4 ms·

I have to completely disagree with this. We absolutely can make better concrete. In fact, we can make cars super fast, super reliable, and bulletproof too. T

I have to completely disagree with this. We absolutely can make better concrete. In fact, we can make cars super fast, super reliable, and bulletproof too. The question is - why would we. Things cost money. The hoover dam is made of concrete, is a hundred years old, and is doing just fine. For most concrete applications we are comparing the roman construction to, we use a balance of cost and utility. And here's the fun thing: when we need much better structural integrity, we don't even use concrete, we use other things. So this question then becomes "the puritans had better horse carriages than we build now, why?" Well, it's not because we can't build a better horse carriage. It's because when we need to move a lot of heavy things, we use a truck. There is no demand for expensive long-lasting concrete, except in rare cases like a big dam - where we do use long-lasting concrete. And yes, Roman concrete was luck, not science. Because they have very little understanding of material sciences compared to what we know now. In fact, if I remember correctly they built a bunch of stuff out of sandstone, which burns, and burned down Jerusalem. But I may be misremembering something the tour guide said. The fact is, without material sciences, you simply cannot run a bunch of experiments using trial and error to test things for over a century. Because while they improved over centuries, they could only test a couple of things to last those centuries (because you have to wait a hundred years for the results). Lots of cultures tried concrete. One got it randomly right. There are people that go to a hundred palm readers, who all say random things. They find one that correctly predicts an event. Their takeaway is "that palm reader is real." That's called survivorship bias. Old stuff is fun and mythical. They discovered some very basic facts about the universe. Extremely basic by modern standards. Their top scientists did what kids in 9th grade now know. Saying otherwise - that's just romanticizing the past.

stephc_int13 5y ago
I think that most of our top engineers would not be able to do what Eratosthenes did with a wooden stick and some calculations (calculating the earth circumference and tilt). Of course we collectively have much better Science today, but at the individual level I don't think we are smarter in any way. And we tend to underestimate the wisdom that is lost after each generation. Why do you think the USA was able to send people on the moon in 1969 but is struggling to do it again now?
- bluGill 5y ago
  > I think that most of our top engineers would not be able to do what Eratosthenes did with a wooden stick and some calculations (calculating the earth circumference and tilt). Sure they would if you gave them time. Eratosthennes didn't just go do it, he spent some (how much we don't know) thinking about the problem. Engineers today have all the math background needed - they are a little rusty but if you give them a few days they can reconstruct the needed math.
  - stephc_int13 5y ago
    Without Googling it? I am not so sure. I know a lot of guys with engineering degrees who clearly could not do that even if they have had access to much more advanced math than Eratosthenes.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Note that I gave them dedicated time to focus. I couldn't do it before lunch (in about an hour as I write this), but give me a few days to run some false starts and I think I could figure it out.
- soylentnewsorg 5y ago
  And if fish had bear fur, they'd have bear lice. The conversation or claim is not about how smart someone is, while artificially limiting the resources they are allowed to use to come up with a solution. We can model chemical reactions on server farms at a subatomic level. We have learned knowledge and reference materials. An engineer would use all of those things. Whether they'd be able to use a stick and an abacus to calculate circumference and tilt is irrelevant. What is relevant, is we now are able to do it much faster and more precise, using our tools and knowledge, than they did back then with a wooden stick. When materials scientists come up with construction materials, they would use all that is currently at their disposal, and would and do achieve much better results than Roman concrete. >but is struggling to do it again now because no one is struggling. we have a much lower budget now because there is no cold war race to the moon, and the problem now is not "get to the moon at all cost" but is "get to the moon under this specific costs." The reason it's been a long work in progress, is because it's not urgent, and we want it cheap. Different problem, different solution. It's not because we don't know how to use a wooden stick.
kwhitefoot 5y ago
> sandstone, which burns, The first hit on Google for that string disagrees with you so perhaps you did misremember: "Sandstone is non-combustible and thus resistant to fire, making it a preferred option for building and construction. Due to its natural density, fire takes longer to burn through sandstone blocks, meaning any homes experiencing a fire will have added time." https://gosfordquarries.com.au/news-media/is-sandstone-fire-resistant https://gosfordquarries.com.au/news-media/is-sandstone-fire-...
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"they built a bunch of stuff out of sandstone, which burns" Sandstone is SiO2, it's already oxidized and cannot burn. As a rule of thumb, ceramics, ores, and rocks of non-organic origin are oxidized material, they can only melt into lava. Also we build houses out of wood and papper, so by your logic we are even dumber.
- soylentnewsorg 5y ago
  I guess limestone is what I mean, not sandstone. Giving it a quick google, they used lime, and their brick/concrete structures did burn down because of that. My tour was a long time ago. >so by your logic we are even dumber I never said the romans were dumb, but the logic of putting dumb words in someone's mouth then sarcastically making fun of those (your) words, is quite dumb indeed. by my logic, we are not dumber, and I already explained that. When we need things like fire retardants, we use many materials that are better than lime. It took burning jet fuel to bring down things we don't want to burn. We learned that lesson from the Chicago Fire. For residential homes, in communities with fire departments, it is not cost effective to have more than basic fire proofing. It would indeed be dumb to build a fireproof single family home for double the cost, when the new owner is going to knock it down and build something else 50 years later. This is why we don't build skyscrapers out of wood though.

