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

[iNow]

Why not just ask countries to increase their spending on other things (like medicine, climate, food, water availability, etc.) and let them decide where it comes from? Is there a reason it MUST come from military (besides that option just "feeling" like a better choice to you personally)?

[Science Student]

Why not just ask countries to increase their spending on other things (like medicine, climate, food, water availability, etc.) and let them decide where it comes from? Is there a reason it MUST come from military (besides that option just "feeling" like a better choice to you personally)?

Militaries kill, and medicine saves. I can't think of one other thing that is further from advancing health care than diminishing war efforts. I also can't think of anything that I would like to see less of than militaries, but only on an even keel as I still try to be a realist as much as possible.

[Tridimity]

Militaries kill, and medicine saves. I can't think of one other thing that is further from advancing health care than diminishing war efforts. I also can't think of anything that I would like to see less of than militaries, but only on an even keel as I still try to be a realist as much as possible.

 

There is something poetic about combatting war- and disease-mediated mortality simultaneously - and without necessarily increasing overall expenditure, just re-allocating the funds. Imagine if all of the trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq invasion had instead been invested in medical research.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Tridimity

[swansont]

Militaries kill, and medicine saves.

 

Somewhat simplistic. Right now there are military vessels doing humanitarian work in the Philippines, helping with typhoon recovery efforts.

[iNow]

Exactly. Militaries are also currently preventing people from being slaughtered by local tribes and militias throughout the world... Guarding endangered wildlife that would otherwise be hunted to extinction... Ensuring that crops and water and medicine are delivered to people who need it instead of stolen and held hostage by gangs, etc.

[Arete]

 

Somewhat simplistic. Right now there are military vessels doing humanitarian work in the Philippines, helping with typhoon recovery efforts.

 

No to mention that the US military invests heavily in for e.g. prevention, treatment and research of vector borne disease in the tropics; http://www.army.mil/article/113241/20_years_of_Army_research_yields_hope_for_malaria_vaccine/

[Science Student]

 

Somewhat simplistic. Right now there are military vessels doing humanitarian work in the Philippines, helping with typhoon recovery efforts.

My point was that the bigger the armies the more people that have to die in wars and the more money wasted, on both sides. So if every country had a smaller army, then there would seem to be less devastation in a war. And the 10% cuts wouldn't necessarily have to be on humanitarian efforts.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Science Student

[John Cuthber]

 

 

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

 

Weird, you quote the bit where I say "OK, they happen" And t the bit where I say " if some small country decided to take on China or the UK then it's likely to fail" But you don't notice that Iraq didn't invade the US, and you ignore the fact that,if Iraq's budget were 10% bigger and the US budget were 10% smaller, it would't have mattered- which was my point.

[swansont]

My point was that the bigger the armies the more people that have to die in wars and the more money wasted, on both sides. So if every country had a smaller army, then there would seem to be less devastation in a war. And the 10% cuts wouldn't necessarily have to be on humanitarian efforts.

 

This is still a naive assertion. Realistically the humanitarian aid would probably be the first thing to get cut. And having bigger armies (or more spending) doesn't necessarily correlate with more deaths. You have to be involved in a conflict first.

[Tridimity]

 

This is still a naive assertion. Realistically the humanitarian aid would probably be the first thing to get cut. And having bigger armies (or more spending) doesn't necessarily correlate with more deaths. You have to be involved in a conflict first.

 

As you say, the size of the defence budget does not necessarily correlate with mortality rate. However, the availability of funds may help to determine whether or not a nation goes to war: that decision will likely be made on the basis of a risk/benefit analysis - how pressing is the humanitarian question (for the more cynical/realistic, how much do we desire the other country's resources) versus how much are we putting our own nation in danger. If this assumption is correct, then cutting the defence budget to an equal extent (in real terms) across all nations ought to discourage engagement in unnecessary conflicts, or those for which the risks outweigh the benefits.

 

If the departments for defence were left to their own devices, then yes, they probably would choose to cut any humanitarian aid before they cut military spending. Perhaps a multinational institution could be created, akin to the UN Security Council, that has the power to collect and store the funds re-allocated from the defence budget of each nation and to pay the nations their respective funds on a term basis for the purposes of furthering medical research. Any nations found to be involved in conflict without sound basis (i.e. under any circumstances except for the purpose of resolution of human rights abuses) then the nation would be held accountable by fellow member states and sanctions would be applied including confiscation of their funds.

[Science Student]

 

This is still a naive assertion. Realistically the humanitarian aid would probably be the first thing to get cut. And having bigger armies (or more spending) doesn't necessarily correlate with more deaths. You have to be involved in a conflict first.

That is why I put "in wars".

[iNow]

I don't mean to pile on, but having a bigger army would not necessarily result in higher death counts in wars. Having bigger and more destructive bombs might, though... And those often cost far less than troops and other related weaponry.

