• Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Survivorship bias. The ancient stuff that survived to the modern day are not more durable than contemporary engineering, they’re just the 0.1% of structures that managed to survive this long.

    The problem isn’t that we can’t build something that will last a millennium, it’s that we rarely, if ever, need things to last that long. Nuclear waste storage facilities are the only thing that comes to mind. Everything else would need to be torn down and renovated or brought up to code at some point.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      These Late English signs seem to say the tomb is… cursed? They were trying to contain something evil. All the scouts we send in fall ill and die within days.

    • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The ancient stuff that survived to the modern day are not more durable than contemporary engineering

      Basically any stone structure made for any reason will vastly outlast any steel reinforced concrete structure. Although concrete might appear superficially stone-like and unchanging it is actually porous and chemically active. Within about 100 years the steel rebar inside a concrete structure will rust, expand, and crack the concrete apart. Freeze-thaw cycles and plant activity will reduce it to rubble shortly thereafter.

      Meanwhile a piece of stone block was already about a billion years old before it was cut out of the ground. A stone structure might be destroyed by earthquakes or human activity, but it does not have a built-in self destruct sequence countdown timer like SRC does.

      The problem isn’t that we can’t build something that will last a millennium, it’s that we rarely, if ever, need things to last that long.

      We absolutely can and sometimes we do.