stephc_int13 5y ago

I think that most of our top engineers would not be able to do what Eratosthenes did with a wooden stick and some calculations (calculating the earth circumference and tilt). Of course we collectively have much better Science today, but at the individual level I don't think we are smarter in any way. And we tend to underestimate the wisdom that is lost after each generation. Why do you think the USA was able to send people on the moon in 1969 but is struggling to do it again now?

bluGill 5y ago
> I think that most of our top engineers would not be able to do what Eratosthenes did with a wooden stick and some calculations (calculating the earth circumference and tilt). Sure they would if you gave them time. Eratosthennes didn't just go do it, he spent some (how much we don't know) thinking about the problem. Engineers today have all the math background needed - they are a little rusty but if you give them a few days they can reconstruct the needed math.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Without Googling it? I am not so sure. I know a lot of guys with engineering degrees who clearly could not do that even if they have had access to much more advanced math than Eratosthenes.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Note that I gave them dedicated time to focus. I couldn't do it before lunch (in about an hour as I write this), but give me a few days to run some false starts and I think I could figure it out.
soylentnewsorg 5y ago
And if fish had bear fur, they'd have bear lice. The conversation or claim is not about how smart someone is, while artificially limiting the resources they are allowed to use to come up with a solution. We can model chemical reactions on server farms at a subatomic level. We have learned knowledge and reference materials. An engineer would use all of those things. Whether they'd be able to use a stick and an abacus to calculate circumference and tilt is irrelevant. What is relevant, is we now are able to do it much faster and more precise, using our tools and knowledge, than they did back then with a wooden stick. When materials scientists come up with construction materials, they would use all that is currently at their disposal, and would and do achieve much better results than Roman concrete. >but is struggling to do it again now because no one is struggling. we have a much lower budget now because there is no cold war race to the moon, and the problem now is not "get to the moon at all cost" but is "get to the moon under this specific costs." The reason it's been a long work in progress, is because it's not urgent, and we want it cheap. Different problem, different solution. It's not because we don't know how to use a wooden stick.

kwhitefoot 5y ago

> sandstone, which burns, The first hit on Google for that string disagrees with you so perhaps you did misremember: "Sandstone is non-combustible and thus resistant to fire, making it a preferred option for building and construction. Due to its natural density, fire takes longer to burn through sandstone blocks, meaning any homes experiencing a fire will have added time." https://gosfordquarries.com.au/news-media/is-sandstone-fire-resistant https://gosfordquarries.com.au/news-media/is-sandstone-fire-...

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"they built a bunch of stuff out of sandstone, which burns" Sandstone is SiO2, it's already oxidized and cannot burn. As a rule of thumb, ceramics, ores, and rocks of non-organic origin are oxidized material, they can only melt into lava. Also we build houses out of wood and papper, so by your logic we are even dumber.

soylentnewsorg 5y ago
I guess limestone is what I mean, not sandstone. Giving it a quick google, they used lime, and their brick/concrete structures did burn down because of that. My tour was a long time ago. >so by your logic we are even dumber I never said the romans were dumb, but the logic of putting dumb words in someone's mouth then sarcastically making fun of those (your) words, is quite dumb indeed. by my logic, we are not dumber, and I already explained that. When we need things like fire retardants, we use many materials that are better than lime. It took burning jet fuel to bring down things we don't want to burn. We learned that lesson from the Chicago Fire. For residential homes, in communities with fire departments, it is not cost effective to have more than basic fire proofing. It would indeed be dumb to build a fireproof single family home for double the cost, when the new owner is going to knock it down and build something else 50 years later. This is why we don't build skyscrapers out of wood though.