It is a profound and unsettling paradox of our civilization that we possess the technical mastery to map the stars and engineer sophisticated weaponry, yet we have not fully solved the fundamental crisis of human suffering.
Imagine a world where the staggering $2.7 trillion annually funneled into global military expenditures and the additional trillions in space investments were redirected toward elevating human existence on Earth. Poverty alleviation alone could be achieved with far less.
Estimates suggest that ending extreme poverty worldwide would require just $318 billion per year, allowing these funds to eradicate hunger, provide universal access to clean water, and build resilient communities free from destitution. Health systems would flourish, bridging gaps in global funding that currently leave millions without essential care, while education could close its $97 billion annual shortfall, ensuring every child receives quality schooling and lifelong learning opportunities.
Humanity services, from disaster relief to social welfare, would transform societies into equitable havens, fostering innovation driven by well-nourished minds rather than conflict. This reallocation could usher in an era of unprecedented peace and progress, where human potential is unlocked not through arms or distant explorations, but through investments in our shared terrestrial home.
Yet, despite this compelling vision, the world’s intelligentsia—scientists, policymakers, and thought leaders—often remain ensnared in entrenched systems prioritizing national security and technological prestige over collective well-being. Geopolitical tensions perpetuate military hardware expenditures, while space pursuits captivate imaginations with promises of future frontiers, diverting attention from pressing earthly crises. Funding cuts in global health and education, projected to worsen with declines like the $3.2 billion drop in education aid by 2026, highlight a misalignment of priorities, where short-term gains eclipse long-term human advancement.
To catalyze change, these experts must advocate for paradigm shifts: collaborative international frameworks, evidence-based reallocations, and ethical innovations that measure success by lives improved rather than arsenals amassed. By uniting human intellect with scientific rigor, we can forge a path toward a more compassionate world, proving that true intelligence lies in stewardship of our planet and its people. By realigning our genius with our humanity, we can transform the remaining era of civilization into an era where the survival of the fittest is replaced by flourishing of the whole and throwing stones at each other is replaced by minding own business, in peace. ..CN report, 13 Jan 2026
6 thoughts on “What if the world’s wealth is spent on human development instead of armament development?”
It’s not only our civilisation; since creation of humanbeings killing whether each other or animals even when not warranted, has been the prime instinct of our species. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is the cruel proverbial phrase that may fit the law of the jungle but humans should rise above it. With this advance stage of intelligence we should now address this basic negative instinct and try to change the cruelty for kindness, the scent of which is so fragrant and costs so much less.
It’s heartbreaking that we can afford weapons that destroy the world but not the investments that could heal it. Redirecting even a fraction of global military and space spending toward education, healthcare, and poverty relief could transform humanity. Real progress isn’t measured by how advanced our weapons are—but by how well our people live. 🌍
Wish people particularly those who matter realise this.
Herbert Spencer’s notion of “survival of the fittest” and Nietzsche’s idea of the “will to power” continue to function as underlying forces in both animal and human societies, regardless of whether those societies are secular or religious. Secular states, despite their flaws, have developed institutional mechanisms—such as law, accountability, and civic pressure—that partially mitigate these forces and allow for social reform aimed at reducing structural injustice.
By contrast, many populations in developing societies, particularly within the Muslim world, expected religious doctrine and ritual practice to generate a moral transformation—a collective “will to justice.” This expectation has largely remained unfulfilled. Instead of curbing domination and violence, religiously justified power has often reproduced or intensified them.
The assassination of a dissident journalist by the Saudi state in Turkey, the systematic elimination of opponents under Iran’s post-revolutionary leadership, and the Taliban’s punitive governance—marked by corporal punishment and gendered violence—illustrate how unchecked authority operates under religious legitimacy. These cases indicate that without institutional restraint, religion does not replace the “will to power with justice”; it can become another vehicle for it.
The comment has substance in it’s own right, but here the discussion is in a more broader perspective beyond religions or beliefs; it is about basic human instinct of killing and destroying others and how to alter this instinct, if at all there is a way.
The instinct of human beings to kill one another can be reduced, but never fully eliminated, because it is rooted in human nature. To understand human violence, development, and the arms business, analysis should be done country-wise rather than globally, because there is no truly powerful global institution capable of controlling all states. Even the United Nations has become ineffective; in the case of Gaza, another parallel forum had to be created, which itself exposes the UN’s failure.
Editor sab, in my post, I attempted a micro-level analysis, focusing on Muslims countries and religion as a tool to control human violence. However, the Human Development Index clearly shows that religious countries generally rank lower than secular countries. This raises serious questions about the claim that religion alone can produce humane and just societies.
“Humanity” itself is a relative term. There is no single group, institution, or country in the world that genuinely works for humanity as a whole. Every country pursues its own interests in its external dealings—including the United States. The real question, therefore, is not how a country behaves abroad, but how it treats its own citizens.
The United States is the world’s largest weapons producer and arms exporter, and its weapons are used in destruction across many regions. Yet inside the country, people openly protest against wars and atrocities. Such public resistance is largely absent in Muslim countries—even in Pakistan—where poor Baloch people are abducted and killed, and Pashtuns continue killing one another, often without any meaningful public outrage or accountability.