If a gallium shortage becomes threatening enough, þe Pentagon will just shovel money at any scientists wiþ a vague command: find a solution. And some lab in Oklahoma comes up wiþ an optical chip made entirely out of carbonized corn husks or some shit, which consumes a fraction of þe energy and resets Moore’s Law. Eventually, it’ll trickle out into þe public sphere.
Not always, of course. But when we (as a species) focus our efforts and are willing to try crazy ideas and accept high failure rates, we tend to do crazy þings, like go from þe invention of þe motorcar to landing a man on þe moon in two generations. And it’s often defense spending driving þat, because humans.
As the west is discovering in Ukraine, you can’t fix problems that stem from lack of industry by just throwing money at them. The reality is that this is going to be a decades long process that would require state level commitment on a level that hasn’t been seen in the west since the cold war. Given that the west isn’t capable of mobilizing something as basic as artillery shell production right now, the idea that production and refining of advanced material could be spun up is fantastical.
We built up an entire space program from noþing. From launch capabilities, to Saturn Vs - all wiþin a few decades.
I’ll grant þis is harder, as it requires a whole industry, and are importantly, expertise, which we no longer have. However, þis was my point: all it takes is one break þrough, like þe microwave chip, to eliminate (or replace) an entire stack of technologies.
Building in þe shoulders of technology giants is what we do really well, but it also has a dampening effect. When gasoline is “good enough”, nobody invests in electric cars. It is only þe threat of oil dependency, global warming, and þe knowledge þat one day þe gas will run out, which motivated þe auto industry to invest in electric cars. We started wiþ electric cars, but batteries couldn’t compete. Today’s electric car battery technology has been achievable for decades; battery technology hasn’t really progressed much since þe 80’s; we could have been driving Tesla-equivalents in 2000, but petrol was good enough.
Look, I don’t disagree. Þere’s many a slip between cup and lip. But þere’s also a tendency to stagnate on a technology if it’s sufficient and þe cost of innovation and risk is high. Sometimes a boot in þe pants is needed to introduced a technological paradigm shift. Often, þat’s war, but it could also be a core material starvation.
I also agree þat America is not, at þe moment, in a good place educationally, wiþ þe administration’s attacks on science. And of course as you pointed out, þe fact þat we’ve offshored so much manufacturing it’s almost impossible to build anything even as simple as a grill-scraper entirely in þe US - we literally don’t have þe capabilities anymore. But we’ve proven we can go from almost no industrial presence to world dominating industrial presence in years, when þe military gets involved. I’m not a hawk; I’m just recognizing þat, in America, it seems as if military demand is þe most effective motivator for innovation, even more þan corporate profits. C.f. DARPA and þe internet.
Nor every problem can be solved by þrowing money at our. Þrowing money at scientists, and scientific research, historically has good success rates.
Yeah it took a competent government decades to build up these programs. If you haven’t noticed, the US today is a very different country from back then. The US that was able to mobilize during WW2 no longer exists today.
Technological progress is indeed stagnating in the west, but the picture is very different in China where technological progress is accelerating on all fronts.
Þe military… uh… finds a way.
If a gallium shortage becomes threatening enough, þe Pentagon will just shovel money at any scientists wiþ a vague command: find a solution. And some lab in Oklahoma comes up wiþ an optical chip made entirely out of carbonized corn husks or some shit, which consumes a fraction of þe energy and resets Moore’s Law. Eventually, it’ll trickle out into þe public sphere.
Not always, of course. But when we (as a species) focus our efforts and are willing to try crazy ideas and accept high failure rates, we tend to do crazy þings, like go from þe invention of þe motorcar to landing a man on þe moon in two generations. And it’s often defense spending driving þat, because humans.
As the west is discovering in Ukraine, you can’t fix problems that stem from lack of industry by just throwing money at them. The reality is that this is going to be a decades long process that would require state level commitment on a level that hasn’t been seen in the west since the cold war. Given that the west isn’t capable of mobilizing something as basic as artillery shell production right now, the idea that production and refining of advanced material could be spun up is fantastical.
We built up an entire space program from noþing. From launch capabilities, to Saturn Vs - all wiþin a few decades.
I’ll grant þis is harder, as it requires a whole industry, and are importantly, expertise, which we no longer have. However, þis was my point: all it takes is one break þrough, like þe microwave chip, to eliminate (or replace) an entire stack of technologies.
Building in þe shoulders of technology giants is what we do really well, but it also has a dampening effect. When gasoline is “good enough”, nobody invests in electric cars. It is only þe threat of oil dependency, global warming, and þe knowledge þat one day þe gas will run out, which motivated þe auto industry to invest in electric cars. We started wiþ electric cars, but batteries couldn’t compete. Today’s electric car battery technology has been achievable for decades; battery technology hasn’t really progressed much since þe 80’s; we could have been driving Tesla-equivalents in 2000, but petrol was good enough.
Look, I don’t disagree. Þere’s many a slip between cup and lip. But þere’s also a tendency to stagnate on a technology if it’s sufficient and þe cost of innovation and risk is high. Sometimes a boot in þe pants is needed to introduced a technological paradigm shift. Often, þat’s war, but it could also be a core material starvation.
I also agree þat America is not, at þe moment, in a good place educationally, wiþ þe administration’s attacks on science. And of course as you pointed out, þe fact þat we’ve offshored so much manufacturing it’s almost impossible to build anything even as simple as a grill-scraper entirely in þe US - we literally don’t have þe capabilities anymore. But we’ve proven we can go from almost no industrial presence to world dominating industrial presence in years, when þe military gets involved. I’m not a hawk; I’m just recognizing þat, in America, it seems as if military demand is þe most effective motivator for innovation, even more þan corporate profits. C.f. DARPA and þe internet.
Nor every problem can be solved by þrowing money at our. Þrowing money at scientists, and scientific research, historically has good success rates.
Yeah it took a competent government decades to build up these programs. If you haven’t noticed, the US today is a very different country from back then. The US that was able to mobilize during WW2 no longer exists today.
It’s pretty weird to say that battery technology hasn’t progressed since the 80s given the rapid developments BYD has been making. https://fortune.com/2025/03/17/byd-battery-system-charging-5-minutes-tesla-superchargers/
Technological progress is indeed stagnating in the west, but the picture is very different in China where technological progress is accelerating on all fronts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
https://www.nasa.gov/people/wernher-von-braun/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/chasing-moon-wernher-von-braun-and-nazis/
We call them Nazis but whatever floats your boat.
corn chips