4 ms·

As for choosing to not make structure to last, I know of various buildings that were intended to be available for a period of at least 50 years. These structure

As for choosing to not make structure to last, I know of various buildings that were intended to be available for a period of at least 50 years. These structures began to fail after only 25 years. If we design for a period of "x" and we have failures at half of "x", we have some serious problems to overcome. One of them is that as a society we are so short-sighted that we cannot think past today, let alone 50 to 100 years. If we are continually improving our construction techniques then explain why there are various research groups trying to work out what and how the ancients did things? Why do these research groups (in both private and public organisations) want to know this information? Is it because the techniques and materials used by those ancients are not known today? Is it because those techniques are superior to those we use today? As far as cement is concerned, there are a number of different research groups that are looking at why we cannot make long lasting cements. On interesting facet about cement is that steel reinforcing actual decreases the life of any structure that uses this kind of technology. You make a comment that we could replicate ancient structures "if" we chose to do so. You use the example of a pyramid as your example. Yet how they were constructed is an active research area because we don't know how it was done. There are lots of ideas, but no actual certainty on how they were constructed. Without knowing how they did and why they did what they did, it becomes very difficult to duplicate. As I said before, we use different technologies to them. I suggest that you read various histories of technological development, including the late 19th and early 20th centuries to see what was done and how we lost the ability to do today. Sometimes we have been able to recover specific technological pathways because we have been able to get access to those individuals who were involved in previous generations. I'll go back to my original comment that we, today, have an attitude problem when we consider earlier or ancient societies as being "primitive". It is an unfortunate fact of life that we do not care to preserve knowledge from the past. This is often done because we believe that we are more technologically advanced than we were even 10 years ago. Yet there are consequences to that attitude that will come back and bite us as a society and has already bitten us at various times in the last set of decades. When you say that the statement "Yes we can do many things they didn't and they did many things we can't." is categorically untrue, then I can only assume that you are not familiar with various projects that are trying to discover how the previous societies were able to achieve particular outcomes (in a technological sense) that we can't do yet, even with all of our vaunted technological skills.

abdullahkhalids 8y ago
I agree with some of what you say about what people do, but entirely disagree with you with why people do those things. > As for choosing to not make structure to last... I agree with you that we are often short-sighted and have non-sustainable practices. But the reason for making bad products is not that we can't - we absolutely can - its just that we are greedy. Its like saying that because we haven't gone to the Moon in 40 years, we have forgotten and can't do it anymore. No, if someone wanted to do it and was willing to spend a few billion, they could absolutely start from scratch, with no help from NASA or old designs and still figure out how to go to the Moon in a few years. Its not hard, just something nobody wants to do. > If we are continually improving our construction techniques then explain why there are various research groups trying to work out... I understand that compared to other ancient civilizations the Pyramids are surprising and its not completely known what sort of system allowed for their construction. But why historians are interested to learn this is not because they want to use it to become rich or construct pyramids ourselves. Historians are interested just because historians are interested in what people from long ago used to do. Historians also try to learn how many hours people worked a day, what the nature of marriage was, what sort of food people ate etc. Figuring out the pyramids is just one question out of many. > Is it because those techniques are superior to those we use today? No, they weren't. They just used tens of thousands of slaves to move big rocks. A big modern crane can do the same without killing off thousands of people. > ... we don't know how it was done... it becomes very difficult to duplicate. Us not knowing how they did it means nothing about how we can do it. We can just do it differently and much more easily. Pyramids are one of the most stable structures you can build. We literally just need a big kiln to make huge bricks and a big crane to place those bricks in the right spots. Of course, if we were limited to 50,000 slaves and no modern equipment, we might fail because we have indeed forgotten "techniques" of moving stones at the cost of many lives, but superior?
- musage 8y ago
  > I agree with you that we are often short-sighted and have non-sustainable practices. But the reason for making bad products is not that we can't - we absolutely can - its just that we are greedy. Greedy for what, exactly? For moving money around and calling it "making money"? A greed to destroy, i.e. consume, more and more, instead of constructing better tools and tending to our corner of a veritable garden, shaping it to be actually more lush, rather than more grey? Greedier to make more and more of ourselves sellable, rather than growing as individuals and societies, and becoming more and more attuned to each other and the other lifeforms we depend on? Where you see greed, I see people who have nothing and work on nothing but creating repellants and insulations that will make sure they will evermore have nothing. Like some giant, planet-wide vacuum pump. It certainly is not a lust for life, a greed for being skillful, and no greed on behalf of those who come after us, no greed to secure a sound and honest inheritance and legacy. There is no vitality in it, just excuses. > Its like saying that because we haven't gone to the Moon in 40 years, we have forgotten and can't do it anymore. No, if someone wanted to do it If someone remembered how to want it, for they first would have to overcome the crab mentality of the rest. That is, for actually important things like sustainability, for not trampling on the defenseless, for not leaving the elderly in the ditch, for not building empires and cities on mountains of bones -- not for stuff like "going to the moon". Saying "we totally could" doesn't fly with me. If we could, we would. That it "would only take someone actually wanting it", doesn't help when nobody is able to want it. > Its not hard, just something nobody wants to do. How is that better, instead of worse? How is that more advanced, rather than regressive? How is that superior, rather than weaker?

