[AQuantized]

The problem is privileging technologies that have defence capabilities. There are likely countless ideas that could have similar success to DARPA projects if they had similar access to capital and state support.

However, unless it can show off some military capability its funding can't be justified using the current model, leaving a gigantic subsections of technologies that could have similar innovative impact underserved by this level of support.

[bobthechef]

Without defense, the others cannot exist. Without defense, you cannot have a space within which you can securely do other work. So it cannot be a matter of competition but prioritization.

Of course, we can criticize the massive amount of funding that goes to military contractors and the like (Eisenhower did). That's where the devil is: the military-industrial complex.

[Ericson2314]

"Defense" is the worst euphemism for the military. I wish it was still called the Department of War, which is honest.

No one is saying abolish the military. In in fact we are saying some forms of state–military complexes might be good.

It's the idea the state-driven industry must be tied to defense and not anything else that's the problem.