by 
j-man
ANSWERS: 7
-
Yep, and some of them benefit the general population, but not always. The stirrup, for example, was developed to allow a man on horseback to use weapons while riding, yet has improved horsemanship for everyone for millenia. Tracked vehicles contributed to the advanced development of earth-moving equipment. Battlefield medicine has advanced surgical techniques and driven the need for research off the battlefield. Some other things are not so good. Mustard gas hasn't proven real popular in most neighborhoods, for instance. It's a give-and-take- kind of thing.
-
unlikely. if any thing it will stifle industrial and scientific progress as people are detracted by the war effort. Most weapons of war cannot be considered good inventions on the basis that they are designed to kill or maim.
-
It doesn't actually really increase the number of inventions, it just increases the amount of people investing in them. For instance someone had the whacky idea of making a valve operated machine that could decode the enigma code. This would have been ridiculed as it came from a man who worked in the post office (I believe). But at the time they needed that sort of device so invested in it and it became a rather vital piece of equipment in the intelligence arsenal.
-
I can do without new inventions if that's the case.
-
Good point, man.
-
Good point, man.
-
Yes, it certainly does. But the number of 'bad' new inventions outshadows the former in a large way. Just ask the Pentagon - why do you think you guys are having a war? So that they can research new and more exciting ways to detonate a nuclear bomb in Pakistan and spread biological weapons to maximum effect.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC