3 ms·

> Today Do you think that the common people of Rome, when given the choice between a house that'll last for 50 years, and a house that'll last for 2000 years b

by adwn 5y ago

> Today Do you think that the common people of Rome, when given the choice between a house that'll last for 50 years, and a house that'll last for 2000 years but costs a multiple, would have chosen the latter? How many houses from ancient Rome are still standing today? Taking this into consideration, do you still think that optimizing for the foreseeable future – as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years into the future – is a modern phenomenon? Do you think that the Romans, had they had ready access to today's technology (steel rebar, Portland cement, and the knowledge necessary to use it), would have built the Colosseum the way they did? Or did they build it that way out of necessity, because they lacked alternatives?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"do you still think that optimizing for the foreseeable future – as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years into the future – is a modern phenomenon?" We literally he have proof written in stone. The wealthy men of olde were generational land-owners. They had dynasties and build generational assets. Their manshions and castles are still standing today unless they were destroyed by war. That was their wealth. I have a friend who offers climate change risk assesments on infrastructure and industry. Once he told the investor his asset will be gone in 15 years, you know what he replied? "Why do I care, i will sell it in 3 " You couldn't do that kind of shit before. Today's wealth is held in invisible, imaginary assets, that you can flip and swap at the click of a button. This short-termism will be our undoing
- adwn 5y ago
  > We literally he have proof written in stone. No, we don't. Only a tiny fraction of ancient Rome's buildings are still standing ("standing" is relative, most of those are ruins). And they didn't overbuild them because of their virtuous character, but because they lacked more efficient construction techniques and materials. > mansions, castles Castles have been useless for hundreds of years now (except as tourist attractions), and a mansion that was built 300 years ago doesn't satisfy today's requirements (like built-in running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, insulation, accessibility). It seems that building something for eternity isn't actually a good use of our resources. (Please note that I'm not defending the extreme short-sightedness demonstrated by that investor you quoted)
- qayxc 5y ago
  > We literally he have proof written in stone. Survivor bias is calling. I can show you literally hundreds of old mansions and castles in my region that weren't destroyed but simply deteriorated over the centuries because their owners couldn't afford the upkeep anymore. It's a myth that all old buildings were magically built to last for centuries. Most buildings simply decayed and only very few survived over the centuries and most of them due to constant rebuilding and maintenance.

by adwn 5y ago

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"do you still think that optimizing for the foreseeable future – as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years into the future – is a modern phenomenon?" We literally he have proof written in stone. The wealthy men of olde were generational land-owners. They had dynasties and build generational assets. Their manshions and castles are still standing today unless they were destroyed by war. That was their wealth. I have a friend who offers climate change risk assesments on infrastructure and industry. Once he told the investor his asset will be gone in 15 years, you know what he replied? "Why do I care, i will sell it in 3 " You couldn't do that kind of shit before. Today's wealth is held in invisible, imaginary assets, that you can flip and swap at the click of a button. This short-termism will be our undoing

adwn 5y ago
> We literally he have proof written in stone. No, we don't. Only a tiny fraction of ancient Rome's buildings are still standing ("standing" is relative, most of those are ruins). And they didn't overbuild them because of their virtuous character, but because they lacked more efficient construction techniques and materials. > mansions, castles Castles have been useless for hundreds of years now (except as tourist attractions), and a mansion that was built 300 years ago doesn't satisfy today's requirements (like built-in running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, insulation, accessibility). It seems that building something for eternity isn't actually a good use of our resources. (Please note that I'm not defending the extreme short-sightedness demonstrated by that investor you quoted)
qayxc 5y ago
> We literally he have proof written in stone. Survivor bias is calling. I can show you literally hundreds of old mansions and castles in my region that weren't destroyed but simply deteriorated over the centuries because their owners couldn't afford the upkeep anymore. It's a myth that all old buildings were magically built to last for centuries. Most buildings simply decayed and only very few survived over the centuries and most of them due to constant rebuilding and maintenance.