10 ms·

Seems we've painted ourselves in a corner in several ways. We figured out how to build dams and then quickly built a ton of them, without the know-how to asses

by npunt 6y ago

Seems we've painted ourselves in a corner in several ways. We figured out how to build dams and then quickly built a ton of them, without the know-how to assess their safety nor decommission them. And since we built dams so quickly, we ran out of new places to dam, so future generations stopped studying dam construction since there was less work to do. Now we have far fewer people than we need to keep what we have safe, and most are about to reach EOL. This is the downside of geoengineering, or chasing any engineering trend: it's possible to build amazing things, but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder. Not only is it more challenging work to build things that are sustainable, it's also inherently less flashy than building the next new thing. Meanwhile people begin to rely on these projects and take them for granted. The end result is a ton of risk concentrated on a single point of failure. Also in the news today is this piece [1] on a deadly flood recently by a dam under construction near the base of the Himalayas in Uttarakhand India. Engineers warned climate change induced glacier melt would cause catastrophic flooding that dams would be unable to withstand, but bureaucrats chose to ignore these warnings. Basically, don't try to outwit nature. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/world/asia/india-flood-ignored-warnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/world/asia/india-flood-ig...

dleslie 6y ago
The three gorges dam was recently built; and closer to SV, Site C is under construction in British Columbia. There's definitely folks alive who know how to build dams. I think the issue is less the lack of knowledge, and more the lack of political will to meaningfully tackle the problem.
- bullen 6y ago
  The problem is you need to burn alot of dead trees to make a dam and EROEI is dwindling too fast for this to become a viable option. Nuclear and hydro will never be rebuilt to the same level we have now.
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    Nuclear is being built in China like crazy. They‘re currently constructing 12 plants at the same time.
    - bullen 6y ago
      China has less reactors than france with 20x the population. They would need 1000 reactors to match. For a commodore user you are very optimistic about things getting better! More nuclear plants are getting closed than built.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      It's still a far cry from the 70's. My quick counting showed the US opening around 40 from 70-75.
    - ryanmarsh 6y ago
      I hope they're better at running nuclear power plants than they are at running infectious disease labs.
    - natmaka 6y ago
      Not really. In short: ((by 2035)) nuclear generating capacity ((will be)) 7.7% out of predicted total electricity generating capacity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#History They, however, built renewables like crazy.
  - varjag 6y ago
    Nuclear has its own decommissioning and long term disposal problem.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      If anything nuclear's problem is even more political than practical. We could fulfill the world's nuclear waste storage needs with a couple landfills if the will was there (though any geologist will tell you are better options than near surface storage). From an ecological perspective nuclear is the best option by a mile because the amount of stuff you need to pull out of the ground, move around, use and dispose of is so small per energy produced.
- bregma 6y ago
  Capital spending and construction are far more friendly to electoral politics than ongoing maintenance and operating expenditures. People see what a good job you've done getting a dam built or a bridge constructed, they vote for you. People don't vote for you because they didn't suffer the consequences of reduced maintenance. People vote against you if you raise taxes to pay for maintenance or if they're inconvenienced by shutdowns while they repair your dam or bridge. The problem is systemic.
  - HenryKissinger 6y ago
    Reject democracy, embrace technocracy.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      You can have a democracy that operates largely like a technocracy if you make it an actual democracy and align incentives.
    - srswtf123 6y ago
      Your username is relevant?
- Arrath 6y ago
  I'm currently on a project in California to repair and rehab a dam to extend its service life, working for a contractor that just finished a dam rehab job and is bidding on two more in the future. The work is being done, probably not at a scale or pace big enough to meet the needs of the infrastructure (see: all those old and ailing bridges across the country) but it is being done at some level.
- Kluny 6y ago
  > Site C is under construction in British Columbia. Not sure if this is a good example of "know how to build dams". It's a dam foolish design, built on an earthquake fault zone that's been made unstable by the excavation that's being done to build the dam. The design has been changed to include this ridiculous earthfill section (https://www.sitecproject.com/about-site-c/site-c-project-components https://www.sitecproject.com/about-site-c/site-c-project-com...) to compensate for the weirdness of the geography there. It's probably going to fail catastrophically at some point and destroy a lot of homes downstream from it, and the controversy over the project basically caused the downfall of BC's last government.
