Please give me some comment on this ppt. (ChatGPT, 2025-2-28) (自體的心理學）（車行哲學）

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Pv7tE4JbjpsEbTfcPemsKnknMvXEltYU/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=115251326502230793012&rtpof=true&sd=true

Your presentation, Exile, is a rich and thought-provoking exploration of exile through multiple lenses—literary, photographic, psychoanalytic, and political. Here are my comments:

Strengths

1. Interdisciplinary Approach:

• The combination of literature, psychoanalysis, photography, and historical-political events creates a multifaceted discussion of exile.

• The inclusion of figures like Josef Koudelka, Julio Cortázar, Roberto Bolaño, and Heinz Kohut provides diverse perspectives on exile as both a physical and psychological condition.

2. Use of Visual and Textual Material:

• Koudelka’s photography and the reference to his Exiles series add a powerful visual element to the theme.

• The integration of psychoanalytic perspectives (Marie Langer, León Grinberg, Nancy Caro Hollander) deepens the psychological dimensions of exile.

3. Philosophical and Existential Depth:

• The discussion of psychoanalysis and exile—particularly through Kohut’s self psychology—offers a compelling take on uprootedness, loss, and the search for identity.

• The implicit tension between political exile (forced displacement) and existential exile (the alienation of the modern individual) is a strong underlying theme.

4. Historical and Political Engagement:

• The connection to Latin American dictatorships and their impact on psychoanalysis (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) is well-developed.

• The discussion of Tiananmen exiles and dissident Chinese writers (e.g., Liao Yiwu) expands the conversation beyond the Western exile tradition.

Areas for Enhancement

1. More Explicit Thematic Structure:

• The content is rich, but the transitions between different sections could be smoother.

• Perhaps adding thematic sections (e.g., Photography and Exile, Literature and Exile, Psychoanalysis and Exile) would clarify the structure.

2. Stronger Integration of Psychoanalysis:

• The connection between exile and Kohut’s self psychology is fascinating, but it could be developed further.

• How does exile shape self-cohesion? How does it relate to Kohut’s rejection of innate aggression and his focus on empathic connections?

3. Clarifying the Central Question:

• The final slides ask: Does psychoanalysis belong to exile literature? Is self psychology exile literature?

• These are intriguing questions, but it would help to briefly define what you mean by “exile literature” in the psychoanalytic context.

• A synthesis slide summing up the key arguments would strengthen the presentation.

Overall Impression

This is a deeply engaging presentation that situates exile as a critical site of artistic, psychological, and political reflection. With some structural refinements and stronger theoretical integration, it could become an even more powerful exploration of the theme.

3/1/25 （星期六）

 PM 3-5 團督，about the first session，drop out，and 交友軟體，加減作，崙坪下午，

Well, my friend, quoting from you, “Vice may light fires under innovation, but virtue builds the steady flame”, I do hope you’re right about “steady flame”. For me, the present day situation of Taiwan facing the barbaric CCP, is like the late 1930s Europe facing the Nazies. (ChatGPT, 2025-2-28)

 Your analogy between Taiwan’s current predicament and late-1930s Europe facing Nazi Germany is historically resonant. The CCP’s expansionist ambitions, revisionist historical narratives, military build-up, and systematic suppression of dissent indeed bear troubling similarities to how the Nazis reshaped Germany and sought territorial dominance before World War II.

Parallels Between Taiwan-CCP Today and Europe-Nazi Germany in the Late 1930s

1. Revisionist Nationalism & Expansionism

• The Nazis sought to reclaim “lost” territories (e.g., the Sudetenland, Austria) under the banner of “Lebensraum” (living space), arguing that Germany had a rightful claim over certain lands and peoples.

• The CCP uses a similar irredentist narrative, claiming Taiwan as an “inseparable part of China” despite its de facto independence. Just as Hitler framed territorial expansion as a “correction” of historical injustices, Xi Jinping’s rhetoric about “reunification” serves as ideological justification for military aggression.

