4 ms·
"Can't" vs "won't" is a huge distinction. All the examples you provided are either economically non-viable, bureaucratic landmines, or believed to be pointless.
by firen777 2y ago
"Can't" vs "won't" is a huge distinction. All the examples you provided are either economically non-viable, bureaucratic landmines, or believed to be pointless. You can argue whether those arguments are justified, but the point is we didn't forget the technology.
- ithkuil 2y agoIndeed politics, culture and posturing can be strong incentives that change the economics balance. If the Roman empire had one thing as advanced as our modern states that wasn't technology per se but the politics, the politicking the perverse incentives to do something to show for and a public whose murmur mattered. If some city official decided to impress visitors with some smooth roads perhaps he found a solution that wasn't strictly the best economically but perhaps it had other advantages that helped him getting a promotion?
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoI think this is pure copium. It’s use it or lose it - if you ‘won’t’ and chose not to build nuclear reactors for 40 years, then wake up one day and decide to do it, you will find that you can’t. Experience engineers will have retired or found other jobs. Knowledge is gone. The books have been lost, etc. If you haven’t been to the moon for 40 years, then you can’t any more. That’s two generations of people. Ability is not like a statue that you keep in a museum. Even a car will not start after sitting the garage for 10 years. Organisations and people fall apart even faster.
- lukan 2y agoBut we do go to the moon om a regular base. Just not with humans, as robots are cheaper.