10 ms·

To see the following in the first page of the article already turns me off reading any more "To get an impression of primitive man's approach to the physical u

To see the following in the first page of the article already turns me off reading any more "To get an impression of primitive man's approach to the physical universe ..." The underlying assumption that cultures from 2000 years or more ago are primitive belies the facts that we are unable to do things that they did on a regular basis in various engineering capacities. Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials.

inteleng 8y ago
Survivorship bias.
- ljw1001 8y ago
  sure, but. what things built in the last 20 years do think most likely to last for 2000? I'm not sure I can think of any. Parts of a big highway maybe?
  - btrettel 8y ago
    https://www.nist.gov/el/materials-and-structural-systems-division-73100/nist-stone-wall https://www.nist.gov/el/materials-and-structural-systems-div... This should provide some information about the durability of stone. I am not aware of similar experiments for other materials.
  - inteleng 8y ago
    I imagine the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing for at least a few hundred more years unless it goes underwater. Plenty of buildings in the mountains should survive.
emit_time 8y ago
> Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials. That might have quite a bit to do with the economic incentives people base their decisions around when building. Also, survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
- oldandtired 8y ago
  I'll grant that "survivorship bias" may be in the argument. As I have said elsewhere, the thing I am highlighting in the attitude towards previous societies as being "primitive." This is, itself, a highly detrimental bias to the argument being presented in the original document. We can say that they were different technologically, but based on the frailty of our technological systems now, we really can't say that we are superior to those so-called "primitive" societies.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > they were different technologically We can do everything they could. They can do little we can. They came before us and progressed into us. To refute ancient cultures’ primitiveness is to deny the word any meaning.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      Some of these primitive people walked across continents and sailed across oceans using only very simple tools. Knowledge is contextual. Our ancestors couldn’t manage a web server, but not many HN readers would survive for long with the tools our ancestors used if dumped into the environments they lived in.
  - Retra 8y ago
    What do you actually think "primitive" means?
Retra 8y ago
Not many people today want to build a 50 million ton tomb for one guy. That is arguably a very good thing.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  Try the sea docks from ancient Rome around the Mediterranean. The concrete got stronger in sea water whereas we have major problems with modern concrete in sea water. Roadways being another example. Plus all the other construction efforts around the world, including ancient cities that have survived even being overtaken by jungles, etc. Let us also consider the various modern nanotechnology research areas being undertaken today to find out how "primitive" people did tasks that we cannot duplicate today. If people actually understood even the history of the last 200 years, they would understand how much knowledge we have lost during that time and how incapable of repeating many of those things we are today. Sure, we have some advanced technologies today. However, the facts are that we have lost large areas of technology and chemistry over the last lot centuries. In some cases, what we call modern facilities are a rediscovery of what was available to the ancient peoples.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > concrete got stronger in sea water whereas we have major problems with modern concrete in sea water Pure concrete is excellent in water. It also crumbles under light loads. Rebar is excellent under heavy loads. It also oxidises. We can choose either material based on the circumstances. The ancients could not.
    - musage 8y ago
      The ancients, all of them all the time, could follow an argument and would interact with it coherently, instead just replying with a bit to some bits and leaving the whole on the ground.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  True, those same people spend billions on building the tallest buildings, the biggest man-made island systems, CERN, atomic weapon stock-piles, advanced military systems, ahhmmm, what else - when there are fundamental human problems that need solving - health and welfare, slavery, poverty, etc. In all the essentials, we are no different to those who have become before us.
pharrington 8y ago
Your point isn't coherent - your very same reasoning also shows that societies today regularly do things - orders of magnitude more things - that societies from antiquity could not. You claim that we are unable to build structures that can survive the elements long term, only in a later post to point out and categorically dismiss tons of structures modern societies build that are likely to survive long term because those don't align with your value system. We are communicating on the internet. Let that sink in.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  What structures today are likely to survive long term? My point is that there is an attitude today that societies from antiquity are "primitive". This is the salient point. They were different and took a different technological path. Yes we can do many things they didn't and they did many things we can't. The point is the attitude of today towards the societies of the past. All we can really say is that they were different technologically. So what if we can communicate on the internet? That is a blip on the time scale. How long will that actually last? Is it a sign of "high technology" or is it just a different technological path? If one looks at the technology available in the 1930's to the 1950's, we use a completely different technology today and all one can say is that it is different. After looking at the subject for many years (decades in fact), all I can say is that we have travelled down a different technological path. Is it better or more advanced than another? I can't say since I can't see what could have been. Technological systems can be robust or frail. How would you classify the technological systems of today?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - abdullahkhalids 8y ago
    > What structures today are likely to survive long term? The structures today will not survive long term because we choose not to make them so they survive long term. Its not that we can't. Using modern construction equipment, we can replicate pyramids with a fraction of the labor and effort that the Egyptians expended IF we so choose. But we don't. Building pyramids or houses or even roads that survive greater than a few decades is not useful because we keep improving our construction know-how and can make more and more comfortable habitats every few years. Comfort and price is what we choose to optimize for, not suitability. > Yes we can do many things they didn't and they did many things we can't. This is categorically untrue. We can do pretty much anything and everything the ancients do, but rarely choose to do so, because we can do better than them. You can nitpick about how we forgot specific ratios of ingredients in some cement or something, but thats nitpicking because we can always find the best comfort/price cement ourselves.
p1necone 8y ago
We aren't incapable of building things that would last 2000 years, we're choosing not to. Modern people could go and build another pyramid out of solid stone blocks, and probably much faster with modern machinery, but why would we?
interfixus 8y ago
I imagine artifacts on the surface of the Moon may somewhat outlive the pyramids of Egypt.
analog31 8y ago
I can imagine that many of the things we throw into landfills will be quite well preserved 2000 years from now.

