What if nations agreed to put 10% of their army budgets into a pool to advance medicine?

[Science Student]

Imagine that we could feel good into the 100's or possibly longer. Imagine how good this would be for society if the elders felt good enough to work using the knowledge and experience that they have.

 

And if all nations agree, then no nation will become relatively weaker.

 

Please criticize constructively.

 

 

[iNow]

Given that we as a species already seem to be struggling to find safe drinking water and feed our existing populations without changing the climate, is it really a good idea to have more people living into their hundreds that we need to support?

[Iota]

I sometimes imagine a Cold War scenario, where instead of each side trying to invent new ways to blow each other up, they're both racing to find a cure for cancer. We'd most likely be a lot closer now. Not to mention the two world wars etc.

[Science Student]

Given that we as a species already seem to be struggling to find safe drinking water and feed our existing populations without changing the climate, is it really a good idea to have more people living into their hundreds that we need to support?

They would be self-supporting and would provide more knowledge and experience for societies. Here's an example; what if Steve Jobs, Einstein, Feynman, Cantor, etc. (if you can agree that they helped society) were all still alive and mentally healthy?

 

My father is a typical baby-boomer. His engineering firm offers him wages 3 to 5 times higher than people with less experience. I am that his profit-driven employer must have good reasons why.

 

Also, better medicine might be cheaper than what the health services will have to do to keep unhealthy people alive.

 

One more point, I don't want us to just die off for the coming generations. That does not make sense to me since they are not alive yet. We could promote longevity with a counter balance of promoting the minimization of population growth.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Science Student

[iNow]

They would be self-supporting and would provide more knowledge and experience for societies.

How would they increase the supply of potable water and increase crop yields? How would they power their needs without contributing further to climate change?

[Science Student]

I sometimes imagine a Cold War scenario, where instead of each side trying to invent new ways to blow each other up, they're both racing to find a cure for cancer. We'd most likely be a lot closer now. Not to mention the two world wars etc.

This would be nice, but it won't happen until we can show them something worth turning down money, power, fame, etc. Their own control over their own mortality should logically be more important to them. Convincing them that their own existences are in their own control if they can just change the priorities of their pharmaceutical companies, countries' powers, personal interests, etc. It would even be in the interests of the most powerful people. We all have two things in common: the will to live and to be healthy while alive (except for some bizarre cases).

How would they increase the supply of potable water and increase crop yields? How would they power their needs without contributing further to climate change?

If you really want to understand why this isn't a problem, then watch http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/01-demographic-challenges-21st-century-video .

But if you don't have time to watch the lecture and can trust me, here are the points of the lecture that I think will at least partly address your issues.

 

World populations are starting to decelerate and are expected to start to decline by 2100.

• Africa is the only reason why the world population isn't expected to decline much sooner.

- It is not our responsibility to save them if places like Uganda continue to average 6 births per female. They are making this decision.

 

Regarding clean water, I do not have an answer for you because I am not really even sure why we can't just purify our own water. I mean, technology on the ISS can actually purify urine that the astronauts can re-drink.

 

Regarding pollution, if we don't tackle the pollution problem better than we are, what's the difference if we save the world another 20 years of deteriorating environmental conditions with an impending end to the world. Either way we have no choice if we want to help humanity's chances for survival.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Science Student

[CaptainPanic]

Without any medical advances we are predicted to peak at 10 billion people in this world (if everything goes well). This is explained in this excellent TED talk by Hans Rosling (13 minutes). If our average age

goes up to 100 years, that number is going to increase to about 12-14 billion. (This last statement is not supported by the video, but should follow logically). Obviously it is desirable to live longer, but we simply may not be able to take care of those people. Although we may discuss the statistics, in this discussion, I assume this is just a fact.

 

Is that an argument against medical research, and in favor of military investments? Turning the question around: is it desirable to keep military budgets as high as they are, and also keep medical research budgets as low as they are in order to keep the future population at 10 billion? I think the answer to that should be no. We should never deliberately slow down research because we fear the consequences. And we should certainly not see the military as a way to do population control (even if this happens merely by the allocation of budgets, not by the actual killing of people).

 

I think these two concepts should be split into 2 questions:

1. Should be reduce the military budgets, and allocate some of the money/resources to other more noble goals?

2. Should one of those goals be the medical research to increase the average life expectancy of humans to 100?

 

The answer to question 1 should (imho) be a loud YES. The answer to question 2 should be a little more careful. Yes, we should invest in that, but we should also invest into agricultural, ecological and engineering (and other) topics, so that those extra people can have a life worth living.

