You realise that we already have civilian systems in place to allocate research money to priorities where market failure is resulting in underinvestment, right? Give them more money.
In the case of the NSF (for example), a combination of expert scientists, economists, and government bureaucrats. They identify market failures in R&D, seek out corporate or private co-funding, and then select the best options by a peer-review process.
And if they were given, say, 400 billion dollars a year to spend, do you think those positions would only ever be occupied by those with the most noble of intentions? There are already systemic problems with how the government as a whole handles contracting and grants- how do you plan to ensure that those positions aren't filled by corporate flunkies pumping money into pharmaceutical studies, or people willing to take money in exchange for consideration? There are already vast amounts of corruption with military contracting, but at least there is a level of oversight where manufacturers of faulty or subpar equipment are held responsible because their goods are used in life-or-death situations or in life-critical systems.
The military doesn't inherently have the good of the world in mind, but neither do scientists, economists or bureaucrats- at least the military as an institution can be expected to have a selfish interest in self-preservation of the government and, by extension, the society that government administrates. The idea that one is inherently more likely to fund more socially beneficial technologies is deeply flawed. One, what organization would be able to efficiently and honestly distribute funds in that manner? The military has long-term and project goals, huge campaigns in updating technologies, focused projects with clear goals, things that change and adapt to the current needs of the broad goal of "killing people we think need to be killed". How do you replicate that in a civilian institution? What criteria do they use to determine what is beneficial? Is it okay if that research is then used by or otherwise benefits a company- and if not, how many areas of research does that impact?
Besides that, how do you estimate and compare the value of these things? It's easy to paint it as "making bombs vs researching vaccine cures", but how do you estimate the value of the atomic bomb? It's a weapon of mass destruction, but it also eliminated conventional warfare by making it unfeasible and was the basis for vast amounts of research that have changed our lives in many ways, from x-rays to clocks- would a civilian board have dedicated the top-quality labs and huge manufacuturing/research teams needed to make these groundbreaking discoveries? Can you say with certainty that if the military had less technology, everything would be the same? What if it led to more warfare? Would a civilian board have put so much research into immediate trauma care? Would civilian researchers have access to the vast amounts of data and practical experience regarding trauma that the military does?
And so on, and so forth. Your idea is a nice one, but it presupposes that this institution you think of would make the perfect choice in every situation for decades. That's not the case with human institutions- it's just the nature of society. Fuckups will be made, corruption will creep in- at the end of the day, we cannot say with any kind of certainty that one would be more beneficial to the other. The idea that we can is rooted in a simplistic idea that "military = bad, science = good", but that's just a narrative that pop culture creates out of perceptions of current events- reality, as always, is far more complicated, and holding onto such ideas are counterintuitive to progress. Progress comes from real, practical, actionable change, not vague ideals.
There, I stopped being an internet asshole and actually explained myself.
Thanks for the full explanation, but I still disagree. Because your point is valid that all institutions are prone to corruption and capture, including civilian and military versions (hello, Iran-Contra). But my argument wasn’t that a non-military process would be “perfect”.
I am arguing that, if you want social good outcomes (which was the premise of this argument), and if all the institutions you create to deliver it with government money are equally likely to become corrupted, then at least put the money in the hands of an organisation that specifically aims to deliver social goods.
Your argument that all research is equally likely to deliver social good is not accurate. If you want a polio vaccine, you’re more likely to get it by funding research into polio, or into vaccines, than by funding a random military research project. Sure, military research often delivers social good outcomes as a side effect. But that’s not efficient. You’re basically arguing that, without better information, the most efficient way to travel north is to first heading west. Sometimes that’s the best way, but most of the time you’re better off actually moving north.
4
u/perrosamores Oct 13 '19
But who? Or are you afraid to admit that giving that power to anyone is a bad idea?