know there are some, or even many, places where conditions prevent us from giving them food)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, 3-4% of the national budget isn't that much. But when people say that the United States budget for the military is larger than the next 12-15 nations combined, look at those nations for a second. How many of those nations are military partners with the United States? How many of them enjoy the umbrella of security provided by the United States armed forces? Over 300,000 of our troops are deployed overseas. About half of them are deployed in peaceful, industrialized countries that don't spend as much on their military because the United States will guarantee their security (Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not 3-4% of the national budget, if your number of a $2.3 trillion budget is right then it's more like 20-25% of our national budget.
Oh and no offence, but its not just the states who do research you know. So why would this "going to America to do research" come up at all. Not everyone wants to go to US of A <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
What I fear most is China and its exponential economic/industrial grow. They don't really seem to care about these things at all o.o
I know that not only America does research, but I bet a decent amount of scientists would come to America to work if they could get good amounts of money for their work.
Anyway you're right, sorry for the derail--get the thread back on track <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1599322:date=Jan 16 2007, 02:38 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Jan 16 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]1599322[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Why do you find it so hard to participate in a discussion without being a smart ######, lolfighter? Knock it off, eh?
As far as peak oil, if I understand lolfighter's sarcasm correctly, I agree with him on this. It's not the first time humanity's had to adapt; won't be the last, either. In fact every single time someone has looked at an issue on the horizon and used it as the harbinger of the end days, we've instead treated it like a speed bump and kept right on rolling.
Short of the earth exploding or something equally devastating, I feel that humanity will keep on going. Though I think scenarios like "Road Warrior" are pretty overblown, even in those stories humanity is surviving. I think we have in us the strength to take any hit in stride, and it's just a matter of time before we're back on our feet.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I absolutely agree with this. That being said, currently we are doing little if nothing to adapt effectively.
This issue is unarguably larger then any global scale issue we've encountered this far, that isn't to say that it's going to kill humanity, really that's just not going to happen, utterly unrealistic. However, this is to say that our economy is incredibly tied into the price of oil, and our dependence on oil is steadily increasing with it's slow increase in production capacity. So what would happen right now to our economy if, for no particular reason, the price of oil were to start a trend of doubling every year with no end in sight. That's essentially what we're looking at, and not only that we basically know it's guaranteed to happen, if it hasn't already started happening.
The clear and obvious answer is to decrease our dependence on oil, even if it might seem somewhat more expensive in the immediate timescape. Because if we don't we're going to hit a major "onos!" point and we're going to likely have to totally redesign the way our capitalist economy works just so the ensuing economic depression doesn't screw our arses royally.
When you come up to a large speedbump do you ramp up to full speed or do you slow down for it? Currently we're speeding up, that's the point of the peak oil debate.
Oil is the new Buffalo.
American pioneers killed who knows how many buffalo thinking the supply was too great to ever run dry. They almost killed them off entirely. The same thing is true with oil. America is oil crazy, we use WAY more than any other country in the world. (<a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption" target="_blank">source</a>)
And we use WAY more oil than is truely necessary. We aren't being efficient. This outraged the Native Americans in the pioneering days (the Natives used EVERYTHING from the Buffallo for something or other while the pioneers killed them simply for sport.) This is reckless waste and denial in my opinion.
We need to stop wasting this precious resource. And while we have this grace period (where oil supplies aren't running completely dry) we need to research and develop a more efficient replacement for oil.
My .02 of course.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just from a historical perspective, your analogy is flawed, and I've got to point out that the downfall of the buffalo wasn't as 'over hunting focused' as you may think. Much of the hunting occured to starve out Indians and to simply feed the railroad construction workers and industrialism that was cruising across the plains and Rockies. While there are incidents of simple over hunting (shooting 20 buffalo and taking only one as a trophy and leaving the rest to rot), much of the buffalo's downfall in the period was resultant of mass-feeding and simple attrition warfare (taking away the natives' main source of food and resources). The idea of the native using every bit of every buffalo is a bit exagerrated too, but in some cases is perfectly applicable, so I'll just leave that alone.
