3 ms·

You’re confused about the direction for the burden of proof here. I want infrastructure investment, and already mentioned that it really doesn’t matter if it’s

You’re confused about the direction for the burden of proof here. I want infrastructure investment, and already mentioned that it really doesn’t matter if it’s desalination specifically. This creates jobs and general prosperity while it increases possibilities and capabilities historically, and has essentially already created everything you know and love about modern life. If your position is that it’s better to do absolutely nothing, then it’s on you to show that railroads, dams, and interstates are useless and that the New Deal, the Hoover dam, the Ccc, etc were a net negative for society. Maybe you know of countries that were destroyed by good employment numbers or infrastructure investment? Eagerly awaiting your own proofs and analysis.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
You responded to the parent initially… I am not that user, so I didn’t make any such claims? Are you confusing me with the other user?
- photonthug 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    > No need to mortgage the Ferris wheel. Quadruplicity drinks procrastination whenever colorless green ideas sleep furiously Huh? Is this an AI response?
tolciho 2y ago
Several no longer existing civilizations built out infrastructure that proved too complicated to maintain. So they had, for some time, "good employment numbers or infrastructure investment". Then they "were destroyed", or more often faded away as folks adapted, migrated, or died. Details can be scarce, as your stone carving artisans might simply stop making records. If there are any records. Some of these fallen civilizations had water-works that gave short term benefits, but eventually failed: the system became too complicated or too expensive to maintain, soil salinity grew, earthquakes cut the qanats, maybe there was a run of corrupt or incompetent leaders, wars and political unrest can complicate maintenance, or economic and trade changes can make a once profitable area irrelevant, and it's a pity about those changing rainfall patterns. "Strong Towns" does exist as something of an antidote to mindless "it doesn't matter" infrastructure spending, and has pointed out various problems of popping up yet more suburbs that lack the tax revenue for maintenance. Or perhaps civilizations, like flowers, are all about short term gain before they fade away?

MichaelZuo 2y ago

You responded to the parent initially… I am not that user, so I didn’t make any such claims? Are you confusing me with the other user?

photonthug 2y ago
[flagged]
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  > No need to mortgage the Ferris wheel. Quadruplicity drinks procrastination whenever colorless green ideas sleep furiously Huh? Is this an AI response?

tolciho 2y ago

Several no longer existing civilizations built out infrastructure that proved too complicated to maintain. So they had, for some time, "good employment numbers or infrastructure investment". Then they "were destroyed", or more often faded away as folks adapted, migrated, or died. Details can be scarce, as your stone carving artisans might simply stop making records. If there are any records. Some of these fallen civilizations had water-works that gave short term benefits, but eventually failed: the system became too complicated or too expensive to maintain, soil salinity grew, earthquakes cut the qanats, maybe there was a run of corrupt or incompetent leaders, wars and political unrest can complicate maintenance, or economic and trade changes can make a once profitable area irrelevant, and it's a pity about those changing rainfall patterns. "Strong Towns" does exist as something of an antidote to mindless "it doesn't matter" infrastructure spending, and has pointed out various problems of popping up yet more suburbs that lack the tax revenue for maintenance. Or perhaps civilizations, like flowers, are all about short term gain before they fade away?