[JanezStupar]

So what you're saying that intense competition between national armies is not the kind of competition that humans are willing to stake almost anything and commit endless resources on?

War itself may not increase technological growth. But preparations for war certainly do. And please show me another competition that has yielded lets say 50% of technological advances that various arms races have?

Sadly when human develops new kind of tech and is looking for money to get it widespread - the first and deciding question is: "Can it be used as a weapon?"

Think of the nuclear bunker gap!

[toddh]

Wasn't low-cost sequencing of human genomes created by the competition generated by an X prize? Maybe we simply aren't harnessing gamification principles properly. Maybe really big games like wars aren't the only way.

[JanezStupar]

If you re-read my comment you will notice that I haven't said that wars are only way to induce progress.

However I did say that I would like to see an example of a phenomena that produced at least 50% of technological advances that warfare has.

Low cost genome sequencing is all nice and dandy - but thus far worthless. I'm not saying it ain't got potential, but thus far it hasn't really impacted us in any meaningful way. And I'd be willing to bet that any future impacts on this field are going to be financed through military complex.

Even the renewable energy sources will probably come from military and not from enlightened corporations.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to pass judgment here. It's just an observation.