inteleng 8y ago

Survivorship bias.

ljw1001 8y ago
sure, but. what things built in the last 20 years do think most likely to last for 2000? I'm not sure I can think of any. Parts of a big highway maybe?
- btrettel 8y ago
  https://www.nist.gov/el/materials-and-structural-systems-division-73100/nist-stone-wall https://www.nist.gov/el/materials-and-structural-systems-div... This should provide some information about the durability of stone. I am not aware of similar experiments for other materials.
- inteleng 8y ago
  I imagine the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing for at least a few hundred more years unless it goes underwater. Plenty of buildings in the mountains should survive.

emit_time 8y ago

> Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials. That might have quite a bit to do with the economic incentives people base their decisions around when building. Also, survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

oldandtired 8y ago
I'll grant that "survivorship bias" may be in the argument. As I have said elsewhere, the thing I am highlighting in the attitude towards previous societies as being "primitive." This is, itself, a highly detrimental bias to the argument being presented in the original document. We can say that they were different technologically, but based on the frailty of our technological systems now, we really can't say that we are superior to those so-called "primitive" societies.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > they were different technologically We can do everything they could. They can do little we can. They came before us and progressed into us. To refute ancient cultures’ primitiveness is to deny the word any meaning.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    Some of these primitive people walked across continents and sailed across oceans using only very simple tools. Knowledge is contextual. Our ancestors couldn’t manage a web server, but not many HN readers would survive for long with the tools our ancestors used if dumped into the environments they lived in.
- Retra 8y ago
  What do you actually think "primitive" means?

Retra 8y ago

Not many people today want to build a 50 million ton tomb for one guy. That is arguably a very good thing.

oldandtired 8y ago
Try the sea docks from ancient Rome around the Mediterranean. The concrete got stronger in sea water whereas we have major problems with modern concrete in sea water. Roadways being another example. Plus all the other construction efforts around the world, including ancient cities that have survived even being overtaken by jungles, etc. Let us also consider the various modern nanotechnology research areas being undertaken today to find out how "primitive" people did tasks that we cannot duplicate today. If people actually understood even the history of the last 200 years, they would understand how much knowledge we have lost during that time and how incapable of repeating many of those things we are today. Sure, we have some advanced technologies today. However, the facts are that we have lost large areas of technology and chemistry over the last lot centuries. In some cases, what we call modern facilities are a rediscovery of what was available to the ancient peoples.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > concrete got stronger in sea water whereas we have major problems with modern concrete in sea water Pure concrete is excellent in water. It also crumbles under light loads. Rebar is excellent under heavy loads. It also oxidises. We can choose either material based on the circumstances. The ancients could not.
  - musage 8y ago
    The ancients, all of them all the time, could follow an argument and would interact with it coherently, instead just replying with a bit to some bits and leaving the whole on the ground.
oldandtired 8y ago
True, those same people spend billions on building the tallest buildings, the biggest man-made island systems, CERN, atomic weapon stock-piles, advanced military systems, ahhmmm, what else - when there are fundamental human problems that need solving - health and welfare, slavery, poverty, etc. In all the essentials, we are no different to those who have become before us.

pharrington 8y ago

Your point isn't coherent - your very same reasoning also shows that societies today regularly do things - orders of magnitude more things - that societies from antiquity could not. You claim that we are unable to build structures that can survive the elements long term, only in a later post to point out and categorically dismiss tons of structures modern societies build that are likely to survive long term because those don't align with your value system. We are communicating on the internet. Let that sink in.

oldandtired 8y ago
What structures today are likely to survive long term? My point is that there is an attitude today that societies from antiquity are "primitive". This is the salient point. They were different and took a different technological path. Yes we can do many things they didn't and they did many things we can't. The point is the attitude of today towards the societies of the past. All we can really say is that they were different technologically. So what if we can communicate on the internet? That is a blip on the time scale. How long will that actually last? Is it a sign of "high technology" or is it just a different technological path? If one looks at the technology available in the 1930's to the 1950's, we use a completely different technology today and all one can say is that it is different. After looking at the subject for many years (decades in fact), all I can say is that we have travelled down a different technological path. Is it better or more advanced than another? I can't say since I can't see what could have been. Technological systems can be robust or frail. How would you classify the technological systems of today?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- abdullahkhalids 8y ago
  > What structures today are likely to survive long term? The structures today will not survive long term because we choose not to make them so they survive long term. Its not that we can't. Using modern construction equipment, we can replicate pyramids with a fraction of the labor and effort that the Egyptians expended IF we so choose. But we don't. Building pyramids or houses or even roads that survive greater than a few decades is not useful because we keep improving our construction know-how and can make more and more comfortable habitats every few years. Comfort and price is what we choose to optimize for, not suitability. > Yes we can do many things they didn't and they did many things we can't. This is categorically untrue. We can do pretty much anything and everything the ancients do, but rarely choose to do so, because we can do better than them. You can nitpick about how we forgot specific ratios of ingredients in some cement or something, but thats nitpicking because we can always find the best comfort/price cement ourselves.

p1necone 8y ago

We aren't incapable of building things that would last 2000 years, we're choosing not to. Modern people could go and build another pyramid out of solid stone blocks, and probably much faster with modern machinery, but why would we?

interfixus 8y ago

I imagine artifacts on the surface of the Moon may somewhat outlive the pyramids of Egypt.

analog31 8y ago

I can imagine that many of the things we throw into landfills will be quite well preserved 2000 years from now.