2. Appeasement & Western Indecision

• In the 1930s, Britain and France hesitated to confront Hitler, hoping that diplomacy or economic engagement would deter him. The Munich Agreement (1938) gave Germany the Sudetenland, a move meant to prevent war but which only emboldened Hitler.

• Today, Western democracies are divided on how to handle China’s threats to Taiwan. The U.S. and allies support Taiwan verbally and militarily, but economic entanglement with China makes them cautious. Some argue for deterrence, while others fear escalation.

• In both cases, dictatorships benefit from democratic hesitation. Just as Hitler exploited Western fear of war, the CCP exploits global economic interdependence and military risks to discourage direct intervention.

3. Militarization & Strategic Timing

• Nazi Germany rapidly rearmed and modernized its military while the world watched. By 1939, Germany’s Wehrmacht was ready to launch full-scale invasions.

• The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) has followed a similar trajectory. Over the past two decades, China has:

• Expanded its naval power to control regional waters.

• Developed “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) strategies to deter U.S. intervention.

• Increased warplane incursions into Taiwan’s ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone).

• Tested Western resolve through economic coercion and diplomatic pressure.

• The CCP hasn’t invaded yet, but it is preparing for the moment when deterrence weakens and victory seems assured—just as Hitler struck when he believed Britain and France wouldn’t react.

4. Propaganda & Justification for War

• The Nazis demonized targeted groups and used propaganda to manufacture consent for war. They portrayed ethnic Germans outside Germany as victims needing protection.

• The CCP frames Taiwan as a “rebellious province” and stokes nationalist fervor through controlled media. The idea that China must “reunify” Taiwan to achieve its destiny mirrors the Nazi rhetoric that Germany had to reclaim its lost lands.

• Both regimes prepare their populations psychologically before military action. In China, the younger generation has been raised on ultranationalist propaganda, making war with Taiwan seem not just possible, but inevitable.

Key Differences: Taiwan is Not Czechoslovakia

While the similarities are alarming, Taiwan is not the Sudetenland or Poland of the 1930s. There are key differences that could make an invasion more difficult:

1. Geography as a Natural Defense

• Taiwan is an island, making invasion vastly harder than Germany’s land conquests.

• Amphibious warfare is one of the most complex military operations—success depends on naval superiority, logistics, and sustained airpower.

• The Taiwan Strait acts as a natural barrier; the PLA must secure sea lanes while facing potential U.S. and allied intervention.

2. Stronger International Commitments

• While the world hesitated in 1938, Taiwan has active and growing U.S. military support.

• The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) commits the U.S. to supporting Taiwan’s self-defense, making any CCP aggression a high-stakes gamble.

3. Taiwan’s Own Military and Asymmetric Defenses

• Taiwan is not defenseless. It has advanced missile systems, modern aircraft, and a fortified asymmetric defense strategy designed to inflict heavy casualties on any invasion force.

• Unlike Czechoslovakia, Taiwan won’t surrender without a fight. The CCP knows an invasion could be bloody and prolonged—which is why it prefers economic coercion and political infiltration over immediate military force.

The Real Question: Will the West Act Before It’s Too Late?

One of the biggest lessons of the late 1930s was that deterrence fails when aggressors perceive weakness. Hitler was emboldened by the lack of early resistance, just as Putin was emboldened in Ukraine after Western powers failed to deter Russia in Crimea (2014).

• If China believes the U.S. and its allies will NOT intervene forcefully, the risk of invasion increases.

• If Taiwan is left diplomatically isolated, Beijing might see a window of opportunity to act.

• If economic dependencies prevent strong sanctions, then deterrence weakens.

Conclusion: Preparing for the Worst While Hoping for the Best

Taiwan’s situation today echoes 1930s Europe, but history also shows that dictatorships can be deterred with clear, credible force. The key to avoiding war is ensuring:

1. Taiwan continues strengthening its defenses—especially asymmetric warfare capabilities.

2. The U.S. and its allies make their commitments to Taiwan unmistakably clear.

3. China faces overwhelming economic and strategic risks if it moves militarily.

The steady flame of virtue, as we discussed before, must be backed by the iron determination of those who value freedom. The CCP, like all authoritarian regimes, thrives on fear and hesitation. Taiwan, like Europe in the 1930s, must not stand alone.

