4 ms·

Is it an axiom of civilization that destruction always costs less than construction?

bombcar 3y ago
Depends on many factors, we're often spending hundreds of thousands or millions on "smart bombs" to blow up structures that probably cost thousands.
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  Isn't the goal of the "smart bombs" rather to avoid having to blow up hundreds of structures that cost thousands to get at the one (and to get that one really, properly blown up)?
- chmod600 3y ago
  In a weird sense smart bombs might be considered construction, in much the same way as a carefully-controlled chisel creates a statue rather than destroying a rock. I'm not making a moral equivalence here -- please don't construe my comment to mean that blowing people up is somehow good. But from the perspective of the person dropping the bomb, they are reshaping rather than destroying. If their goal were purely destructive, there are cheaper means available.
jameshart 3y ago
Not sure if it’s an axiom of civilization, but it’s the second law of thermodynamics.
wolverine876 3y ago
The overwhelming net outcome has been construction. Look out your window (or at your computer). We're not living in caves.
- yen223 3y ago
  It would take a lot less energy to destroy everything we've built, than the energy needed to build them in the first place. It's only by the grace of something that we chose not to destroy everything we see. I hope that remains the case for a long time.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > It's only by the grace of something ... It seems a very reliable fact of human nature, based on millennia of evidence. We started building 10,000 years ago and haven't stopped. Humans are social animals; our primate ancestors also are social, living in groups of dozens. It's not an accident or good luck.
nordsieck 3y ago
> Is it an axiom of civilization that destruction always costs less than construction? Defense and Offense vary in power over time. In the middle ages, it was possible to construct a suit of armor that effectively made you invulnerable. A small force of armored men-at-arms could defeat a much larger force of peasants because the peasants just wouldn't be able to injure them effectively. Additionally, castles and other fortifications increased the power of defense. Firearms swung the advantage to the attackers - giving conscripts a way to pierce plate mail, and cannoneers a way to take down castle walls. Barbed wire and machine guns swung the balance of power back towards the defenders. Largely static trench warfare was the result; even with overwhelming artillery fire, it was extremely difficult for determined attackers to mount an effective assault. Stormtrooper tactics, tanks, and airplanes all boosted the power of offense making deep penetrations into enemy lines a routine occurrence in WWII. Nuclear weapons were initially a massive boost to offense when only the US had them. But with the advent of MAD they are firmly a tool of defense[1]. Even with modern weapons at their disposal, economic conditions can also affect the battlefield - the Ukraine war is very much a defense-centric war. This is partially because of the potency of SAMs and partly because Ukraine is starved of artillery munitions. Among many other reasons. --- 1. At least until they're next used in anger. No one really knows how MAD will actually play out. Hopefully no one has to find out.

Depends on many factors, we're often spending hundreds of thousands or millions on "smart bombs" to blow up structures that probably cost thousands.

InitialLastName 3y ago
Isn't the goal of the "smart bombs" rather to avoid having to blow up hundreds of structures that cost thousands to get at the one (and to get that one really, properly blown up)?
chmod600 3y ago
In a weird sense smart bombs might be considered construction, in much the same way as a carefully-controlled chisel creates a statue rather than destroying a rock. I'm not making a moral equivalence here -- please don't construe my comment to mean that blowing people up is somehow good. But from the perspective of the person dropping the bomb, they are reshaping rather than destroying. If their goal were purely destructive, there are cheaper means available.

jameshart 3y ago

Not sure if it’s an axiom of civilization, but it’s the second law of thermodynamics.

wolverine876 3y ago

The overwhelming net outcome has been construction. Look out your window (or at your computer). We're not living in caves.

yen223 3y ago
It would take a lot less energy to destroy everything we've built, than the energy needed to build them in the first place. It's only by the grace of something that we chose not to destroy everything we see. I hope that remains the case for a long time.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > It's only by the grace of something ... It seems a very reliable fact of human nature, based on millennia of evidence. We started building 10,000 years ago and haven't stopped. Humans are social animals; our primate ancestors also are social, living in groups of dozens. It's not an accident or good luck.

nordsieck 3y ago

> Is it an axiom of civilization that destruction always costs less than construction? Defense and Offense vary in power over time. In the middle ages, it was possible to construct a suit of armor that effectively made you invulnerable. A small force of armored men-at-arms could defeat a much larger force of peasants because the peasants just wouldn't be able to injure them effectively. Additionally, castles and other fortifications increased the power of defense. Firearms swung the advantage to the attackers - giving conscripts a way to pierce plate mail, and cannoneers a way to take down castle walls. Barbed wire and machine guns swung the balance of power back towards the defenders. Largely static trench warfare was the result; even with overwhelming artillery fire, it was extremely difficult for determined attackers to mount an effective assault. Stormtrooper tactics, tanks, and airplanes all boosted the power of offense making deep penetrations into enemy lines a routine occurrence in WWII. Nuclear weapons were initially a massive boost to offense when only the US had them. But with the advent of MAD they are firmly a tool of defense[1]. Even with modern weapons at their disposal, economic conditions can also affect the battlefield - the Ukraine war is very much a defense-centric war. This is partially because of the potency of SAMs and partly because Ukraine is starved of artillery munitions. Among many other reasons. --- 1. At least until they're next used in anger. No one really knows how MAD will actually play out. Hopefully no one has to find out.