The vast forests of the New World are a far better example. So much of the present-day US and Canada was forest back in pre-industrialist times, that the entire area of Wisconsin was literally decked with trees; the eastern seaboard was dotted by small towns that managed to make a clearing in the thick forest growth. Cut to a few centuries later and the eastern seaboard is covered in (relatively) small parks which attempt to maintain the aura of expansive forests. The only true forested areas are protected landscapes in the West, once environmentalism sprung up with the likes of Moir and, sort of paradoxically, Roosevelt.
Unfortunately, unlike forests the oil just isn't going to come back. I'd bet that early oilers would give anything to be able to re-drill the early wells...so much of the oil was wasted during misuse and mishandling (not to mention the fact that it was simply used as a combustable/light source, and gasoline wasn't processed out of it for quite a while). Despite all that, all predictions about peak oil always seem to focus on the Middle East/Caucus area, and don't seem to be interest in potential future drilling expeditions. Beyond that (implying that I don't really think peak oil will/has impacted us that greatly), it seems evident to me that many car manufacturers are already prepared to toss out 'economical' or 'alternate fuel' cars already, and when oil runs out they'll be perfectly able to charge whatever price they want for them (hey, what else are you going to drive?).
Perhaps that in itself is bleak...Yay hydrogen-powered cars!
You know precious metals and resources used to be so extractable, deposits of usable stone and workable metal were simply bare on the landscape, and only with the advent of mild industrial activity (weapon smithing, iron working, jeweling) did people find it necessary to begin digging mines for resources. Now, I'm not proposing that 'deep down in the Earth' there's some secret resevoir of oil or something, but humans seem perfectly apt at going to great lengths (or depths, if you want to continue the previous analogy) to obtain the resources they deem necessary.
Diverting the money spent on the military to civilian use won't have the same effect. For example, ARPAnet, the precursor to the internet, was developed for internal purposes for use of the DOD. Who's to say how long it might have taken the private sector to do the same thing?
And another thing, how would we divert public fends for private sector investment? Do we tax the money and give rebates to the corporations or do we tax less to let the investment bankers spend more? And where is the incentive to research? Most of the research done in America is already done in the universities. To put more money into the equation won't do because there is a shortage of talent in the United States. Money is never a problem in the United States, it is always about labor. Skilled labor.
Wartime economies are inherently strong because there is strong demand created on behalf of the government. The thing about the private sector is that it has a tendency to overheat, especially when given lots of money in an already strong economy, as the panics of the 19th century and the Depression of the early 20th century can amply confirm.
And saving people with 470 billion dollars a year? Since when did the United States have an obligation to other people around the world? Or is it simply because of our sole superpower status that it seems that we do have one? The typhoon that hit the South Pacific, guess who was first to arrive on the scene? The US Navy and its carrier battlegroups. The first people to respond en masse to situation and distribute clean water and supplies were on board the ships of the USN. All the money in the world doesn't matter if it can't get to the people in the first place. Logistics rule the day, and the United States military excels at logistics.
Also, 3-4% of the national budget isn't that much. But when people say that the United States budget for the military is larger than the next 12-15 nations combined, look at those nations for a second. How many of those nations are military partners with the United States? How many of them enjoy the umbrella of security provided by the United States armed forces? Over 300,000 of our troops are deployed overseas. About half of them are deployed in peaceful, industrialized countries that don't spend as much on their military because the United States will guarantee their security (Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc).
The oil craze of 2005-2006 happened because people anticipated shortages. In the late 90s, Exxon Mobil and all the other oil companies were barely making profits. The oil companies aren't manipulating the demand, the people in the NYSE and in the London stock exchange are. Even if you look at the profit margin of the oil companies, it's still within acceptable ranges. The largest companies are the oil companies, simply because of the equipment and logistics needed to maintain operations. If Exxon Mobil posts 30 billion dollars in profit, keep in mind that they spent 270 billion dollars to get it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're quite correct on the overseas deployment issue. The US military provides a pretty nasty looking defensive umbrella to many nations that were once its enemies and rebuilt after WW2 with American soldiers watching over them. Japan, Korea, and a lot of European countries spend far less on defense than they should because having the US Army/Navy/Air Force parked in your country is a strong deterrent to attack, given that even more American troops will show up on really, really short notice if they're needed. I remember reading an article on Iceland recently. The country has no air force to speak of, something like 4 US F-16s provide air defense for the entire country. Without massive US defense spending, things like this wouldn't happen.