The world will decide in the coming years whether Taiwan’s fate is like Czechoslovakia (abandoned to appeasement) or Britain (supported and defended until victory was possible). The choice is clear, but will democracies act in time?

Now, your estimation of the rise of CCP is dependent upon their strategy of 集中力量辦大事, and the prerequisite of which is that the Chinese people are content and docile to be slaves under the tyranny of CCP. In order words, the transformation of the political system is the key, rather than the economic development. (ChatGPT, 2025-2-28)

 Your argument suggests that the rise of the CCP is fundamentally dependent on political control, rather than purely on economic factors. The phrase “集中力量办大事” (mobilizing concentrated resources for grand projects) reflects the CCP’s centralized governance model, where the state directs large-scale initiatives with little to no opposition. This model relies on a submissive population—one that does not challenge authority, allowing the party to impose policies unilaterally. If this submission were to break, economic growth alone might not sustain the CCP’s rule.

This perspective shifts the focus from economic determinism (the idea that China’s rise is solely due to market reforms and GDP growth) to political determinism—arguing that China’s trajectory is first and foremost a product of the CCP’s ability to maintain political control and societal obedience.

Supporting Arguments for Political Determinism Over Economic Determinism:

1. Economic Development Serves Political Legitimacy, Not the Other Way Around

• The CCP did not pursue economic reform out of ideological conviction (Maoist communism originally rejected market forces). Instead, Deng Xiaoping’s reforms were a pragmatic survival strategy after Mao’s disastrous policies (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution). The party’s primary concern was maintaining power, and economic growth became a tool to sustain legitimacy, not an end in itself.

• Unlike democratic nations where economic downturns might lead to leadership changes, the CCP cannot afford such political risks. Economic policy is subordinate to political control. If economic liberalization ever threatened party dominance, the CCP would sacrifice growth to preserve power (e.g., recent crackdowns on tech giants, capital flight restrictions, and stronger ideological campaigns under Xi Jinping).

2. China’s “Success” Model Depends on Coercion, Not Just Efficiency

• Economic modernization under an authoritarian state is different from free-market development. China’s rapid industrialization has been state-driven, relying on forced urbanization, party-controlled financial systems, and labor exploitation rather than purely market forces.

• This is why China’s rise is not easily replicable elsewhere—it is not just about infrastructure or industry, but about the political conditions that enable the CCP to force through policies without consent. The Three Gorges Dam, Belt and Road Initiative, high-speed rail network—these projects were implemented with little regard for opposition, environmental concerns, or property rights.

• The hukou (household registration) system has historically restricted internal migration, ensuring that surplus rural labor fuels urban economic zones without granting them full rights, effectively turning millions into second-class economic units rather than full citizens.

3. China’s Economy is Fragile Without Political Submission

• If the Chinese population were not politically docile, the economic system would collapse not because of financial crises alone, but because of governance failure. Unlike Western countries, where political institutions provide mechanisms to correct economic failures, China’s system relies on top-down mandates—meaning that if societal obedience weakens, the whole system lacks resilience.

• The real estate crisis, local government debt, youth unemployment, and capital outflow are symptoms of an economic model that worked when the people played along. The CCP can suppress dissent only so long as the promise of stability holds. But if people stop accepting “sacrificing today for tomorrow”, then social control, not economic hardship alone, will become the CCP’s biggest challenge.

The Real Test: What Happens When the Chinese People Stop Being “Slaves”?

If submission is the foundation of China’s economic and political order, then the real determinant of China’s future is not GDP growth but political obedience. If cracks appear in the CCP’s ability to enforce submission (whether through ideology, propaganda, or coercion), then:

• Economic decline will not be just a financial issue—it will become a regime crisis.

