3 ms·

"as if something as complicated as comparing Roman construction and resources to modern day construction and resources could be possible." Well, one can compar

by lukan 3y ago

"as if something as complicated as comparing Roman construction and resources to modern day construction and resources could be possible." Well, one can compare the results. Personally I like things that are build solid and can last a 1000 years. But I don't think I said the romans build better. They just had a different intention: long lasting.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> Can't we really do better today, with all our advanced technology? You implied a whole host of things with this statement, and considering the topic of this thread, also ramming a Roman bridge with a fully loaded modern day cargo ship. The point is there are so many moving parameters, it is nonsensical to take 1 result of 1 technique from 1 point of time and use that as a basis for what one can expect at other points in time.
- lukan 3y ago
  Erm, that was just directed at this point, which I quoted: "If we decided to build like Romans did, there would likely be very little infrastructure"
stonogo 3y ago
The bridge has lasted a thousand years because nobody is driving 18-wheelers over it. It has nothing to do with the intentions of the builder.
- lukan 3y ago
  "It has nothing to do with the intentions of the builder" Why not? They did not have the intention to make the bridge resistant to such heavy loads, as that was not a use case at that time. They had the intention to make a bridge to last as long as possible for the traffic at their time. And they surely succeded with this. Now whether they also could have made a bridge that resists 18 wheelers for 1000 years, well, I don't know.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    This is survivorship bias in action. They intended to build a bridge. That is all we can infer from the fact that a bridge exists. That they used available materials and the bridge was not abused by subsequent usage outside its design spec is not proof of any specific intention on the part of the builder. That exists only in your head. It's like assuming dinosaurs died in specific spots with the intent that their bones petrify and fossilize. You're reading too much into not enough facts.
    - lukan 3y ago
      Maybe, but lots of roman buildings endured the time in much better shape, than many buildings that were build after them. Have you seen some of them in front of you? I have and I am impressed. (I am in italy right now to go look at some more). Also we know a bit more about the romans than just their bridges.

by lukan 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> Can't we really do better today, with all our advanced technology? You implied a whole host of things with this statement, and considering the topic of this thread, also ramming a Roman bridge with a fully loaded modern day cargo ship. The point is there are so many moving parameters, it is nonsensical to take 1 result of 1 technique from 1 point of time and use that as a basis for what one can expect at other points in time.

lukan 3y ago
Erm, that was just directed at this point, which I quoted: "If we decided to build like Romans did, there would likely be very little infrastructure"

stonogo 3y ago

The bridge has lasted a thousand years because nobody is driving 18-wheelers over it. It has nothing to do with the intentions of the builder.

lukan 3y ago
"It has nothing to do with the intentions of the builder" Why not? They did not have the intention to make the bridge resistant to such heavy loads, as that was not a use case at that time. They had the intention to make a bridge to last as long as possible for the traffic at their time. And they surely succeded with this. Now whether they also could have made a bridge that resists 18 wheelers for 1000 years, well, I don't know.
- stonogo 3y ago
  This is survivorship bias in action. They intended to build a bridge. That is all we can infer from the fact that a bridge exists. That they used available materials and the bridge was not abused by subsequent usage outside its design spec is not proof of any specific intention on the part of the builder. That exists only in your head. It's like assuming dinosaurs died in specific spots with the intent that their bones petrify and fossilize. You're reading too much into not enough facts.
  - lukan 3y ago
    Maybe, but lots of roman buildings endured the time in much better shape, than many buildings that were build after them. Have you seen some of them in front of you? I have and I am impressed. (I am in italy right now to go look at some more). Also we know a bit more about the romans than just their bridges.