  - remote_phone 6y ago
    My friend does some auxiliary work for Site C. He said everything is over budget and a mess. The initial contractor underbid because they thought they could get migrant workers in. But now they are dealing with union workers so the contractors messed it up badly.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      Somewhat relatedly; I have PEng friends who worked on the budgeting for Transmountain before the Grits bought it. The true cost will be somewhere around 3x the expected, in the long run. They lied through their teeth to offload the lemon onto the feds.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    All of BC's dams were built in an earthquake zone. That's sort-of a given. Huge portions of the Comox Valley and Coquitlam are precarious; a strong shake will send a wave of water that will wipe out thousands of homes.
    - Kluny 6y ago
      We're not just talking about natural earthquake risk. The fracking that's happening near the dam is actively making the earthquakes worse. https://thenarwhal.ca/fracking-induced-earthquakes-buffer-zones-site-c-dam/ https://thenarwhal.ca/fracking-induced-earthquakes-buffer-zo...
cbmuser 6y ago
And they‘re building a new dam in Turkey which destroys large areas of cultural-historic land just to construct a hydro-plant with just 1200 MW installed electricity, just 1/4 of the power delivered by the new Akkuyu nuclear power plant. > https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barbaric-turkey-prepares-to-flood-12000-year-old-city-to-build-dam https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barb... A lot of severe stress environmental damage could have been prevented if we had built more nuclear power plants.
- collyw 6y ago
  Dams really aren't environmentally friendly in the way many people assume they are.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Or as safe; 230.000 people died in just one instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure). 112 people died building the Hoover Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths). Compare that to what are considered massive world news nuclear power plant tragedies like Chernobyl (about 31 direct deaths, long term effects are up for debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...) and Fukushima (1 direct death, low counts of radiation poisoning that can be attributed to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ).
    - tedeh 6y ago
      Unlike water, radiation can't be seen which is why it is so frightening to the average person.
      - Carlton2082 6y ago
        >radiation can't be seen Not to be pedantic, but...
roenxi 6y ago
> ...but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder... Citation please; and who is this "we"? Major infrastructure failures are rare and large expensive assets are generally well looked after. This Mullaperiyar dam situation sounds very concerning, but it has failed more slowly than the empire that built it. It wasn't built this century and it wasn't built last century either. It was built the century before that. It is not obvious why this situation has arisen, but it is pretty much certain that the builders of the dam have no regrets and didn't forget anything. Nor did people around the dam for many generations.
obscura 6y ago
Added to the problem is the general lack of funding around the world for infrastructure, owing to the fact that politicians control the purse strings and infrastructure isn't "sexy" [1][2]. Building something new that can be named after someone is no doubt easier to fund than the maintenance of something that already exists. "we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder" I imagine that part of the problem is that the heavy maintenance for large engineering projects begins years or decades after completion. Upon completion, it's hard to imagine these huge creations falling apart; add to this an element of "this won't be my problem (I won't be here in 50 years)" and you've got a recipe for short-term thinking - especially by those who don't have the expertise (read: the politicians and bureaucrats). [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/19/americas-infrastructure-isnt-sexy/ https://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/19/americas-infrastructu... [2] John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Part of the issue with dams is that you don't have great safe-disconnect-and-fix options. Nuclear, you can spin down a plant and balance generating capacity elsewhere. Bridges, you can provide access via detours or ferries. Almost every other mega-engineering project we have is network related: in that there exists alternate connectivity. Dams are intrinsically linked to their topography and hydrology. Where can you source replacement water at that volume? Where can you put excess water? They essentially have to be hotfixed in-place, while in operation.
  - mjevans 6y ago
    The same options that existed while they were under construction also exist... Drain down, dig a bypass, temporary dams inside both sides of the bypass, do the offline / bypassed work, reverse the procedure. Maybe the second time we'll have the foresight to make the bypass more easily serviceable again.
    - WJW 6y ago
      Draining a huge lake is easier said than done though. Even if the bypasses are still up for it they almost certainly were not designed for that. In addition, every bridge and river bank downstream would need to be checked and possibly reinforced for a much higher flow rate. Btw, the time scales are quite long even if it can be done. Filling Lake Mead took from late 1934 to may 1937 or about 2.5 years. Assuming the downstream infrastructure can take double the normal flows, you'd need 2.5 years to drain and another 2.5 years to refill after the maintenance is done. The opportunity costs are huge, it seems at least worthwhile to check if you can do the works underwater with robots or something like that.