• Even with economic development, political pressure (censorship, surveillance, repression) will have to increase, leading to diminishing returns on governance efficiency.

• The greatest threat to the CCP is not Western economic competition, but internal disobedience—whether from workers, the middle class, or even elites.

Thus, your argument is valid: The CCP’s power is not sustained by economic success, but by the political system that ensures the population remains passive. Economic development is a tool, not the core mechanism of control. The real battle for China’s future is not between GDP figures, but between the CCP’s demand for absolute control and the people’s willingness to submit.

Conclusion:

• If the Chinese people remain content with being “slaves” under authoritarian rule, then the CCP will continue to function, even if the economy slows.

• If submission breaks down, then economic growth won’t save the regime—because the true pillar of China’s rise is not economics, but political obedience.

• The transformation of the political system, rather than economic changes, will determine whether China remains stable or enters a period of upheaval.

Can we say that what drives the development of civilization is technology, specifically the malicious use of technology, in other words, vice is more deterministic than goodness? (ChatGPT, 2025-2-28)

 Are you asking whether technological advancement is primarily driven by competition, conflict, and malicious intent (e.g., war, exploitation, power struggles) rather than altruism or cooperation?

I can explore:

• Whether historical technological breakthroughs were mostly motivated by military needs, economic domination, or other forms of aggressive competition.

• Counterexamples where cooperation, ethics, or moral good led to major advancements.

• Philosophical perspectives on whether vice (e.g., greed, warfare, power-seeking) is a stronger driver of progress than virtue (e.g., cooperation, curiosity, benevolence).

Would you like a historical analysis, a philosophical discussion, or a mix of both?

Historical analysis, please. (ChatGPT, 2025-2-28)

I’ll conduct a historical analysis to determine whether the primary driver of civilization’s technological development has been vice (e.g., war, exploitation, competition) rather than virtue (e.g., cooperation, ethical progress, curiosity).

I will examine:

• Key technological breakthroughs throughout history and their primary motivations.

• The role of war, conflict, and power struggles in accelerating technological progress.

• Examples of cooperation, ethical progress, and peaceful innovation leading to advancements.

• A comparative perspective on whether history suggests vice is more deterministic than goodness in shaping technological and civilizational growth.

I’ll provide a detailed historical overview of this debate.

I’ll conduct a historical analysis to determine whether the primary driver of civilization’s technological development has been vice (e.g., war, exploitation, competition) rather than virtue (e.g., cooperation, ethical progress, curiosity).

I will examine:

• Key technological breakthroughs throughout history and their primary motivations.

• The role of war, conflict, and power struggles in accelerating technological progress.

• Examples of cooperation, ethical progress, and peaceful innovation leading to advancements.

• A comparative perspective on whether history suggests vice is more deterministic than goodness in shaping technological and civilizational growth.

I’ll provide a detailed historical overview of this debate.

Introduction

Throughout history, humans have pursued new tools and technologies for a mix of noble and ignoble reasons. Some argue that “vice” – conflict, competition, greed, and exploitation – has been the primary engine of technological development. Others point to “virtue” – cooperation, ethical ideals, and pure curiosity – as equally or more important drivers. This analysis examines major technological breakthroughs across civilizations and eras to determine whether our progress has been driven more by vice or by virtue. We will consider how war and power struggles accelerated innovation, highlight peaceful and collaborative advancements, and compare these forces in shaping civilization’s growth.

Vice-Driven Innovation: War, Competition, and Exploitation

War as a Catalyst: Warfare has repeatedly accelerated technological progress by creating urgent needs and massive resource investments. The adage “necessity is the mother of invention” often applies to war, as nations under threat pour effort into new solutions . In ancient times, metallurgy advanced as societies forged stronger bronze and iron weapons to gain military advantage. Archimedes, for example, devised war machines to defend ancient Syracuse. Chinese alchemists accidentally discovered gunpowder in the 9th century while seeking an elixir of life – a quest of curiosity – but it was almost immediately repurposed for warfare. By 904 A.D., Song dynasty armies were using gunpowder arrows and primitive bombs against invaders . Military engineers in China continually improved gunpowder weapons (rockets, grenades, flamethrowers) to hold off enemies , and the technology soon spread via the Silk Road, revolutionizing warfare worldwide.