Diverting the money spent on the military to civilian use won't have the same effect. For example, ARPAnet, the precursor to the internet, was developed for internal purposes for use of the DOD. Who's to say how long it might have taken the private sector to do the same thing?
And another thing, how would we divert public fends for private sector investment? Do we tax the money and give rebates to the corporations or do we tax less to let the investment bankers spend more? And where is the incentive to research? Most of the research done in America is already done in the universities. To put more money into the equation won't do because there is a shortage of talent in the United States. Money is never a problem in the United States, it is always about labor. Skilled labor.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just graduated from Carnegie Mellon with a degree in computer science. Carnegie Mellon is generally recognized to be the best institution for robotics research in the world. Unfortunately, all of it is funded by the Department of Defense. All of the grants for robotics that I was aware of were from darpa, or someone funded by darpa. All of the robotics companies at the job fairs are primarily funded by darpa. I had a big advantage getting internships because I'm a US citizen. It's often very difficult for asian students to work in robotics for that reason.
This is all anecdotal evidence, but it should give you some indication of how skewed our priorities are. In most scientific fields, the biggest funders are the NSF, etc. In anything where there is any defense interest whatsoever however, DoD funding completely dominates it. This is true of a lot of areas of computer science. If you want to work on computer vision, you'll probably be working on detecting terrorists or guiding missiles. If you want to work on physical simulation, you'll probably be simulating bombs.
Now imagine what we could do with all that brainpower if we applied it to something useful, instead of just finding ways to blow **** up with as little human intervention as possible.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Wartime economies are inherently strong because there is strong demand created on behalf of the government. The thing about the private sector is that it has a tendency to overheat, especially when given lots of money in an already strong economy, as the panics of the 19th century and the Depression of the early 20th century can amply confirm.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GDP is indeed often high during wars, but it is only an economic improvement if you think that what is being bought with the government's money is worth that much, ie, more valuable than any other alternative way to spend that money. I would argue that most wars aren't cost effective in terms of the gains vs. cost, and as a result GDP comparisons aren't informative. It probably costs twice as much to blow up a building with a guided missile than to build that same building. Blowing up the building adds more to GDP because the missile costs more, but building it is a much greater benefit to society.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wartime economies are inherently strong because there is strong demand created on behalf of the government. The thing about the private sector is that it has a tendency to overheat, especially when given lots of money in an already strong economy, as the panics of the 19th century and the Depression of the early 20th century can amply confirm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah this might be accurate, but I think that the consequences of war are far worse than the benefits of having a slightly stronger economy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's your problem! You're assuming that spending less on the military will lead directly to having less war. This, of course, is a liberal pipe dream. All it will lead to is a smaller chance of the US emerging victorious from the wars that <i>will happen anyway</i>.
Of course, you might like that outcome, for all I know. I'll let you believe what you like there. But you need to stop kidding yourself that wars only exist because of US military spending. Once you get past that point I think we'll be able to have a much more productive discussion.
100% completely serious.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please tell us about these wars in the last 50 years that require total war capabilities that we haven't started.
But we're going offtopic again (which I think the permanent state of this thread is <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />)
I just graduated from Carnegie Mellon with a degree in computer science. Carnegie Mellon is generally recognized to be the best institution for robotics research in the world. Unfortunately, all of it is funded by the Department of Defense. All of the grants for robotics that I was aware of were from darpa, or someone funded by darpa. All of the robotics companies at the job fairs are primarily funded by darpa. I had a big advantage getting internships because I'm a US citizen. It's often very difficult for asian students to work in robotics for that reason.
This is all anecdotal evidence, but it should give you some indication of how skewed our priorities are. In most scientific fields, the biggest funders are the NSF, etc. In anything where there is any defense interest whatsoever however, DoD funding completely dominates it. This is true of a lot of areas of computer science. If you want to work on computer vision, you'll probably be working on detecting terrorists or guiding missiles. If you want to work on physical simulation, you'll probably be simulating bombs.
Now imagine what we could do with all that brainpower if we applied it to something useful, instead of just finding ways to blow **** up with as little human intervention as possible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what would that be? The reason why wars and/or military spending produce advancement is because advancement is necessary in order to survive. Either our tech is better than there's, or we lose. It's much easier to find new and creative ways of beating someone else's stuff than it is to produce something out of the blue for the betterment of mankind, sadly.