ethbr0 6y ago
> This is the downside of geoengineering, or chasing any engineering trend: it's possible to build amazing things, but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder. Let's not forget why these dams were built -- to control destructive flooding, ensure reliable water for agriculture, and provide electricity to those who didn't have it. Sustainability at all costs has its own costs: the good which isn't done while waiting for the perfect. It's hard to tell a family, sitting in the dark, who just lost their crops to flood or drought that they'll have to wait another 40-70 years for renewable power, and just have to deal with intermittent water access.
- pif 6y ago
  > Sustainability at all costs has its own costs: the good which isn't done while waiting for the perfect. This! In my experience, most people agree that ecology is _one of_ the priorities, but people who define themselves as ecologists tend to think to ecology as _the_ priority. In the end, while they think they advocate for a nicer world, they tend to alienate other people from the green path beacuse of their extremism.
  - anticristi 6y ago
    Not to mention that they appeal to arguments like "we must protect nature". Nature couldn't care less about human's existence. Our planet has seen astroid strikes that caused way more harm to ecosystems than we will ever do. The problem is our (as in the human's) environment and not exploiting it to the point where we kill ourselves out of existence. A bit of beer is okay, a lot of beer can cause a nasty hangover, too much beer and you kill yourself.
    - nend 6y ago
      "Protecting nature" isn't just about not destroying ourselves though. It wasn't even the primary reason in the modern america nature movement (and by modern I mean starting with the John Muir/Teddy roosevelt era, when some of these large dams started being built). It was about keeping these places available to be enjoyed by everyone, not exploited for profits and destroyed for the benefit of the few. It's a public good and public resource.
WanderPanda 6y ago
I think the lack of expertise will only drastically accelerate as the boomers start retirement. Interesting times
Mauricebranagh 6y ago
Safety inspections of dams and preventative maintenance are a standard part of civil engineering. Governments ignoring or not funding that is their problem.
jes 6y ago
> Basically, don't try to outwit nature. How can I discover if some action X is an attempt to outwit nature?
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Even being alive means we’re trying to outwit nature.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
> This is the downside of geoengineering, or chasing any engineering trend: it's possible to build amazing things, but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder. This rings especially true in relation to much of our work in tech, as I think you were pointing to. It’s easy to run an AB test and look at the win, forgetting that for every new thing, you now have to support it. For the easy to maintain stuff, you might even forget how it works, so the team of ten who built it turns into a single part time maintainer.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> Basically, don't try to outwit nature. Our whole human society is based on outwitting nature. Previously, open fractures were uniformly fatal. Now, they are routinely treated. Previously, you had to get infected with a disease to get immunity, now we have vaccines. Previously, crossing oceans was a rare event, maybe a small animal got trapped on a log in the right current? Now we can cross oceans in a matter of hours. Previously, you relied on your own skin to try to keep warm. Humans, however, learned they could keep warm by wearing animal skins or other clothes. All of human progress has been built on outwitting nature.
MisterTea 6y ago
> This is the downside of geoengineering, or chasing any engineering trend: it's possible to build amazing things, but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder. I remember seeing an old video depicting the development of the Florida Everglades, probably from the 40's or 50's, forget where I saw it. The narration was the most infuriating example of mans hubris as the narration was set over footage of bulldozers plowing down trees and brush. I can not recall the narration in detail but it went something like "Man has learned to conquer the land and bend nature to his will..." Many of the dams we're talking about here were built with this insane hubris. A time when building technology was advanced and we could seemingly defeat the laws of nature with sky scrapers that reach into the heavens and dams that hold back the mightiest of rivers. As if the only goal was the defeat of nature and make a crap load of money in the process...
- srswtf123 6y ago
  If the goal was to “defeat nature”, we seem to have won. Of course, being a part of nature seems to have eluded us, so we have ... defeated ourselves?
fukmbas 6y ago
You have widely adopted methodologies like agile that tell you to ignore bugs. Keep writing code, keep moving forward. Dojos to work on some of the back log, but keep moving forward. This is the same problem I have with capitalism. The end result is never good enough. Why not perfect one thing? There's a reason why so much software has lasted decades and it isn't because it gets a daily update.