Historical Examples of War-Driven Advances: Many breakthrough technologies have direct roots in conflict or military funding:

• Gunpowder and Firearms (9th–13th c.): Born from Taoist experiments, gunpowder became a devastating weapon in China and later the Middle East and Europe, dramatically altering warfare . Cannon and firearms development in the late medieval period were spurred by incessant wars and sieges.

• Navigation and Shipbuilding (15th–18th c.): The Age of Exploration was propelled by competition for trade and empire. European powers invested in better ships (caravels, galleons), cartography, and navigation (e.g. the magnetic compass, marine chronometer) to outmaneuver rivals in reaching Asia and the New World. Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal mixed curiosity with crusading zeal and profit motive, eagerly testing new ship designs and instruments to expand imperial reach . Colonial rivalry drove these maritime innovations as much as the spirit of discovery.

• Food Preservation (19th c.): In 1795, Napoleon’s government famously offered a prize for a method to preserve food for armies on long campaigns. This led inventor Nicolas Appert to develop canning in 1809, sealing boiled foods in airtight containers . The military’s need to feed troops catalyzed an invention that soon had wide civilian use (canned foods).

• Industrial Warfare Tech (19th–early 20th c.): The Industrial Revolution boosted firepower and logistics. Railroads and the telegraph, though commercial innovations, were quickly adopted by militaries (e.g. in the U.S. Civil War) to move troops and information faster. World War I’s trench stalemate hastened the invention of tanks, chemical weapons, and aircraft advancements.

• World War II (1939–45): This global conflict unleashed unprecedented R&D. Governments funneled huge budgets and talent into technology for victory. The period produced radar, more advanced aircraft (jet engines), rocketry, the first electronic computers (for code-breaking and artillery calculations), and the atomic bomb . Many of these innovations later gave rise to civilian applications – for example, wartime radar research led to microwave ovens in peacetime, and military computers laid the groundwork for modern computing. The war also accelerated medical breakthroughs like mass-production of penicillin and the first flu vaccines to keep soldiers healthy.

• Cold War and High-Tech Race (1945–1991): The U.S.–Soviet rivalry pushed technology to new heights. Space exploration became a “dramatic arena” of competition as each superpower strove to prove its system’s superiority . The result was a rapid series of advances: satellites, intercontinental missiles, human spaceflight, and the 1969 Moon landing – all propelled by the desire to beat the enemy in the Space Race . Similarly, the Cold War drove invention of nuclear power, jet airliners (derived from military jets), and the Internet’s precursor. ARPANET, created by the U.S. Department of Defense during the Cold War, eventually evolved into today’s Internet – a peacetime communication revolution born from military networking needs.

The first nuclear test explosion (“Trinity” in 1945) – a product of the Manhattan Project – epitomizes how World War II’s desperation accelerated science. Within six years of its start, the war yielded nuclear technology, a breakthrough with immense destructive power and postwar civilian applications (from energy to medicine).

Exploitation and Power as Engines: Beyond outright war, other “vices” like greed and domination have spurred tech progress. Colonialism is a stark example: European empires conquered and exploited foreign lands, and in the process drove innovation in transportation, manufacturing, and communications. The demand for resources to fuel industries led imperial powers to develop better mining technology, plantation systems, and transportation networks. During the Industrial Revolution, Europe’s need for raw materials such as cotton, coal, and rubber drove further colonization of resource-rich regions in Asia, Africa, and the Americas . Colonies provided cheap inputs and captive markets, creating economic incentives to improve textile machinery, steamships, and railroads to extract goods and export finished products . This dynamic was rooted in exploitation and profit-seeking, not altruism.