[Science Student]

Without any medical advances we are predicted to peak at 10 billion people in this world (if everything goes well). This is explained in this excellent TED talk by Hans Rosling (13 minutes). If our average age

goes up to 100 years, that number is going to increase to about 12-14 billion. (This last statement is not supported by the video, but should follow logically). Obviously it is desirable to live longer, but we simply may not be able to take care of those people. Although we may discuss the statistics, in this discussion, I assume this is just a fact.

 

Is that an argument against medical research, and in favor of military investments? Turning the question around: is it desirable to keep military budgets as high as they are, and also keep medical research budgets as low as they are in order to keep the future population at 10 billion? I think the answer to that should be no. We should never deliberately slow down research because we fear the consequences. And we should certainly not see the military as a way to do population control (even if this happens merely by the allocation of budgets, not by the actual killing of people).

 

I think these two concepts should be split into 2 questions:

1. Should be reduce the military budgets, and allocate some of the money/resources to other more noble goals?

2. Should one of those goals be the medical research to increase the average life expectancy of humans to 100?

 

The answer to question 1 should (imho) be a loud YES. The answer to question 2 should be a little more careful. Yes, we should invest in that, but we should also invest into agricultural, ecological and engineering (and other) topics, so that those extra people can have a life worth living.

The Ted talk explains that the very poor and unhealthy nations are the ones with the highest birthrates. There might be a negative feedback loop to decrease the world population by advancing medical technologies and providing them to the poorest nations. In other words, the more we advance medical technologies the less people that will be born to shift the focus off of medical advances.

 

There is more than enough food to feed the world many times over. For whatever reason, we all want new cars with the unnecessary options instead of saving lives. I like to think that we choose these luxuries because we think that life is short, and we might as well be as happy as we can be during our short lives.

 

But what if we don't have to see an end to our lives? Could this possibly change our greedy nature - just a little?

Edited November 12, 2013 by Science Student

[Phi for All]

The Ted talk explains that the very poor and unhealthy nations are the ones with the highest birthrates.

 

I think you'll find that what underlies both these attributes is a lack of education. Perhaps, before we go extending the lives of everybody, we could redirect a massive amount of money towards informing people. If everyone on the planet got a basic education that included sex and hygiene instruction, history shows us that they'll be healthier and have a lower birthrate. Imagine how many more brilliant minds we could cultivate to work on medical and resource problems if everyone could go to school!

 

I think embryonic regeneration looks very promising. I don't read much about how it would affect our longevity, but a big drawback about growing older is having all your parts start failing. If you could regrow teeth and organs, if you could regenerate limbs and bones like brand new, I think it would definitely extend life far beyond what we know now.

[CharonY]

Wealthy nations are the one to benefit most from medical advances (not least because they can actually afford it). Increasing standard of living and education will arguably benefit more people, increase average life expectancy (e.g. by decreasing infant mortality). As an added side-effect this tends to decrease birth rates.

Also I think that many medical advances are not really increasing our maximum life span (there is too much going into it) but rather keep us in better shape till the day we die.

[Tridimity]

It is not our responsibility to save them if places like Uganda continue to average 6 births per female. They are making this decision.

 

 

The incidence of rape is high in Uganda, so actually a lot of the time it is men making this decision and not women.

 

I do not think that the women concerned or their children ought to be punished for the actions of criminals.

 

Improving access to education and to sexual health advice and resources, including contraception, would be more beneficial.

 

Danny Dorling, in Population 10 Billion, outlines the point that increasing access to education and healthcare may well reduce the birth rate in what are currently developing nations - as, once parents recognise that their children have a high probability of surviving to reproductive maturity, they are less likely to have further children as 'insurance' against death of their previous children.

I think that your overall idea of diverting 10% of the defence budget to medical research is a splendid idea. However, it would require a means of checking that none of the participating nations simply increase their defence budget to the pre-intervention level (or higher). Otherwise certain countries might suffer a loss of defensive capacity that may be recognised and exploited by other nations. On the whole, more peace and more Medicine, yes please!

Edited November 12, 2013 by Tridimity

[Science Student]

Thank-you everyone for the good feedback. Now I wonder how to get this ball rolling.

 

It seems possible because it's not just the health and lives of us that depend on it but also the health and lives of the people and the loved ones of the people in the positions to make this change.