 

Back to your OP, I think your goals are well intentioned and rooted in kindness, but they would IMO benefit from a bit of deeper thought and consideration for the unintended consequences of implementing them. It's like the old saying that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

Your goal is to make people healthier. Your goal is to assist those in need. Your goal is to help people live fuller, happier, more fulfilling lives well into old age. I encourage you to focus on achieving those specific things without resting your approach entirely on taking things away from other places you personally deem immoral or inferior for whatever reason (like armies or military, for example).

 

After all, why not take 10% of the budget allocated to coal mining? Or perhaps 10% of the budget allocated to deforestation? Or 10% of the budget allocated to net fishing, or pornography even? Make this less about taking away from something you personally dislike and more about finding a way to support your central ideas. I believe that is what will ultimately help you be successful in that end.

 

Once you've thought through how to achieve your key objectives, then I would return to my original questions. If you plan to make more people live longer, then how will you address the added resource requirements like need for food and water and how will you do this in a way that won't have a larger detrimental effect on the environment and the climate?

 

Simply saying, "Oh, we'll find a way" makes it difficult to take such laudable goals seriously. These are real problems people are highlighting for you, and they need real, informed, and insightful solutions. Good luck, either way.

Edited November 19, 2013 by iNow

[Science Student]

I don't mean to pile on, but having a bigger army would not necessarily result in higher death counts in wars. Having bigger and more destructive bombs might, though... And those often cost far less than troops and other related weaponry.

 

Back to your OP, I think your goals are well intentioned and rooted in kindness, but they would IMO benefit from a bit of deeper thought and consideration for the unintended consequences of implementing them. It's like the old saying that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

Your goal is to make people healthier. Your goal is to assist those in need. Your goal is to help people live fuller, happier, more fulfilling lives well into old age. I encourage you to focus on achieving those specific things without resting your approach entirely on taking things away from other places you personally deem immoral or inferior for whatever reason (like armies or military, for example).

 

After all, why not take 10% of the budget allocated to coal mining? Or perhaps 10% of the budget allocated to deforestation? Or 10% of the budget allocated to net fishing, or pornography even? Make this less about taking away from something you personally dislike and more about finding a way to support your central ideas. I believe that is what will ultimately help you be successful in that end.

 

Once you've thought through how to achieve your key objectives, then I would return to my original questions. If you plan to make more people live longer, then how will you address the added resource requirements like need for food and water and how will you do this in a way that won't have a larger detrimental effect on the environment and the climate?

 

Simply saying, "Oh, we'll find a way" makes it difficult to take such laudable goals seriously. These are real problems people are highlighting for you, and they need real, informed, and insightful solutions. Good luck, either way.

I sincerely appreciate your constructive criticism.

 

This idea relies on faith that individually we will choose the more logical priority. Energies and interests will unfortunately have to shift from other priorities. For example, even a kid reading this that agrees with me and decides to study harder, may stop paying a monthly online gaming charge. There will have to be changes.

 

As for the quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", it seems as though "good" intentions is the best thing that one can start with. If you accept that, then it's whether or not you stay true to the "good" intentions as the philosophy materializes. Moreover, we have become jaded from all of the times we were fooled by the ones who used such expressions but certainly had ulterior motives. This dilutes our trust but should not dilute intensions that really are "good".

[ralfy]

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 cannot imagine military organizations and even defense industries agreeing to cuts. If any, they always want more, especially given military forces used to keep the petro-dollar propped up or to access natural resources in other countries by force.

[Science Student]

I cannot imagine military organizations and even defense industries agreeing to cuts. If any, they always want more, especially given military forces used to keep the petro-dollar propped up or to access natural resources in other countries by force.

It must come down to what each person wants individually. If this idea can gain popularity, then the heads of military contractors and congress may be influenced by societal pressure and voters respectively. Or, these individuals that can make significant changes may notice that they and their families could be better off with longer and healthier lives rather than wealthy lives that don't necessarily make them happier. So it might actually make sense for them to support and even assist medical research.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Science Student

[Tridimity]

It must come down to what each person wants individually. If this idea can gain popularity, then the heads of military contractors and congress may be influenced by societal pressure and voters respectively. Or, these individuals that can make significant changes may notice that they and their families could be better off with longer and healthier lives rather than wealthy lives that don't necessarily make them happier. So it might actually make sense for them to support and even assist medical research.

 

It would be great if it were possible to persuade individuals of the correctness of peace but I honestly think that some people just do not care about fellow men, women and children - they only care about their immediate family members (selfish gene) and their safety. For example, I know people whose relatives were involved in the Iraq invasion - they were very concerned about the safe return of their family members but showed zero concern about the innocent Iraqi men, women and children who were being murdered on a daily basis. Perhaps it comes down to an 'us' versus 'them' mentality which is reinforced the more that nations are seen to harbour their own individual identities at the expense of our ultimate shared identity as human beings.