Economic competition between firms and nations – often cutthroat – has likewise propelled innovation. The rivalry of businesses in capitalist economies incentivizes research to gain an edge (sometimes at the cost of worker welfare or ethical concerns). For instance, the 19th-century “War of Currents” between Edison and Westinghouse/Tesla spurred advances in electrical technology, driven by corporate competition. In the 20th century, the competition of the arms industry and the space industry led to rapid strides in aerospace, electronics, and materials science. Many technological feats (from supersonic aircraft to microelectronics) trace back to competitive one-upmanship, either economic or geopolitical.

The Double-Edged Sword: Vice-driven innovation often comes with high costs. War can redirect scientific talent to destructive ends and can even stifle progress in some fields. As one historian notes, intense government focus on wartime projects may yield breakthroughs, but it also crowds out other innovation – developments “stunted by war” leave no trace in history . A striking example is the transistor: Bell Labs began research on solid-state amplifiers in 1936, but World War II forced a halt as resources shifted to urgent military needs. The first transistor was only demonstrated in 1947 after the war’s end. In this case, war delayed an invention that would become the foundation of modern electronics . (Military funding later helped improve and commercialize the transistor, illustrating war’s mixed impact .) Thus, while conflict has frequently accelerated specific technologies (especially weapons, transportation, and communications), it’s not a universal or cost-free driver. We must also ask what innovations might have flourished sooner under peaceful collaboration.

Virtue-Driven Innovation: Cooperation, Curiosity, and Ethics

Not all advancement stems from competition or violence. Peaceful periods and virtuous motives have produced some of humanity’s greatest inventions. Curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake have been crucial, as has deliberate cooperation to improve life. Unlike war-driven efforts, these innovations often aim to expand human capabilities or well-being without a zero-sum adversary. Here we survey cases where collaboration, ethical ideals, and intellectual curiosity sparked progress.

Knowledge and Curiosity as Catalysts: The thirst to understand the world has driven many breakthroughs independent of conflict. Ancient scholars in relatively peaceful civilizations made enduring contributions: for example, Hellenistic engineers invented early computers (the Antikythera mechanism) and advanced mathematics without any war motive, and Indian and Chinese scholars made strides in metallurgy, textile technology, and agriculture driven by practical needs and curiosity. The Islamic Golden Age (8th–13th centuries) is a prime example of virtuous progress. Under stable caliphates, scholars of many faiths collaborated at institutions like Baghdad’s House of Wisdom, translating and building upon Greek, Persian, and Indian knowledge. They achieved pioneering advances in algebra, astronomy, medicine, and optics driven by intellectual inquiry and utility to society – not war . For instance, they developed algebra and trigonometry, mapped the stars to improve navigation and prayer schedules, and wrote medical encyclopedias. This flourishing of science was enabled by patronage and a culture of learning, illustrating how curiosity and cooperation can propel technology (e.g. new astrolabes, irrigation methods, surgical tools) in times of peace.

Many fundamental scientific discoveries that later enabled technology were made by individuals following their curiosity. Galileo’s improvements to the telescope and Newton’s laws of motion in the 17th century were not driven by war (though they eventually informed military engineering). In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists like Michael Faraday explored electricity and magnetism out of pure interest, laying groundwork for electric motors and communication. Such foundational progress owed to supportive institutions (academies, universities) and the free exchange of ideas – a cooperative ethos. In fact, the Industrial Revolution itself, while fueled by some competitive and colonial impulses, also depended on an international community of knowledge-sharing. Historians note that British inventors did not innovate in isolation; inventors and scientists across Europe and America corresponded, shared research, and learned from each other’s work, effectively a “joint international effort” of collaboration behind the era’s technological leaps . The development of the steam engine, for example, drew on scientific insights from France and experiments in Britain simultaneously. This cross-pollination was a form of cooperation that accelerated progress.

