Governments
for hundreds of years now have sponsored advancements in modern communications
technology, memorably with the advent of submarine cables to aid communications
between colonizers and the colonized. Wars, namely, have spurred such growth in
the communications sector; increased methods of precise coordination are
necessary both to monitor one’s enemy and also to guide one’s own military.
This begs the question: are wars necessary for advancements in technology,
particular for communication?
It would
seem so: the launch of the Russian space satellite Sputnik in 1957 spurred an
influx of government spending in science and math programs across the United
States in a (successful) effort to catch up. This spaceship, which brought
about the fear of Russian capability to send a ballistic missile from space to
any point within the United States (Hanson) allowed for technological advances
leading to President Kennedy’s sponsorship of a global satellite system. What
do we get from this? TV, for one. What was originally a government endeavor has
now been increased communication ability for even the poorest in the world.
What’s
more, everyday people use computers (originally used for military calculations)
and the Internet (originally used to transfer governmental data that could
withstand a nuclear attack). Both the Internet and TV have contributed to a
more global economy and, even with just advertising in mind, have increased the
amount of participation of the bourgeoisie in what was once restricted to governmental
affairs. The following website has an interesting debate on whether or not wars
are the mother of invention or if invention is the mother of war:
No comments:
Post a Comment