5 ms·
It's technology. Once it exists, it will continue existing. Every generation must use it wisely and ethically.
by codecamper 10y ago
It's technology. Once it exists, it will continue existing. Every generation must use it wisely and ethically.
- soperj 10y agoHow were the pyramids built?
- true_religion 10y agoLots of technology is non obvious, even simple tech. The wheel wasn't widely known in the Americas. Large wheel wagons like you see in rickshaws were not widely known in the West.
- Retric 10y agoIt really does not matter as we could build them today with a lot less effort. It would cost something like $5 billion today and would take ~2,000 people ~5 years. Which is relatively speaking a lot less expensive. Put another way, Bill G could build ~17 of them in his lifetime and not be broke.
- kbenson 10y agoBut that's besides the point. We are thousands of years in the future from that point, with thousands of years of technological advancements. What would a civilization relatively recently after the loss of that knowledge do? Could they even do it? The point is that technology can be lost. Sure, we may have re-learned the technology in the intervening millennia, but we wouldn't have to re-learn it if it wasn't lost in the first place.
- Retric 10y agoYou are assuming it was lost in the same time period. Instead, there was ever refined stone construction techniques through medieval Cathedral's. So, sure 4500 years ago making a giant stone hill was hard, but the 1311 Lincoln Cathedral @ 524 ft was actually significantly taller structure and far more difficult.
- soperj 10y agoIt's not a stone hill. It was completely smooth before the limestone casing was removed. Also I don't know how 524ft is _significantly_ taller than 481 feet.
- Retric 10y agoIf the pyramid was 524ft tall it would have taken at 29+% more stone which is kind of a large difference assuming they did not need to change the slope. Anyway, scaling buildings is a lot more complex as every extra foot get's harder than the last. In design you don't really build up, you keep adding layers under your existing structure that need to hold it up.
- stcredzero 10y agoIt would cost something like $5 billion today and would take ~2,000 people ~5 years. Which is relatively speaking a lot less expensive. Put another way, Bill G could build ~17 of them in his lifetime and not be broke. Awesome! What's at one time only the province of the greatest empire on the planet could become just one of many of a billionaire's projects. Let's scale this out from the present day with something of seemingly unattainable current value: How about The United States of America? Maybe several decades hence, a billionaire will have made himself the equivalent? Colonization of Mars, anyone?
- soperj 10y agoIt was estimated they took 14 years to build.
- hobofan 10y agoAre you looking for the answer "slave labor"?
- edw 10y agoSorry, the Egyptian pyramids were build with tax labor, not slave labor.
- jfoutz 10y agoI think i get your point, but tech losses seem to be associated with cultural collapse or exhaustion of a special resource. Roman concrete, Greek fire, and vanadium steel might be more illustrative choices. I don't think the Egyptians used magic, perhaps they knew a trick or two we don't know about, i don't think there's any writing left about the construction techniques.
- adwn 10y ago> I don't think the Egyptians used magic, perhaps they knew a trick or two we don't know about, i don't think there's any writing left about the construction techniques. The Egyptians' "trick" was massive amounts of human labor over a long timespan. Nothing you couldn't do a lot faster today if you were willing to spend the money (and manage to get the permits). The construction of the pyramids is not impressive from a technological point of view, but perhaps from a logistical point of view.
- edw 10y agoOr, more recently: I've read that we have collectively lost the knowledge and skill necessary to build a piano with a quality comparable to the best ever made. (Wish I had a citation…)
- joss82 10y agoNot so sure about it. Look at Concorde. Musk actually said that technology does not move forward if there is nobody (or no company or no government) to push it forward.
- bb611 10y agoConcorde may have failed but jet travel is far more common and affordable today than when it was rolled out.
- ghaff 10y agoBecause technology is in service of individual and consumer needs. If there isn't a sustainable business model for supersonic passenger flight then it doesn't exist. And, frankly, it's not up to government to provide that. Technology is both economics and engineering. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done if no one is willing to cover the costs.
- stcredzero 10y agoThere is another thesis that technology no longer disappears anymore. It will remain in some dormant form. Some crazy hobbyist group in the US, Europe, or Japan will lovingly curate it. Even now, I think you can charter the operation of a restored supersonic aircraft, if you have enough cash. Not sure if any have an extra seat for a passenger, though.
- mikeash 10y agoThe technology for Concorde is still around. What disappeared is the economic case for it. (One might argue that the economic case never existed, or disappeared before it even started flying.) If aliens showed up tomorrow and said they would enslave the human race unless we built a Concorde-level airliner, we'd have no major trouble getting it done.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Not so sure about it. Look at Concorde. The absence of a business case is not the same as the absence of technology. Technology for supersonic aircraft has moved forward since the Concorde. Economically viable applications for that technology for commercial passenger transport have not, however, appeared. (Or, if they have, they haven't been recognized.)
- hwillis 10y agoProof increases investor confidence, but that's hardly everything. Tesla contributes somewhat to open source, but ITAR and shrewdness means a ton of their tech is classified. If they folded, a great deal of that would be bureaucratically inaccessible, gone, or irrelevant. If we wanted to go to the moon again, we would basically have to start over from scratch. The Saturn V plans exist but the infrastructure, manufacturing techniques, and hardware are all gone. Plans are 10% of actually building something, at that level. Materials aren't legos, each product needs to be qualified and have its idiosyncrasies addressed. Even at the consumer level, when you change manufacturers you often have to retool your process because while the specs are the same, you're delivered something different. Keeping technology at the same level requires ongoing engineering. When that engineering is removed, the technology decays. It very quickly becomes a matter of reinvention rather than rebuilding.
- stcredzero 10y agoPlans are 10% of actually building something, at that level. Materials aren't legos, each product needs to be qualified and have its idiosyncrasies addressed Something often forgotten when companies offshore production.
- marchenko 10y agoAndy Grove wrote some great pieces about the loss of engineering muscle memory.
- ericd 10y agoBy default, technology decays over time as knowledge is lost. It takes active effort to keep things where they are, let alone keep pushing them forward.