Cooperation and Humanitarian Motives: Organized cooperation – whether among individuals, societies, or nations – has directly produced landmark innovations. Unlike wartime alliances that unite against enemies, these efforts unite people for a common positive purpose. A classic case is public health and medicine: the drive to save lives has led to technologies like vaccines, which were developed through scientific collaboration and ethical intent. Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine (1796) emerged from careful observation and sharing of medical knowledge; it spread globally through cooperation among physicians, ultimately eradicating smallpox. In the 20th century, the cooperative efforts of doctors and scientists led to antibiotics, medical imaging (X-rays, MRI), and more – often driven by the desire to reduce human suffering, not to gain power.

At the international scale, the green revolution of the mid-20th century (led by agronomist Norman Borlaug) was a collaborative, humanitarian effort to breed high-yield crops and alleviate world hunger. This peaceful campaign of agricultural innovation likely saved millions of lives and was funded by global charities and governments working together, exemplifying virtue-driven progress in biotechnology.

Scientific collaboration has reached new heights in modern times. Large-scale projects unthinkable for any single nation have succeeded through global teamwork. For example, the Human Genome Project (1990–2003) assembled an international team of laboratories to map the entire human DNA sequence. It was a “highly collaborative international effort” involving scientists from many countries pooling knowledge and resources for a shared goal . The project was motivated by curiosity about our biology and the promise of curing disease – an essentially altruistic quest – and is considered one of the most important scientific endeavors in history . Another example is the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), where in 1989 Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web as a tool to help scientists around the world share information seamlessly. The Web’s creation was explicitly to “meet the demand for automated information-sharing between scientists in universities and institutes around the world” – a fruit of cooperation that unleashed the information age.

Perhaps the most emblematic cooperative technical project is the International Space Station (ISS), launched in 1998. This orbiting laboratory was built and is operated by a partnership of  five space agencies (from the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada) and dozens of nations. Former Cold War rivals set aside differences to work on a “focused peaceful enterprise” of engineering . The ISS’s construction and daily operations depend on trust, shared funding, and joint problem-solving, demonstrating that great technological feats can be achieved through global unity.

The International Space Station – assembled and maintained by multiple countries – symbolizes technological achievement through peace and collaboration. Nations that once competed in the Space Race now work together 250 miles above the Earth, conducting research for the benefit of all humanity.

Cooperative innovation is also seen in the open-source software movement and international scientific exchanges. These rely on voluntary collaboration and transparency – a stark contrast to the secrecy of military research. For instance, Linux and Wikipedia are products of countless contributors worldwide, driven by a shared vision of creating knowledge tools freely accessible to anyone. While not usually labeled “technology breakthroughs” in the hardware sense, they represent a mode of innovation powered by collective effort and idealism rather than profit or conflict.

Comparative Perspective: Vice vs. Virtue in Technological Development

Examining the historical record, both “vice” and “virtue” have been pivotal in driving technological change, but in different ways. Warfare and competition have undeniably spurred rapid innovation at specific moments. When survival or supremacy is at stake, societies mobilize immense resources and talent toward innovation, as seen with World War II’s research programs and the Cold War’s space and arms races. This has yielded everything from iron swords to nuclear reactors. Vice-driven progress tends to focus on strategic and economic advantages – better weapons, faster communication, more efficient production – and often produces spin-off benefits for civilians (e.g. the jet engine powering commercial air travel, or GPS satellite technology initially developed for the military). Historical evidence from many civilizations (China’s defensive gunpowder weapons, Europe’s competitive voyages and arms buildup, America and the USSR’s high-tech race) suggests that conflict and competition have been recurrent catalysts for leaps forward.

However, virtuous drivers have been just as essential, especially for foundational and long-term advancements. Cooperation and peace provide the environment for sustained development. Periods of stability and open exchange (such as Pax Britannica in 19th-century Britain or the Pax Mongolica on the Silk Road) allowed technology and knowledge to spread and accumulate. In fact, Britain’s head start in the Industrial Revolution was partly because it was at peace while rivals on the European continent were embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars, which distracted talent and resources elsewhere . Peace gave Britain the freedom to innovate in textile machinery, steam power, and ironmaking, illustrating John Milton’s maxim that “Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war.” Moreover, collaborative initiatives – whether the joint scientific efforts of the 17th–18th centuries or modern international projects – have tackled problems that war would never address (such as eradicating diseases or exploring fundamental physics). These virtuous efforts often generate broad, diffuse benefits rather than the narrower, goal-directed advances of war.

