[rubashov]

Fair point on the disastrous social engineering and urban redevelopment schemes of the 20th century. But, what about sending men to the moon or designing and building the sr-71 in a few years? Or for that matter conquering Japan and Germany in the space of a few years.

I argue these are all things our society today would simply not be able to do if placed in the same circumstances. We are less effective.

[brown9-2]

I argue these are all things our society today would simply not be able to do if placed in the same circumstances. We are less effective.

What is this based on? Our society today is still capable of great accomplishments - look at what Google has built in 10 years, the amount of knowledge organized there.

I would argue that we seem to be able to accomplish less because as a society our ambitions are smaller. Large government programs get nowhere today because everyone fears socialism.

[drumdance]

That, and there really are constraints now that did not exist then. Building a dam back then did not require environmental impact statements and the like.

[lindowe]

You raise the interesting point of 'Great Projects'. I'm sympathetic with the desire for a new space program, but I think it has less to do with a lack of vision and more to do with competing visions. NASA has a harder time raising money in the government because they have to compete against a multitude of other causes and agencies, who rightly point out that money put towards a trip to mars is money thats not going to social welfare programs, infrastructure, or other, more tangible goods. We went to the moon because there was an overwhelming desire to 'beat' the soviets; if a similar desire competitor existed today, I imagine a similar effort. As for winning WWII, its the same basic point that at that time there was an obvious single good to be pursued, winning the war, whereas now there are many different goods. This isn't the fault of our elites or our efficiency, it just points to the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. It would be better to embrace that, and devolve more power to civil society, than to continue to pine for elites who can overcome opposition.