4 ms·

You are playing whack-a-mole here. It just might be that they choose to pick the cheapest way they can get away with, Of course you know the most optimal trad

You are playing whack-a-mole here. It just might be that they choose to pick the cheapest way they can get away with, Of course you know the most optimal trade-off between costs, quality and the environment not folks who are building thousands of miles of roadway every year. do you deny that in developing countries corruption is not high and implementation of laws is not lax. Straw man. There is corruption everywhere even in the west. Because there is corruption, nothing should happen. Filling up narrow valleys with debris or destroying vegetation below the road slope by just leaving the debris there certainly isn't smart; nor is cutting slopes in the cheapest way to leave them prone to landslides. You know a better way? How do you know dumping it in the valley below is worse than carting it off and dumping it in a remote valley. Do you have data showing where it should be dumped? Have you talked to any transportation engineers. Let me allow that it is worse and causes landslides. Are those landslides worse than having wider safer roads? Your arguments have too much innuendo, conjecture because you have an defacto ideological position. You are fundamentally opposed to all development as it no longer serves your needs. Just ponder that.

actuator 6y ago
It seems futile to discuss this with you. All you have done is, counter arguments with counter questions while never addressing the issue. I chose to reply once hoping that it would be constructive, but it isn't. If all both of us are going to do is counter questions with more questions and just refute the arguments entirely by questioning the other person's knowledge and research boosted by our own biases just to prove oneself right, the whole discussion becomes a non sequitur. For instance, you don't even know the dumping this is something an actual engineer working there told me about, the decision wasn't upto him, alas. You see, while backpacking one thing I make a point to do is to talk to locals. Additionally, the landslide vs road widening argument. Things are not binary in real world, it is not like one has to exist at the cost of other. While accusing me for having an ideological position which you know nothing about, you are conveniently ignoring yours. In no way, I have opposed "development" anywhere in the thread, it should definitely be at balance with other things and definitely not indiscriminate like I saw.

actuator 6y ago

It seems futile to discuss this with you. All you have done is, counter arguments with counter questions while never addressing the issue. I chose to reply once hoping that it would be constructive, but it isn't. If all both of us are going to do is counter questions with more questions and just refute the arguments entirely by questioning the other person's knowledge and research boosted by our own biases just to prove oneself right, the whole discussion becomes a non sequitur. For instance, you don't even know the dumping this is something an actual engineer working there told me about, the decision wasn't upto him, alas. You see, while backpacking one thing I make a point to do is to talk to locals. Additionally, the landslide vs road widening argument. Things are not binary in real world, it is not like one has to exist at the cost of other. While accusing me for having an ideological position which you know nothing about, you are conveniently ignoring yours. In no way, I have opposed "development" anywhere in the thread, it should definitely be at balance with other things and definitely not indiscriminate like I saw.