1
people have died from curable diseases
since this page started loading...
💀

Peace Dividend

Keywords

war-on-disease, 1-percent-treaty, medical-research, public-health, peace-dividend, decentralized-trials, dfda, dih, victory-bonds, health-economics, cost-benefit-analysis, clinical-trials, drug-development, regulatory-reform, military-spending, peace-economics, decentralized-governance, wishocracy, blockchain-governance, impact-investing

Here’s what 1% less murder money buys you:

How 1% Less Violence Pays For Everything

An analysis of your decentralized FDA shows pragmatic clinical trials can be 44.1x more efficient. So the question isn’t whether you can afford this. It’s where to steal the money.

Decentralized trials are 44 times cheaper than traditional ones. Could be 39 times cheaper, could be 89 times cheaper. Either way, you’ve been doing it wrong.

Decentralized trials are 44 times cheaper than traditional ones. Could be 39 times cheaper, could be 89 times cheaper. Either way, you’ve been doing it wrong.

Two ways you profit from building 1% fewer bombs:

The Captured Money: $27.2B/Year

Your governments spend $2.72T yearly on things whose sole purpose is making other things stop existing.

Redirect 1%:

$2.72T × 0.01 = $27.2B

That funds the whole system. One percent. The rounding error on your murder budget.

The Bonus Savings: $114B/Year

That’s the money you grab. Here’s the money you stop lighting on fire.

Wars cost $11.4T/year. Build 1% fewer bombs, fight 1% fewer wars, save $114B.

$11.4T × 0.01 = $114B

Money no longer spent on:

  • Unblowing-up hospitals and bridges
  • Removing shrapnel from people you put shrapnel into
  • Housing refugees (people whose homes were converted into craters)
  • Trade disruptions (it turns out shipping containers don’t fit through minefields)

Where the $114B Comes From

Here’s your itemized receipt for violence:

What Wars Cost Total/Year 1% Less War Saves
Direct Costs $7.66T $76.6B
Military budgets

$2.72T

$27.2B
Destroying infrastructure

$1.88T

$18.8B
Human casualties

$2.45T

$24.5B
Trade disruption

$616B

$6.16B
Indirect Costs $3.70T $37B
Lost economic growth

$2.72T

$27.2B
Veteran healthcare

$200B

$2B
Refugee support

$150B

$1.50B
Environmental damage

$100B

$1B
PTSD and mental health

$232B

$2.32B
Lost human capital

$300B

$3B
Total $11.4T $114B

You capture $27.2B for pragmatic clinical trials.

The 114 billion you save by fighting one percent less: some from buying fewer bombs, some from burying fewer people, some from economies not collapsing. War is expensive.

The 114 billion you save by fighting one percent less: some from buying fewer bombs, some from burying fewer people, some from economies not collapsing. War is expensive.

You save $114B on not breaking stuff.

On your planet, this is called “a good deal.” On mine, it’s called “so obvious that failing to do it constitutes evidence of a cognitive disability.”

Plus cancer gets cured as a bonus. Almost forgot about that part.

The benefits cascade beyond medicine in ways that should be obvious but apparently aren’t. Addiction is a neurological disorder; cure the brain chemistry and the drug trade collapses. Most poverty is catastrophic medical costs; cure the diseases and people can work again. Radicalization is often untreated mental illness; you can’t bomb someone into being mentally stable (you tried this, it didn’t work, cost $8 trillion, created more radicals). Fix the biology and you fix the society. This is not a new insight. It’s just one your species keeps forgetting because explosions are louder than pharmacology.

The Formulas

The money you definitely get versus the total benefit to society. One is guaranteed, the other is probably much bigger. Like ordering fries and getting the whole potato farm.

The money you definitely get versus the total benefit to society. One is guaranteed, the other is probably much bigger. Like ordering fries and getting the whole potato farm.

The Captured Dividend (the money you definitely get):

\[ \begin{gathered} Funding_{treaty} \\ = Spending_{mil} \times Reduce_{treaty} \\ = \$2.72T \times 1\% \\ = \$27.2B \end{gathered} \]

The Societal Dividend (the money you save by being slightly less insane):

