Is there a pattern here? Do most technologies end up being used for war? Are most technologies which are used for war invented by people who didn’t know this or thought their invention would stop war because it’d make war too horrible?
Maybe! But there are 6 examples here, clearly selected for illustrating the relevant theme, that is good for a jumping off point for a larger & more comprehensive (or less selective) analysis, but an answer to such implicit questions it does not make!
I just finished writing a short essay today about, basically, how so many civilian-use technologies end up getting used for war in ways not expected at invention. Bell-casting. Compasses. Coal-tar dye and the resulting chemical industry. Photography. Steam engines and train travel.
If it’s good for anything, it’s good for getting advantage of some kind over other humans possibly by doing things they straight-up can’t, and if it’s good for gaining advantage over other humans, that advantage can always be somehow parlayed into their subjugation and death.
Is agriculture used for war? Without the efficiency that allowed for specialization would we have militaries? War fighters cannot fight without food, is the farmer complicit? How about the yes from which fruits were collected or the animals that were hunted?
I think the pattern might be narrower. People create nastier weapons, hoping that they will somehow prevent war, but they don’t. Instead, they make war nastier.
If that was the argument, we should check whether war actually got reduced and whether that was because war became too messy to fight. For nuclear weapons at least that strategy ended up working, but perhaps it also worked on a smaller scale too, for instance the Pax Britannica after napoleon saw many of the advancements in war discussed in the post, how much of that was caused by war becoming too destructive to fight?
Is there a pattern here? Do most technologies end up being used for war? Are most technologies which are used for war invented by people who didn’t know this or thought their invention would stop war because it’d make war too horrible?
Maybe! But there are 6 examples here, clearly selected for illustrating the relevant theme, that is good for a jumping off point for a larger & more comprehensive (or less selective) analysis, but an answer to such implicit questions it does not make!
I just finished writing a short essay today about, basically, how so many civilian-use technologies end up getting used for war in ways not expected at invention. Bell-casting. Compasses. Coal-tar dye and the resulting chemical industry. Photography. Steam engines and train travel.
If it’s good for anything, it’s good for getting advantage of some kind over other humans possibly by doing things they straight-up can’t, and if it’s good for gaining advantage over other humans, that advantage can always be somehow parlayed into their subjugation and death.
The pattern is the rationalisation + futile back-pedalling by the people who create such technology. At least that’s how I understand it.
Is agriculture used for war? Without the efficiency that allowed for specialization would we have militaries? War fighters cannot fight without food, is the farmer complicit? How about the yes from which fruits were collected or the animals that were hunted?
I think the pattern might be narrower. People create nastier weapons, hoping that they will somehow prevent war, but they don’t. Instead, they make war nastier.
If that was the argument, we should check whether war actually got reduced and whether that was because war became too messy to fight. For nuclear weapons at least that strategy ended up working, but perhaps it also worked on a smaller scale too, for instance the Pax Britannica after napoleon saw many of the advancements in war discussed in the post, how much of that was caused by war becoming too destructive to fight?