Defense is a necessary evil, it doesn't make the world better, it just protects interests/the status quo. I'm not anti defense but the most positive outcome is you kill others before they kill you or at best intimidate them enough so that they don't attack. If that's "positive" in your view then nuclear weapons are the biggest success story, they've caused the least amount of death of all weapons we've developed so far. And yet saying they aren't very popular among the majority of the world's population would be an understatement.
Humanity would be better if there were no armies, in an ideal utopian society. The same goes for the pharma industry in its current form - it's just pure evil. Leeches on society that are extracting as much money as possible from the IP they hold.
I agree, in an ideal utopian world there would be no need for armies or defense. But that's not the world we live in, and at least in my personal belief, it's unlikely we ever will and we must judge what things are and act accordingly.
I think nuclear weapons are a fantastic success story in preventing major war between nations for the past 77 years. Probably the single greatest enabler of peace in the 20th and 21st century. Do I wish that they weren't needed? 100%. I would love if we could focus on using nuclear for non-destructive purposes. But I firmly believe they are the reason there was no WWIII or even WWIV during the Cold War or now during rising tensions between the USA and Russia and/or China. I respect that nuclear weapons are terrible devices, awful in their destruction beyond comprehension, but unless humanity as a society evolves into some kind of "better" race, I would not wish for a world without them. Popularity does not mean that something is needed.
I will grant that we should strive toward that better world, and constrain the military from acting toward it's easier, destructive attitudes and maybe one day we will no longer need it. But to simply say that the most positive outcome is that it "intimidates others so that they don't attack" and to treat that as something that's barely worth mention and almost "evil"? That's beyond reckless and a dangerous, misguided, and ultimately against the best interests of humanities future.
I won't claim to be as deeply knowledgeable about pharma, it's an industry in clear need of reform and regulation, but it also proved itself during COVID to make vaccines for the world, and while I completely agree that it prioritizes profit over saving lives, and likely allowing people to die because it's just not profitable to produce a drug it researched, it has developed many life saving drugs that have saved more lives. I would not call them "pure" evil, if for no other reason than as soon as you start treating an industry, a people as "pure" evil, they have no reason whatsoever to listen to you and work with you.
