4 ms·

Sure, but what's the alternative? Dig out all other buildings that failed over the last 1000 years, figure out how they failed and why, and take action? You c

• hwillis 5y ago
  Or like, look at any of the million dilapidated houses and realize that 1. most houses leak at some point and 2. termites eat wood. Then conclude that actually, maybe .0001% of wood houses lasting for 1000 years is not actually good evidence that wood is a material that easily lasts 1000 years. Then think twice about using wood. Personally I'd a concrete dome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome
  • maxwell86 5y ago
    The claim here is that one would look at _ALL_ 1000+ year ld buildings, and then decide what to build. You are building the strawman of looking at _ONE_ 1000+ year old building, and then building that because it must work. Nobody is arguing about this, and probably everybody here would agree that doing this is a bad idea. --- With that out of the way, there aren't many 1000+ year old buildings made out of wood. There are some, e.g., japanese temples, that IIRC have burned a couple of times along the way, but are 1000+ year old and build out of wood. But most buildings in the 1000+ year old range are made out of stone and only partially out of wood (cathedrals, etc.).
  • LorenPechtel 5y ago
    Concrete with basalt rebar. It doesn't rust like steel.