abdullahkhalids 8y ago

I agree with some of what you say about what people do, but entirely disagree with you with why people do those things. > As for choosing to not make structure to last... I agree with you that we are often short-sighted and have non-sustainable practices. But the reason for making bad products is not that we can't - we absolutely can - its just that we are greedy. Its like saying that because we haven't gone to the Moon in 40 years, we have forgotten and can't do it anymore. No, if someone wanted to do it and was willing to spend a few billion, they could absolutely start from scratch, with no help from NASA or old designs and still figure out how to go to the Moon in a few years. Its not hard, just something nobody wants to do. > If we are continually improving our construction techniques then explain why there are various research groups trying to work out... I understand that compared to other ancient civilizations the Pyramids are surprising and its not completely known what sort of system allowed for their construction. But why historians are interested to learn this is not because they want to use it to become rich or construct pyramids ourselves. Historians are interested just because historians are interested in what people from long ago used to do. Historians also try to learn how many hours people worked a day, what the nature of marriage was, what sort of food people ate etc. Figuring out the pyramids is just one question out of many. > Is it because those techniques are superior to those we use today? No, they weren't. They just used tens of thousands of slaves to move big rocks. A big modern crane can do the same without killing off thousands of people. > ... we don't know how it was done... it becomes very difficult to duplicate. Us not knowing how they did it means nothing about how we can do it. We can just do it differently and much more easily. Pyramids are one of the most stable structures you can build. We literally just need a big kiln to make huge bricks and a big crane to place those bricks in the right spots. Of course, if we were limited to 50,000 slaves and no modern equipment, we might fail because we have indeed forgotten "techniques" of moving stones at the cost of many lives, but superior?

musage 8y ago
> I agree with you that we are often short-sighted and have non-sustainable practices. But the reason for making bad products is not that we can't - we absolutely can - its just that we are greedy. Greedy for what, exactly? For moving money around and calling it "making money"? A greed to destroy, i.e. consume, more and more, instead of constructing better tools and tending to our corner of a veritable garden, shaping it to be actually more lush, rather than more grey? Greedier to make more and more of ourselves sellable, rather than growing as individuals and societies, and becoming more and more attuned to each other and the other lifeforms we depend on? Where you see greed, I see people who have nothing and work on nothing but creating repellants and insulations that will make sure they will evermore have nothing. Like some giant, planet-wide vacuum pump. It certainly is not a lust for life, a greed for being skillful, and no greed on behalf of those who come after us, no greed to secure a sound and honest inheritance and legacy. There is no vitality in it, just excuses. > Its like saying that because we haven't gone to the Moon in 40 years, we have forgotten and can't do it anymore. No, if someone wanted to do it If someone remembered how to want it, for they first would have to overcome the crab mentality of the rest. That is, for actually important things like sustainability, for not trampling on the defenseless, for not leaving the elderly in the ditch, for not building empires and cities on mountains of bones -- not for stuff like "going to the moon". Saying "we totally could" doesn't fly with me. If we could, we would. That it "would only take someone actually wanting it", doesn't help when nobody is able to want it. > Its not hard, just something nobody wants to do. How is that better, instead of worse? How is that more advanced, rather than regressive? How is that superior, rather than weaker?