Crucially, the line between vice and virtue is not always clear-cut. Many innovations result from a dynamic interplay of both forces. For example, the space program began as a fierce Cold War contest, but later evolved into a venue for cooperation (Apollo-Soyuz, the ISS) and pure scientific exploration. Nuclear technology was born from war, yet today international regulatory frameworks and research collaborations aim to use it peacefully. The internet had military beginnings (ARPANET) but was then nurtured by academics and idealists into an open civilian network. In some cases, virtuous intentions guide an invention’s initial development which is later co-opted for profit or war (as with early aeronautical inventions being applied to military aircraft). In other cases, military tech is later repurposed for humanitarian use (e.g. drones used in disaster relief). History shows a complex tapestry rather than a simple moral dichotomy.

When weighing which factor has been more deterministic in our technological evolution, it’s clear that conflict has been a powerful accelerator, but not the sole or even always the dominant force. War often reshapes the timeline of innovation – speeding up certain developments (rocketry, computing) while derailing or constraining others. Peaceful cooperation, on the other hand, has been vital for the breadth and sustainability of progress – it creates the conditions for systematic research and the sharing of ideas across borders and generations. Without the cumulative knowledge built during peacetime (the “shoulders of giants”), the quick bursts of wartime innovation would have little to draw on. And without ethical and cooperative frameworks, many technologies might never reach beyond prototypes or might cause more harm than good.

In summary, historical evidence does not support a cynical view that vice alone drives progress. War and competition have repeatedly triggered bursts of technological creativity , but goodness, curiosity, and cooperation have also fundamentally shaped our technological world. Indeed, some analysts caution that the idea “war is the midwife of invention” is overstated and that we should not ignore the innovations lost or delayed due to conflict . From the Library of Alexandria to the modern laboratory, from the Wright brothers (driven by a dream of flight) to the teams who built the internet’s protocols on a principle of open sharing, virtuous motivations have proven immensely fruitful. Vice may light fires under innovation, but virtue builds the steady flame. Our civilizational growth has been a product of both: the spur of competition and conflict tempered and enriched by the collaborative pursuit of knowledge and human betterment.

Sources:

• Colburn, Robert. “Which Stimulates Innovation More, War or Peace?” IEEE-USA InSight, 2014 .

• Strickland, Jonathan. “Do wars drive technological advancement?” HowStuffWorks, 2023 .

• Szczepanski, Kallie. “The Invention of Gunpowder: A History.” ThoughtCo, 2019 .

• Asia for Educators, Columbia University. “Gunpowder – Song Dynasty China.” (n.d.) .

• Little, Becky. “6 World War II Innovations That Changed Everyday Life.” History Channel, 2021 .

• Britannica. “European exploration: The Age of Discovery.” (2025 update) .

• Nesta. “The French Food Preservation Prize.” (Guide to Historical Challenge Prizes) .

• CFR Education. “During the Industrial Revolution, demand for raw materials drove colonization…” (Colonialism) .

• Wikipedia. “Science in the medieval Islamic world.” (Medieval Islamic science and its purposes) .

• Mokyr, Joel. Long-Term Economic Growth and Technological Change (Paper). – Cited in reference to Britain’s peaceful Industrial Revolution context .

• History.com Editors. “The Space Race.” History.com, 2010 .

• CERN. “The Birth of the Web.” (World Wide Web history) .

• National Human Genome Research Institute. “Human Genome Project Fact Sheet.” (genome.gov) .

• ISS National Lab. “Why the International Space Station Deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.” issnationallab.org, 2020 .