3 ms·
While i sympathise with some of the points, the author doesn't do himself any favours by claiming things like: > I argue that "engineering" is the difference b
by necovek 4y ago
While i sympathise with some of the points, the author doesn't do himself any favours by claiming things like:
> I argue that "engineering" is the difference between our modern, high-tech civilization (only a few centuries old, at most) and the hundreds of thousands of years of human experience that preceded it.
So constructing those marvellous cathedrals, pyramids, statues, water irigation systems etc from a thousand or few years ago are not engineering?
Just like anything else, human mind is exploring similar avenues for thousands of years, and there is no good basis to claim that we've been doing engineering for only a few hundred years.
- robertlagrant 4y agoI don't think we'd call statues modern and high tech.
- necovek 4y agoNote that nobody claimed that they were modern or high tech, but that they were engineered! The article claims how our society is modern and high tech because we are finally engineering stuff in the last few hundred years (where we instead just ran into mechanical and construction contraptions by accident previously?). I disagree by giving examples of engineering feats from a few thousand years ago. Btw, for "statues", I was thinking of things like the Great Sphinx of Giza or Colossus of Rhodes (Colossus was of comparable height to the Statue of Liberty).
- robertlagrant 4y agoI understand. I think Dave's conclusion is incorrect as well, but I think he means that most of today's progress in almost every area of life is the result of sustained engineering efforts over the last two hundred years, rather than "there was no cool engineering before 200 years ago".
- bigcat12345678 4y agoThe man standing on the shoulder of the giant claim he's statue is different than the giant who is standing on the mountain peak, etc. etc.