What specific wins do you have in mind? Are you leaning on globalization in general? Or products that spun out of war technology like herbicides and pesticides?
Nuclear weapons are the reason we haven't had a WW3, to begin with.
Wartime progress in everything from radio to radar to rocketry has led directly to modern communications tech including satellites and microwave links.
When WW2 started, a "computer" wore a dress to work and was "programmed" to watch meters, turn knobs, do a lot of arithmetic by hand, and avoid asking questions. When WW2 ended a "computer" was a machine with a rapidly-increasing number of uses.
Before WW2, aircraft used propellers, flew slow and low, and crashed a lot. After WW2, the jet age ramped up practically overnight thanks to experience gained by all sides.
And yes, we got pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fuel and rubber processes, mass-produced antibiotics, probably a bunch of other stuff I'm not thinking of.
Then there's the whole Pax Americana thing, which is the part we're busy throwing away right now. It led to a relatively peaceful, stable global environment in which new technologies could emerge and spread without the need for a world war to inspire them. Now that America has basically been subverted from within, we'll soon get to find out whether that was a good thing for the world or not.
And how do we know that those inventions are actually better for us?
We created nuclear weapons and yes it does seem to have given us 80+ years without another direct global conflict. That's a good thing in the short term, but what about longer? Are we to expect that nukes will never be used? Are we also to assume that the invention of nukes doesn't incentivize people to invent an even worse weapon?
The same goes for all the others. Computers have allowed us to do amazing things, there are also many in the industry warning that they may one day replace us - some even want that to happen. I don't know what benefit you can point to for pesticides and herbicides, maybe if you look at how much tonnage of food is produced and ignore all the terrible side effects of polluting the planet with synthetic chemicals that specifically end life? As far as Pax Americana, maybe its been a good thing? I don't know how to distinguish between the relative peace from the threat of nukes vs the threat of economic warfare, and our K-shaped economy does seem pretty directly related to the incentives created by Pax Americana.
My point isn't that all of these are bad, or that there aren't some good from any one of them (again, except for maybe all the poisons). My point is that we don't know what the results will be on any meaningful scale - 80 years is a drop in the bucket when discussing life on this planet.
Setting aside the obvious hypocrisy of typing an argument like that on a cell phone or personal computer, if you expect humans to contemplate timescales longer than 80 years, you'll need to wait another 80 million years for the necessary evolutionary processes to take effect. And there's no guarantee they will move the needle in the direction you prefer.
I'm not sure how my ability type out a message here on a computer is hypocritical of the argument I made above. My point was that we can't yet know if these turned out to be net positive inventions for humanity, or as you said to everyone. I didn't argue they are bad or that they must be avoided, only that it Amy turn out to be a net negative in the long term.
I must assume that you don't find arguments related to climate change compelling given that they require considering scales beyond 80 years. If you are concerned with climate change I'd be very curious how you square that circle.
