4 ms·

> Sometimes I wonder if we've regressed in terms of attention to quality. In a way we have, yes! In our modern society we optimize for profit. Always, everywhe

by palata 2y ago

> Sometimes I wonder if we've regressed in terms of attention to quality. In a way we have, yes! In our modern society we optimize for profit. Always, everywhere. The reasons our roads won't last thousands of years is precisely that it would be less profitable.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
The Roman roads wouldn’t be pleasant to drive on at all. Also the Romans certainly must have been more obsessed by profit than us? They state was built on subjugation and enslavement of basically all the people they came into contact with.
- palata 2y ago
  > The Roman roads wouldn’t be pleasant to drive on at all. Sure, but that was not my point. > Also the Romans certainly must have been more obsessed by profit than us? I don't know, I wouldn't say "certainly". I am not really sure how one can be more obsessed by profit than us. We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival (climate change, energy crisis, biodiversity crisis). > They state was built on subjugation and enslavement of basically all the people they came into contact with. You don't really know how Rome worked, do you? Because they had slaves does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". The Roman society is actually super interesting when you look into it.
  - wredcoll 2y ago
    > You don't really know how Rome worked, do you? Because they had slaves does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". The Roman society is actually super interesting when you look into it They certainly enslaved a hell of a lot of them. Like everyone else, they had good points and bad points but they were pretty far from a meritocratic democracy as we would think of the terms today.
    - palata 2y ago
      They did enslave people, that's for sure. Just not "all the people they came into contact with".
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    > Sure, but that was not my point So it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because they serve very different purposes? > We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival (climate change, energy crisis, biodiversity crisis). So a bit like the Romans who weren’t particularly concerned about severe deforestation, soil erosion and related issues in addition to the extinction of multiple species (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holznot#Peak_wood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holznot#Peak_wood just a hypothesis but it probably has some basis). > does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with They pretty much did. Especially during the late Republican period. Well not literally “all” but the populations of large/huge cities like Corinth, Carthage and others were exterminated/enslaved and millions of slave were imported into Italy to work and die in extremely gruesome conditions (depending on the estimates the numbers were comparable to the entire Atlantic slave trade) > You don't really know how Rome worked, do you? What makes you say that? That’s like me replying to your claim: > We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival By asking “You don’t really know how does the modern world work, do you?”. Both of our claims were quite hyperbolical..
    - palata 2y ago
      > So it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because they serve very different purposes? My point was that we could make extra-solid roads. But that would be more difficult and hence more costly. I did not mean that there is a conspiracy; it's just a system. I did not even say it's worse; it's different. > So a bit like the Romans You're turning it around. You said "the Romans were certainly more [...]" and I said "hmm I can't imagine being more [...] than us". So yeah, maybe they didn't give a shit, and we don't give a shit. Which is compatible with what I said (but not with what you said, which is that it was "certainly not similar"). > They pretty much did. So you mean that from the start population of Rome to the empire around the Mediterranean Sea, they systematically enslaved everyone they encountered? So like 99.999% of the population were slaves, and the only non-slaves were the descendants of the people of the original Rome? > What makes you say that? The fact that you think that they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". Romanization was more elaborate than just enslaving everybody. > Both of our claims were quite hyperbolical.. I mean mine. Our society optimizes for the GNI, at the very real risk of causing global instability, famines, mass extinction, etc before the end of our lives. For a ton of people, it means their very survival.
kbolino 2y ago
The Romans hadn't invented the exact forms of the joint-stock company and limited-liability corporation yet, but they certainly had greed and short-sightedness.

by palata 2y ago

ffgjgf1 2y ago

The Roman roads wouldn’t be pleasant to drive on at all. Also the Romans certainly must have been more obsessed by profit than us? They state was built on subjugation and enslavement of basically all the people they came into contact with.

palata 2y ago
> The Roman roads wouldn’t be pleasant to drive on at all. Sure, but that was not my point. > Also the Romans certainly must have been more obsessed by profit than us? I don't know, I wouldn't say "certainly". I am not really sure how one can be more obsessed by profit than us. We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival (climate change, energy crisis, biodiversity crisis). > They state was built on subjugation and enslavement of basically all the people they came into contact with. You don't really know how Rome worked, do you? Because they had slaves does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". The Roman society is actually super interesting when you look into it.
- wredcoll 2y ago
  > You don't really know how Rome worked, do you? Because they had slaves does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". The Roman society is actually super interesting when you look into it They certainly enslaved a hell of a lot of them. Like everyone else, they had good points and bad points but they were pretty far from a meritocratic democracy as we would think of the terms today.
  - palata 2y ago
    They did enslave people, that's for sure. Just not "all the people they came into contact with".
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > Sure, but that was not my point So it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because they serve very different purposes? > We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival (climate change, energy crisis, biodiversity crisis). So a bit like the Romans who weren’t particularly concerned about severe deforestation, soil erosion and related issues in addition to the extinction of multiple species (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holznot#Peak_wood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holznot#Peak_wood just a hypothesis but it probably has some basis). > does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with They pretty much did. Especially during the late Republican period. Well not literally “all” but the populations of large/huge cities like Corinth, Carthage and others were exterminated/enslaved and millions of slave were imported into Italy to work and die in extremely gruesome conditions (depending on the estimates the numbers were comparable to the entire Atlantic slave trade) > You don't really know how Rome worked, do you? What makes you say that? That’s like me replying to your claim: > We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival By asking “You don’t really know how does the modern world work, do you?”. Both of our claims were quite hyperbolical..
  - palata 2y ago
    > So it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because they serve very different purposes? My point was that we could make extra-solid roads. But that would be more difficult and hence more costly. I did not mean that there is a conspiracy; it's just a system. I did not even say it's worse; it's different. > So a bit like the Romans You're turning it around. You said "the Romans were certainly more [...]" and I said "hmm I can't imagine being more [...] than us". So yeah, maybe they didn't give a shit, and we don't give a shit. Which is compatible with what I said (but not with what you said, which is that it was "certainly not similar"). > They pretty much did. So you mean that from the start population of Rome to the empire around the Mediterranean Sea, they systematically enslaved everyone they encountered? So like 99.999% of the population were slaves, and the only non-slaves were the descendants of the people of the original Rome? > What makes you say that? The fact that you think that they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". Romanization was more elaborate than just enslaving everybody. > Both of our claims were quite hyperbolical.. I mean mine. Our society optimizes for the GNI, at the very real risk of causing global instability, famines, mass extinction, etc before the end of our lives. For a ton of people, it means their very survival.

kbolino 2y ago

The Romans hadn't invented the exact forms of the joint-stock company and limited-liability corporation yet, but they certainly had greed and short-sightedness.