 

Reminds me of something that TAR said recently - if you can manage to convince people of their shared identity, and to absorb others into their own conception of 'self', then they will not think about hurting one another, as to hurt another would be to hurt oneself. Global unification.

[Science Student]

It would be great if it were possible to persuade individuals of the correctness of peace but I honestly think that some people just do not care about fellow men, women and children - they only care about their immediate family members (selfish gene) and their safety. For example, I know people whose relatives were involved in the Iraq invasion - they were very concerned about the safe return of their family members but showed zero concern about the innocent Iraqi men, women and children who were being murdered on a daily basis. Perhaps it comes down to an 'us' versus 'them' mentality which is reinforced the more that nations are seen to harbour their own individual identities at the expense of our ultimate shared identity as human beings.

 

I think that you took my post to mean the exact opposite of what I intended it to mean. My post was not about anyone necessarily doing anything for anyone outside of an individual and the interests of the individual's family.

 

To reiterate in an example, imagine a selfish psychopath who we will name John. John may be very powerful, but one thing for sure is that he only cares about himself. He reads my idea on this thread. He may realize that the more he promotes and helps advance this idea the better off he will be individually, while doing "good" and helping others incidentally. He may also realize that not even money is more valuable than his life and health since he needs to be alive and healthy in order to enjoy his money.

 

My point is that nobody can do this alone, so even the selfish who like the objective may be willing to be help this cause. Because the nature of this objective is so ambitious, it will require as many people in as many different countries to promote, support and even help advance effective medical research.

 

Reminds me of something that TAR said recently - if you can manage to convince people of their shared identity, and to absorb others into their own conception of 'self', then they will not think about hurting one another, as to hurt another would be to hurt oneself. Global unification.

 

 

 

I am a huge advocate for the win-win philosophy. Selflessness is good for societies but may not be good for the individual, lose-win. Selfishness may be good for the individual but bad for a society - win-lose, which we know sometimes comes back to the individual in a negative feedback loop. But a complete win-win for all individuals should simply be good for a society and the individual.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Science Student

[ralfy]

It must come down to what each person wants individually. If this idea can gain popularity, then the heads of military contractors and congress may be influenced by societal pressure and voters respectively. Or, these individuals that can make significant changes may notice that they and their families could be better off with longer and healthier lives rather than wealthy lives that don't necessarily make them happier. So it might actually make sense for them to support and even assist medical research.

From what I gathered, what most people want is the status quo. That is, the use of the petro-dollar for much of world trade, the same petro-dollar backed by a very expensive U.S. military to make sure that various resources, especially oil, are made available for increasing economic growth, oil used to ensure increased production and consumption of goods to maintain the value of that petro-dollar and money in general, and the same money used to fund medical research and to ensure that more people can pay for advanced health care.

[Science Student]

From what I gathered, what most people want is the status quo. That is, the use of the petro-dollar for much of world trade, the same petro-dollar backed by a very expensive U.S. military to make sure that various resources, especially oil, are made available for increasing economic growth, oil used to ensure increased production and consumption of goods to maintain the value of that petro-dollar and money in general, and the same money used to fund medical research and to ensure that more people can pay for advanced health care.

If every country cut 10%, then the U.S. military could still have the same degree of power over each nation individually as it does today. Globally, the U.S. military would actually gain power.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Science Student

[Tridimity]

My point is that nobody can do this alone, so even the selfish who like the objective may be willing to be help this cause.

 

 

Oh, I see. Perhaps it could work. Since the economic prospects of wealthy individuals have become inextricably linked to the pillage of foreign nations' resources, there would need to be a regulatory mechanism in place to ensure that all nations re-allocate the correct proportion of their defence budget to medical research, so that no one nation is left with a military vulnerability in comparison with the others.

[Science Student]

 

Oh, I see. Perhaps it could work. Since the economic prospects of wealthy individuals have become inextricably linked to the pillage of foreign nations' resources, there would need to be a regulatory mechanism in place to ensure that all nations re-allocate the correct proportion of their defence budget to medical research, so that no one nation is left with a military vulnerability in comparison with the others.

Yes, that is my point.

[ralfy]

If every country cut 10%, then the U.S. military could still have the same degree of power over each nation individually as it does today. Globally, the U.S. military would actually gain power.

Given such conclusions, my argument makes sense.

[Science Student]

Given such conclusions, my argument makes sense.

I must have misunderstood the point of your post. Is it world trade that you are saying will change?

[ralfy]

I must have misunderstood the point of your post. Is it world trade that you are saying will change?

As governments are very likely not in support of the U.S. maintaining power, then they will not cut military spending. In fact, that is the case today, as China and others are now increasing military power.

[Science Student]

As governments are very likely not in support of the U.S. maintaining power, then they will not cut military spending. In fact, that is the case today, as China and others are now increasing military power.

That doesn't make any sense to me. This is a gain for China and every other country. Ideally, nothing changes militarily if every country makes fair cuts; they will only gain by advancing medicine for human beings.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Science Student