I see a lot of engineers calling the article FUD and BS, what with it mentioning ancient Roman buildings and mud bricks.
I also see several commenters (myself included) wholeheartedly agreeing with the point it makes.
I think bluthru hit the nail on the head somewhere below (which will soon be above?)
> The point is that longer-lasting structures should be cheaper, but because we don't factor in environmental harm and lifecycle cost into the price of things we end up with cheap buildings that exist to generate ROI ASAP.
Factoring in those kinds of costs runs contrary to mainstream economic doctrine, so the question really is whether you think that capitalism (in its current form) is doing more harm than good for our communities and/or for our species as a whole, especially including future generations.
I also see several commenters (myself included) wholeheartedly agreeing with the point it makes.
I think bluthru hit the nail on the head somewhere below (which will soon be above?)
> The point is that longer-lasting structures should be cheaper, but because we don't factor in environmental harm and lifecycle cost into the price of things we end up with cheap buildings that exist to generate ROI ASAP.
Factoring in those kinds of costs runs contrary to mainstream economic doctrine, so the question really is whether you think that capitalism (in its current form) is doing more harm than good for our communities and/or for our species as a whole, especially including future generations.
Do you?