[ralfy]

Nations in a global capitalist system want longer life spans but also more powerful military forces. To achieve that, they don't cut the military budget but expand extraction of resources to maintain continuous economic growth. In various cases, the same military forces are employed to ensure the latter.

[Science Student]

Nations in a global capitalist system want longer life spans but also more powerful military forces. To achieve that, they don't cut the military budget but expand extraction of resources to maintain continuous economic growth. In various cases, the same military forces are employed to ensure the latter.

But if they allocated the same percentage to medical research, then no country is necessarily any better or worse off militarily.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Science Student

[Tridimity]

Nations in a global capitalist system want longer life spans but also more powerful military forces. To achieve that, they don't cut the military budget but expand extraction of resources to maintain continuous economic growth. In various cases, the same military forces are employed to ensure the latter.

 

 

I know that this is what they currently do, the OP asks that we imagine an alternative, for the future. If it were possible to ensure that every participating nation reduces its defence budget to the same degree as fellow participating nations, such that no one nation is left with a 'defensive' disadvantage, then the playing field would remain equal and the nations could focus on improving health innovation without having to worry about their defence capabilities in comparison with their neighbours. It would potentially also reduce the risk of unnecessary War (think, Iraq) because nation leaders would begin to recognise the expense of military intervention and so (hopefully) would intervene only when the human cost of maintaining peace renders intervention imperative (think, WWII).

Edited November 13, 2013 by Tridimity

[ralfy]

But if they allocated the same percentage to medical research, then no country is necessarily any better or worse off militarily.

I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that if all countries spend the same percentage of medical research, then all of their military forces will be of the same strength?

I know that this is what they currently do, the OP asks that we imagine an alternative, for the future. If it were possible to ensure that every participating nation reduces its defence budget to the same degree as fellow participating nations, such that no one nation is left with a 'defensive' disadvantage, then the playing field would remain equal and the nations could focus on improving health innovation without having to worry about their defence capabilities in comparison with their neighbours. It would potentially also reduce the risk of unnecessary War (think, Iraq) because nation leaders would begin to recognise the expense of military intervention and so (hopefully) would intervene only when the human cost of maintaining peace renders intervention imperative (think, WWII).

I don't think countries will lower military spending, as that allows for control of various resources, etc.

[John Cuthber]

I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that if all countries spend the same percentage of medical research, then all of their military forces will be of the same strength?

 

I don't think countries will lower military spending, as that allows for control of various resources, etc.

No, he's saying that a 10% drop in spending by everyone doesn't affect the relative strengths of the armies. Whoever was at the top of teh list would still be at the top.

[Tridimity]

No, he's saying that a 10% drop in spending by everyone doesn't affect the relative strengths of the armies. Whoever was at the top of teh list would still be at the top.

 

That's right, John Cuthber. If all nations re-allocated an equal proportion of their defence budget to medical research, then no one nation would be at a disadvantage in terms of defence capability (they would all be on par with one another). All nations would stand to benefit from the increase in medical knowledge - that is the international nature of Science.

[iNow]

No, he's saying that a 10% drop in spending by everyone doesn't affect the relative strengths of the armies. Whoever was at the top of teh list would still be at the top.

I think this may be a mistake. A 10% drop in spending could very well impact countries disproportionately depending on their baseline. Those who spend very very little on military today, for example, could be completely crippled by such a cut. However, those like the US who spend obscene amounts would likely barely notice the impact to their force from such cuts.

 

I think, as a general rule, we should be spending less on military and more on securing the future of humanity via investments in medicine, energy, and food, but with that said I'm not confident that a 10% cut has an equal impact on troop readiness or military strength, even though the percentage is the same. Along similar lines, it's akin to the difference between raising taxes by 1% on the uberwealthy versus raising taxes by 1% on the profoundly poor and those in poverty. The impact of such a change is clearly unequal, and would be the same way with military spending.

[Tridimity]

I think this may be a mistake. A 10% drop in spending could very well impact countries disproportionately depending on their baseline. Those who spend very very little on military today, for example, could be completely crippled by such a cut. However, those like the US who spend obscene amounts would likely barely notice the impact to their force from such cuts.

I think, as a general rule, we should be spending less on military and more on securing the future of humanity via investments in medicine, energy, and food, but with that said I'm not confident that a 10% cut has an equal impact on troop readiness or military strength, even though the percentage is the same. Along similar lines, it's akin to the difference between raising taxes by 1% on the uberwealthy versus raising taxes by 1% on the profoundly poor and those in poverty. The impact of such a change is clearly unequal, and would be the same way with military spending.