\[ \begin{gathered} Benefit_{peace,soc} \\ = Cost_{war,total} \times Reduce_{treaty} \\ = \$11.4T \times 1\% \\ = \$114B \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Cost_{war,total} \\ = Cost_{war,direct} + Cost_{war,indirect} \\ = \$7.66T + \$3.7T \\ = \$11.4T \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Cost_{war,direct} \\ = Loss_{life,conflict} + Damage_{infra,total} \\ + Disruption_{trade} + Spending_{mil} \\ = \$2.45T + \$1.88T + \$616B + \$2.72T \\ = \$7.66T \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Loss_{life,conflict} \\ = Cost_{combat,human} + Cost_{state,human} \\ + Cost_{terror,human} \\ = \$2.34T + \$27B + \$83B \\ = \$2.45T \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Cost_{combat,human} \\ = Deaths_{combat} \times VSL \\ = 234{,}000 \times \$10M \\ = \$2.34T \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Cost_{state,human} \\ = Deaths_{state} \times VSL \\ = 2{,}700 \times \$10M \\ = \$27B \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Cost_{terror,human} \\ = Deaths_{terror} \times VSL \\ = 8{,}300 \times \$10M \\ = \$83B \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Damage_{infra,total} \\ = Damage_{comms} + Damage_{edu} + Damage_{energy} \\ + Damage_{health} + Damage_{transport} + Damage_{water} \\ = \$298B + \$234B + \$422B + \$166B + \$487B + \$268B \\ = \$1.88T \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Disruption_{trade} \\ = Disruption_{currency} + Disruption_{energy} \\ + Disruption_{shipping} + Disruption_{supply} \\ = \$57.4B + \$125B + \$247B + \$187B \\ = \$616B \end{gathered} \]
where:
\[ \begin{gathered} Cost_{war,indirect} \\ = Damage_{env} + Loss_{growth,mil} + Loss_{capital,conflict} \\ + Cost_{psych} + Cost_{refugee} + Cost_{vet} \\ = \$100B + \$2.72T + \$300B + \$232B + \$150B + \$200B \\ = \$3.7T \end{gathered} \]

The Elasticity Question

The elasticity parameter (e = 1.0) asks the only interesting question here: if you cut military spending 1%, do war costs actually drop 1% too? Or do humans, being humans, find a way to keep killing each other at full price?

  • e = 0.25: The “humans are barely trainable” scenario. Only a quarter of cuts reduce violence.
  • e = 0.5: The “humans are somewhat rational” scenario. Historically optimistic.
  • e = 1.0: Full match. The baseline assumption. Probably generous given your track record.
  • e > 1.0: The “curing cancer together is better bonding than threatening each other with missiles” scenario. Suspiciously wholesome.

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter. Even with the most pessimistic assumption (e = 0.25), the Captured Dividend of $27.2B is guaranteed. That money moves regardless of whether you manage to be less violent. It’s a bank transfer, not a prayer.

The Part Where the Math Gets Embarrassing

  1. Guaranteed money: $27.2B annually. Direct budget transfer. If the treaty passes, this happens. No elasticity, no assumptions, no hoping humans behave. Just math.

Best case: 114 billion in benefits. Worst case: 27.2 billion and you double medical research funding. Truly a devastating range of outcomes.

Best case: 114 billion in benefits. Worst case: 27.2 billion and you double medical research funding. Truly a devastating range of outcomes.

  1. Best case: Total societal benefit reaches $114B annually. The range is wide because, again, your species.

  2. Worst case: Even pessimistic scenarios stay above roughly $50B annually. Your “worst case” is still the largest increase in medical research funding in human history.

  3. Context: The Captured Dividend alone would boost global medical research funding by ~40% over the current $67.5B baseline. You’ve been spending more on camouflage paint than on curing Alzheimer’s.

What You’re Assuming (and Where It Gets Shaky)

The GDP Multiplier

Spend a dollar on weapons, get 60 cents of economic value. Spend a dollar on healthcare, get $4.30 back. Your species chose weapons. Every time. For centuries. I’ve watched you do this for 4,297 years and it has never once gotten less baffling. The Lost Economic Growth component ($2.72T) already captures this difference. It’s not double-counted, just consistently ignored.

Spend a dollar on weapons, get 60 cents of economic value. Spend a dollar on healthcare, get 4.30 dollars back. You’ve chosen weapons.

Spend a dollar on weapons, get 60 cents of economic value. Spend a dollar on healthcare, get 4.30 dollars back. You’ve chosen weapons.

The Elasticity Assumption

The treaty requires multilateral cuts, so relative military balance is preserved; if your neighbor also cuts 1%, neither of you is weaker, you’re just both slightly less armed, which historically has never been the problem. The Societal Dividend assumes 1% less spending means 1% less war cost. Reality is messier. Some costs lag by years. Some wars are fueled by boredom rather than budgets. And military spending may occasionally deter a war (though it starts far more than it prevents, which is a bit like crediting your arsonist neighbor for occasionally calling the fire department).

Theory says less war spending means proportionally less war. Reality is messier. Turns out humans aren’t very good at reducing violence incrementally.

Theory says less war spending means proportionally less war. Reality is messier. Turns out humans aren’t very good at reducing violence incrementally.

How Good Are the Sources?

I’m being honest about confidence levels, which is more than your defense contractors do.

Cost Category Source Confidence
Military Spending SIPRI (peer-reviewed) High
Infrastructure Damage Brown/Watson Costs of War Medium
Trade Disruption World Bank Medium
Lost Economic Growth SIPRI estimates Medium-Low
Psychological Impact PubMed meta-analysis Medium
Lost Human Capital Author estimates Low

The Safe Bet

The Societal Dividend is a ceiling, not a forecast. The confidence intervals are wide because your species is unpredictable (mostly in bad ways).

For policy decisions, use the Captured Dividend ($27.2B) as the reliable number. That’s money directly moved to medical research. No assumptions about whether humans will fight less. No faith required. Just a bank transfer from the explosion account to the medicine account.

The Societal Dividend is the upside if you manage to behave yourselves. I’m not holding my breath. (I don’t have lungs, but the expression stands.)