However, in the process of creating these tools of destruction, we often stumble upon practical uses for the products.
If you get 100 engineers together in a room and say, "Make me something that's going to make everyone's life easier," you won't get anywhere. If you say, "Make me something that'll beat the living snot out of those dirty, _______," it's a much easier proposition. It's simply the difference between having focus and not having focus, and it just so happens that the demands of the military produce clear cut problems for engineers to solve.
That's one side of the issue. The other side is that there's actually money in military spending. Again, this stems from the fact that it's an "us or them," scenario, but in the end all that really matters is that it's a lot harder to get a grant to produce, and subsequently market, and idea all your own. When corporations find ideas that work, that produce tangible and predicable gains, they tend to stick with them and ride them into the ground. Only after the cash cow is dry do they start trying to innovate again.
In war, it's not a fight over cash, it's a fight to the death. This stimulates creativity in ways that would make corporations shudder. Once the dust has cleared and the books are balanced, everyone realizes, "Oh, ish! We spent THAT much on research and development?! We better find ways to recoup this loss!"
Hello, Velcro, microwaves, Nylon, Kevlar, silly putty, commercial jet liners, and wireless communications!
Please tell us about these wars in the last 50 years that require total war capabilities that we haven't started.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, elaborate on why all those nations which <i>hate the US</i> but are <i>powerless to do anything about it</i> would be similarly non-aggressive if we had no military presence to speak of.
If you know of this answer, you've just solved world peace. Man will never have to fight another war again.
If you get 100 engineers together in a room and say, "Make me something that's going to make everyone's life easier," you won't get anywhere.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Negative. As an engineer, I am proud to state that you will have the blueprints for one hell of an automated coffee machine within the week.
But what would that be? The reason why wars and/or military spending produce advancement is because advancement is necessary in order to survive. Either our tech is better than there's, or we lose. It's much easier to find new and creative ways of beating someone else's stuff than it is to produce something out of the blue for the betterment of mankind, sadly
However, in the process of creating these tools of destruction, we often stumble upon practical uses for the products.
If you get 100 engineers together in a room and say, "Make me something that's going to make everyone's life easier," you won't get anywhere. If you say, "Make me something that'll beat the living snot out of those dirty, _______," it's a much easier proposition. It's simply the difference between having focus and not having focus, and it just so happens that the demands of the military produce clear cut problems for engineers to solve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. There are a lot of people doing exactly that. Look at academic medical research for instance, or indeed, research in any field other than those the military finds useful. There are no shortage of clear cut problems in the world.
I saw a presentation from a few researchers a couple months back who are developing a 3D video camera using an innovative LADAR technique. They looked around for funding for a while before finally getting it from DARPA. They said this during the talk: "As we started communicating with them it became clear that they simply did not have any financial constraints." Most of the researchers I talk to take exactly this approach. They decide what stuff they want to work on, often with some societal benefit in mind, and then try to find some way to shoehorn it in to a project for the military cause they've got the money.
Edit: I work at Google now and "get 100 engineers together in a room and say, 'Make me something that's going to make everyone's life easier,' " seems to be a large part of our business model. I think it has worked out pretty well.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's one side of the issue. The other side is that there's actually money in military spending. Again, this stems from the fact that it's an "us or them," scenario, but in the end all that really matters is that it's a lot harder to get a grant to produce, and subsequently market, and idea all your own. When corporations find ideas that work, that produce tangible and predicable gains, they tend to stick with them and ride them into the ground. Only after the cash cow is dry do they start trying to innovate again.
In war, it's not a fight over cash, it's a fight to the death. This stimulates creativity in ways that would make corporations shudder. Once the dust has cleared and the books are balanced, everyone realizes, "Oh, ish! We spent THAT much on research and development?! We better find ways to recoup this loss!"
Hello, Velcro, microwaves, Nylon, Kevlar, silly putty, commercial jet liners, and wireless communications!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your characterization of corporate innovation is often correct I think, but doesn't apply at all to academia. Additionally, the technologies I've seen developed with military funding are a completely offline process from the fighting of any actual war. The people working on them aren't thinking about war, they're thinking about making cool ****. Unfortunately the only cool **** they can work on are things that the military wants.
