4 ms·

Is this subject to survivorship bias? Will future generations wonder at the inexplicable durability of a few modern structures still available to wonder at, for

• exclusiv 7y ago
  No. We make shit these days. Fast and cheap. 20 yrs is a long time.
  • nkrisc 7y ago
    Whether or not the Romans meant for any of their structures to last 2000 years, it was clearly overkill for their purposes.
    • conradfr 7y ago
      I mean the Roman Empire spans between 500 and 1500 years depending of what you count.
• loeg 7y ago
  We tend to build bridges out of steel nowadays for all kinds of reasons (cost, speed, durability, strength), and steel ain't gonna last 1000 years. There's not a lot of benefit to designing for 1000 year endurance.
• icanhackit 7y ago
  I considered that as well. I live in an area of town where a lot of 110+ year old town houses still stand proudly (European cities would laugh at that statement) but I know that only the stuff built well is standing today while whatever had been made to a lower quality crumbled and was built over. Just because old buildings survive to this day doesn't mean everything from that era was built to last. With regards to the featured article, I'd say multiple factors are at play - Roman concrete has amazing properties and structures that used it combined with good quality-control (i.e. correct material ratios in the concrete) and good engineering survived. The human elements, quality-control and design, are less interesting than a magical substance.