by npunt 6y ago

dleslie 6y ago

The three gorges dam was recently built; and closer to SV, Site C is under construction in British Columbia. There's definitely folks alive who know how to build dams. I think the issue is less the lack of knowledge, and more the lack of political will to meaningfully tackle the problem.

bullen 6y ago
The problem is you need to burn alot of dead trees to make a dam and EROEI is dwindling too fast for this to become a viable option. Nuclear and hydro will never be rebuilt to the same level we have now.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Nuclear is being built in China like crazy. They‘re currently constructing 12 plants at the same time.
  - bullen 6y ago
    China has less reactors than france with 20x the population. They would need 1000 reactors to match. For a commodore user you are very optimistic about things getting better! More nuclear plants are getting closed than built.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    It's still a far cry from the 70's. My quick counting showed the US opening around 40 from 70-75.
  - ryanmarsh 6y ago
    I hope they're better at running nuclear power plants than they are at running infectious disease labs.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    Not really. In short: ((by 2035)) nuclear generating capacity ((will be)) 7.7% out of predicted total electricity generating capacity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#History They, however, built renewables like crazy.
- varjag 6y ago
  Nuclear has its own decommissioning and long term disposal problem.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    If anything nuclear's problem is even more political than practical. We could fulfill the world's nuclear waste storage needs with a couple landfills if the will was there (though any geologist will tell you are better options than near surface storage). From an ecological perspective nuclear is the best option by a mile because the amount of stuff you need to pull out of the ground, move around, use and dispose of is so small per energy produced.
bregma 6y ago
Capital spending and construction are far more friendly to electoral politics than ongoing maintenance and operating expenditures. People see what a good job you've done getting a dam built or a bridge constructed, they vote for you. People don't vote for you because they didn't suffer the consequences of reduced maintenance. People vote against you if you raise taxes to pay for maintenance or if they're inconvenienced by shutdowns while they repair your dam or bridge. The problem is systemic.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  Reject democracy, embrace technocracy.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    You can have a democracy that operates largely like a technocracy if you make it an actual democracy and align incentives.
  - srswtf123 6y ago
    Your username is relevant?
Arrath 6y ago
I'm currently on a project in California to repair and rehab a dam to extend its service life, working for a contractor that just finished a dam rehab job and is bidding on two more in the future. The work is being done, probably not at a scale or pace big enough to meet the needs of the infrastructure (see: all those old and ailing bridges across the country) but it is being done at some level.
Kluny 6y ago
> Site C is under construction in British Columbia. Not sure if this is a good example of "know how to build dams". It's a dam foolish design, built on an earthquake fault zone that's been made unstable by the excavation that's being done to build the dam. The design has been changed to include this ridiculous earthfill section (https://www.sitecproject.com/about-site-c/site-c-project-components https://www.sitecproject.com/about-site-c/site-c-project-com...) to compensate for the weirdness of the geography there. It's probably going to fail catastrophically at some point and destroy a lot of homes downstream from it, and the controversy over the project basically caused the downfall of BC's last government.
- remote_phone 6y ago
  My friend does some auxiliary work for Site C. He said everything is over budget and a mess. The initial contractor underbid because they thought they could get migrant workers in. But now they are dealing with union workers so the contractors messed it up badly.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Somewhat relatedly; I have PEng friends who worked on the budgeting for Transmountain before the Grits bought it. The true cost will be somewhere around 3x the expected, in the long run. They lied through their teeth to offload the lemon onto the feds.
- dleslie 6y ago
  All of BC's dams were built in an earthquake zone. That's sort-of a given. Huge portions of the Comox Valley and Coquitlam are precarious; a strong shake will send a wave of water that will wipe out thousands of homes.
  - Kluny 6y ago
    We're not just talking about natural earthquake risk. The fracking that's happening near the dam is actively making the earthquakes worse. https://thenarwhal.ca/fracking-induced-earthquakes-buffer-zones-site-c-dam/ https://thenarwhal.ca/fracking-induced-earthquakes-buffer-zo...