Negative. As an engineer, I am proud to state that you will have the blueprints for one hell of an automated coffee machine within the week.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That <b>would</b> make my life easier, I'll admit. As a computer engineer, I might even be able to understand the blueprints. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1599758:date=Jan 18 2007, 12:05 AM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Jan 18 2007, 12:05 AM) [snapback]1599758[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I disagree. There are a lot of people doing exactly that. Look at academic medical research for instance, or indeed, research in any field other than those the military finds useful. There are no shortage of clear cut problems in the world.
I saw a presentation from a few researchers a couple months back who are developing a 3D video camera using an innovative LADAR technique. They looked around for funding for a while before finally getting it from DARPA. They said this during the talk: "As we started communicating with them it became clear that they simply did not have any financial constraints." Most of the researchers I talk to take exactly this approach. They decide what stuff they want to work on, often with some societal benefit in mind, and then try to find some way to shoehorn it in to a project for the military cause they've got the money.
Edit: I work at Google now and "get 100 engineers together in a room and say, 'Make me something that's going to make everyone's life easier,' " seems to be a large part of our business model. I think it has worked out pretty well.
Your characterization of corporate innovation is often correct I think, but doesn't apply at all to academia. Additionally, the technologies I've seen developed with military funding are a completely offline process from the fighting of any actual war. The people working on them aren't thinking about war, they're thinking about making cool ****. Unfortunately the only cool **** they can work on are things that the military wants.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You kinda hit the nail on the head. There may be other problems in the world that engineering can solve, but they seem to be plentiful in the military. And the fact that the military has seemingly bottomless pockets fosters innovation more than anything else I know.
Remember that 90% or more the of crap that people are funded to produce for the military never actually goes anywhere. The military's big bag is that the funds they provide at least keep the ball rolling. Every once in awhile something experimental actually has promise and for them all the waste is worth it - it's just tax payer money anyway, right?
The private sector can't afford such willy-nilly tossing of cash. This leaves us with only the brave, "starving artist" researchers who mess around in home labs in their spare time or endlessly campaign for funding from private or non-military government contracts. It's just easier to go with the military and scrape off what you really want to learn as a byproduct of other research.
You kinda hit the nail on the head. There may be other problems in the world that engineering can solve, but they seem to be plentiful in the military. And the fact that the military has seemingly bottomless pockets fosters innovation more than anything else I know.
Remember that 90% or more the of crap that people are funded to produce for the military never actually goes anywhere. The military's big bag is that the funds they provide at least keep the ball rolling. Every once in awhile something experimental actually has promise and for them all the waste is worth it - it's just tax payer money anyway, right?
The private sector can't afford such willy-nilly tossing of cash. This leaves us with only the brave, "starving artist" researchers who mess around in home labs in their spare time or endlessly campaign for funding from private or non-military government contracts. It's just easier to go with the military and scrape off what you really want to learn as a byproduct of other research.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the solution is <i>just</i> to cut funding for the military. Ideally I'd like to see every penny cut from DARPA's budget put into the NIH and the NSF, or maybe additionally into increasing the tax breaks on private sector research.
Please, elaborate on why all those nations which <i>hate the US</i> but are <i>powerless to do anything about it</i> would be similarly non-aggressive if we had no military presence to speak of.
If you know of this answer, you've just solved world peace. Man will never have to fight another war again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How come I get accused of trolling when I make posts like these?
Please, elaborate on why all those nations which <i>hate the US</i> but are <i>powerless to do anything about it</i> would be similarly non-aggressive if we had no military presence to speak of.
If you know of this answer, you've just solved world peace. Man will never have to fight another war again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which, exactly, are these so powerful nations that <i>hate the US</i>? Most of them are small, insignificant and in the middle of nowhere. The only countries on this planet that can even seriously _think_ about attacking/invading USA are Russia and China. And both of them are currently friendly with US and more interested in their own economic growth than anything. And I don't really see that changing, as long as USA sits on the worlds largest nuclear stockpile and is separated by oceans from the said countries. I think I wouldn't be too wrong to estimate, that if USA suddenly cuts 80% of its defence budget, there would be exactly 0 attacks against USA in the next 100 years. That of course excludes terrorist organizations, but that's a job for CIA rather than aircraft carriers and bombs.