 

 

Good point iNow. Hm, how about altering the initial proposal such that each nation makes an equal re-allocation from their defence to medical research budgets, equal in the truest sense of the term, rather than a flat rate which would, as you say, impact upon LEDCs more so than on MEDCs? This would, in practise, be extremely difficult to achieve, although the intentions of the OP are admirable.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Tridimity

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, I was explaining the point, not agreeing with it.

If you can only afford 1 guy in the army and you cut him by 10% then your enemy just has to wait til the 3 days a month that you are no longer paying him for.

However, are conflicts likely to arise between vastly mis-matched powers?

OK, they happen, but I suspect that the wars are often between countries with relatively similar forces so a 10% reduction on both sides wouldn't make much difference to the outcome.

On the other hand, if some small country decided to take on China or the UK then it's likely to fail. A 10% change in expenditure might not influence that much.

[Tridimity]

 

OK, they happen, but I suspect that the wars are often between countries with relatively similar forces so a 10% reduction on both sides wouldn't make much difference to the outcome.

 

 

Like the US and Iraq? I wouldn't call that a war between countries with relatively similar forces.

 

The point is to not make much difference to the outcome: the re-allocation of funds to medical research ought to have zero impact on military outcomes so as to assuage any nations who fear a re-allocation-induced relative disadvantage to their defence capabilities, when compared with other nations.

 

As iNow has pointed out, a flat rate is not the way to go, because it may differentially impact on the defence capabilities of different countries.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Tridimity

[Science Student]

I think this may be a mistake. A 10% drop in spending could very well impact countries disproportionately depending on their baseline. Those who spend very very little on military today, for example, could be completely crippled by such a cut. However, those like the US who spend obscene amounts would likely barely notice the impact to their force from such cuts.

 

I think, as a general rule, we should be spending less on military and more on securing the future of humanity via investments in medicine, energy, and food, but with that said I'm not confident that a 10% cut has an equal impact on troop readiness or military strength, even though the percentage is the same. Along similar lines, it's akin to the difference between raising taxes by 1% on the uberwealthy versus raising taxes by 1% on the profoundly poor and those in poverty. The impact of such a change is clearly unequal, and would be the same way with military spending.

 

 

 

I don't necessarily agree. How do you know that a decrease in total spending is not roughly proportional to the overall "strength" of a military? I would even argue that money spent on a military does not always equate to military ability as past wars have shown.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Science Student

[iNow]

How do you know that a decrease in total spending is not roughly proportional to the overall "strength" of a military?

I'm unsure I follow your question nor how it really relates to the discussion at hand. How do I know spending cuts are not proportional to overall strength? I think I'm struggling with the negative modifier. Can you rephrase?

 

 

I would even argue that money spent on a military does not always equate to military ability as past wars have shown.

I agree with this. As in most things, the amount of money spent is not always as relevant as how that money is spent. The same applies in business. Simply throwing money at a problem blindly is not the same as strategic spending to achieve some outcome.

 

With that said, I'll just return to my original comparison. Think about this same issue in terms of tax increases. A 10% tax increase on the uber-rich is not the same as a 10% tax increase on someone in poverty. While the percentage is the same, the downstream impact is not. That 10% means a lot more to the person in poverty and their ability to survive than it means for the super wealthy person. I am suggesting it's very much the same with military spending.

Edited November 18, 2013 by iNow

[Science Student]

I'm unsure I follow your question nor how it really relates to the discussion at hand. How do I know spending cuts are not proportional to overall strength? I think I'm struggling with the negative modifier. Can you rephrase?

 

 

I agree with this. As in most things, the amount of money spent is not always as relevant as how that money is spent. The same applies in business. Simply throwing money at a problem blindly is not the same as strategic spending to achieve some outcome.

 

With that said, I'll just return to my original comparison. Think about this same issue in terms of tax increases. A 10% tax increase on the uber-rich is not the same as a 10% tax increase on someone in poverty. While the percentage is the same, the downstream impact is not. That 10% means a lot more to the person in poverty and their ability to survive than it means for the super wealthy person. I am suggesting it's very much the same with military spending.

Okay, I partly agree with you. So maybe we could index the percentage to the GDP per capita of a country using a certain formula that is fair enough for countries to agree on.