cbmuser 6y ago

And they‘re building a new dam in Turkey which destroys large areas of cultural-historic land just to construct a hydro-plant with just 1200 MW installed electricity, just 1/4 of the power delivered by the new Akkuyu nuclear power plant. > https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barbaric-turkey-prepares-to-flood-12000-year-old-city-to-build-dam https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barb... A lot of severe stress environmental damage could have been prevented if we had built more nuclear power plants.

collyw 6y ago
Dams really aren't environmentally friendly in the way many people assume they are.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Or as safe; 230.000 people died in just one instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure). 112 people died building the Hoover Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths). Compare that to what are considered massive world news nuclear power plant tragedies like Chernobyl (about 31 direct deaths, long term effects are up for debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...) and Fukushima (1 direct death, low counts of radiation poisoning that can be attributed to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ).
  - tedeh 6y ago
    Unlike water, radiation can't be seen which is why it is so frightening to the average person.
    - Carlton2082 6y ago
      >radiation can't be seen Not to be pedantic, but...

roenxi 6y ago

> ...but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder... Citation please; and who is this "we"? Major infrastructure failures are rare and large expensive assets are generally well looked after. This Mullaperiyar dam situation sounds very concerning, but it has failed more slowly than the empire that built it. It wasn't built this century and it wasn't built last century either. It was built the century before that. It is not obvious why this situation has arisen, but it is pretty much certain that the builders of the dam have no regrets and didn't forget anything. Nor did people around the dam for many generations.

obscura 6y ago

Added to the problem is the general lack of funding around the world for infrastructure, owing to the fact that politicians control the purse strings and infrastructure isn't "sexy" [1][2]. Building something new that can be named after someone is no doubt easier to fund than the maintenance of something that already exists. "we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder" I imagine that part of the problem is that the heavy maintenance for large engineering projects begins years or decades after completion. Upon completion, it's hard to imagine these huge creations falling apart; add to this an element of "this won't be my problem (I won't be here in 50 years)" and you've got a recipe for short-term thinking - especially by those who don't have the expertise (read: the politicians and bureaucrats). [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/19/americas-infrastructure-isnt-sexy/ https://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/19/americas-infrastructu... [2] John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8

ethbr0 6y ago
Part of the issue with dams is that you don't have great safe-disconnect-and-fix options. Nuclear, you can spin down a plant and balance generating capacity elsewhere. Bridges, you can provide access via detours or ferries. Almost every other mega-engineering project we have is network related: in that there exists alternate connectivity. Dams are intrinsically linked to their topography and hydrology. Where can you source replacement water at that volume? Where can you put excess water? They essentially have to be hotfixed in-place, while in operation.
- mjevans 6y ago
  The same options that existed while they were under construction also exist... Drain down, dig a bypass, temporary dams inside both sides of the bypass, do the offline / bypassed work, reverse the procedure. Maybe the second time we'll have the foresight to make the bypass more easily serviceable again.
  - WJW 6y ago
    Draining a huge lake is easier said than done though. Even if the bypasses are still up for it they almost certainly were not designed for that. In addition, every bridge and river bank downstream would need to be checked and possibly reinforced for a much higher flow rate. Btw, the time scales are quite long even if it can be done. Filling Lake Mead took from late 1934 to may 1937 or about 2.5 years. Assuming the downstream infrastructure can take double the normal flows, you'd need 2.5 years to drain and another 2.5 years to refill after the maintenance is done. The opportunity costs are huge, it seems at least worthwhile to check if you can do the works underwater with robots or something like that.

ethbr0 6y ago

> This is the downside of geoengineering, or chasing any engineering trend: it's possible to build amazing things, but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder. Let's not forget why these dams were built -- to control destructive flooding, ensure reliable water for agriculture, and provide electricity to those who didn't have it. Sustainability at all costs has its own costs: the good which isn't done while waiting for the perfect. It's hard to tell a family, sitting in the dark, who just lost their crops to flood or drought that they'll have to wait another 40-70 years for renewable power, and just have to deal with intermittent water access.

pif 6y ago
> Sustainability at all costs has its own costs: the good which isn't done while waiting for the perfect. This! In my experience, most people agree that ecology is _one of_ the priorities, but people who define themselves as ecologists tend to think to ecology as _the_ priority. In the end, while they think they advocate for a nicer world, they tend to alienate other people from the green path beacuse of their extremism.
- anticristi 6y ago
  Not to mention that they appeal to arguments like "we must protect nature". Nature couldn't care less about human's existence. Our planet has seen astroid strikes that caused way more harm to ecosystems than we will ever do. The problem is our (as in the human's) environment and not exploiting it to the point where we kill ourselves out of existence. A bit of beer is okay, a lot of beer can cause a nasty hangover, too much beer and you kill yourself.
  - nend 6y ago
    "Protecting nature" isn't just about not destroying ourselves though. It wasn't even the primary reason in the modern america nature movement (and by modern I mean starting with the John Muir/Teddy roosevelt era, when some of these large dams started being built). It was about keeping these places available to be enjoyed by everyone, not exploited for profits and destroyed for the benefit of the few. It's a public good and public resource.

WanderPanda 6y ago

I think the lack of expertise will only drastically accelerate as the boomers start retirement. Interesting times

Mauricebranagh 6y ago

Safety inspections of dams and preventative maintenance are a standard part of civil engineering. Governments ignoring or not funding that is their problem.

jes 6y ago

> Basically, don't try to outwit nature. How can I discover if some action X is an attempt to outwit nature?

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Even being alive means we’re trying to outwit nature.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

> This is the downside of geoengineering, or chasing any engineering trend: it's possible to build amazing things, but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder. This rings especially true in relation to much of our work in tech, as I think you were pointing to. It’s easy to run an AB test and look at the win, forgetting that for every new thing, you now have to support it. For the easy to maintain stuff, you might even forget how it works, so the team of ten who built it turns into a single part time maintainer.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> Basically, don't try to outwit nature. Our whole human society is based on outwitting nature. Previously, open fractures were uniformly fatal. Now, they are routinely treated. Previously, you had to get infected with a disease to get immunity, now we have vaccines. Previously, crossing oceans was a rare event, maybe a small animal got trapped on a log in the right current? Now we can cross oceans in a matter of hours. Previously, you relied on your own skin to try to keep warm. Humans, however, learned they could keep warm by wearing animal skins or other clothes. All of human progress has been built on outwitting nature.

MisterTea 6y ago

> This is the downside of geoengineering, or chasing any engineering trend: it's possible to build amazing things, but we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder. I remember seeing an old video depicting the development of the Florida Everglades, probably from the 40's or 50's, forget where I saw it. The narration was the most infuriating example of mans hubris as the narration was set over footage of bulldozers plowing down trees and brush. I can not recall the narration in detail but it went something like "Man has learned to conquer the land and bend nature to his will..." Many of the dams we're talking about here were built with this insane hubris. A time when building technology was advanced and we could seemingly defeat the laws of nature with sky scrapers that reach into the heavens and dams that hold back the mightiest of rivers. As if the only goal was the defeat of nature and make a crap load of money in the process...

srswtf123 6y ago
If the goal was to “defeat nature”, we seem to have won. Of course, being a part of nature seems to have eluded us, so we have ... defeated ourselves?

fukmbas 6y ago

You have widely adopted methodologies like agile that tell you to ignore bugs. Keep writing code, keep moving forward. Dojos to work on some of the back log, but keep moving forward. This is the same problem I have with capitalism. The end result is never good enough. Why not perfect one thing? There's a reason why so much software has lasted decades and it isn't because it gets a daily update.