At least roofs from "the dark ages" (500-1400 AD) didn't collapse and buildings weren't treated as commodities. There are many buildings from this time still being used in spectacular condition, such as Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem built in 1189 AD in Nottingham.
One thing that is a bit confusing related to this topic is the fact that a relatively high IQ society (China) is massively worse at short term thinking (especially when in comes to infrastructure) even than the west. I don't want to think about what most cities in China will look like in 30 years, 2 yr old buildings were falling apart when I went there in 1999. Contrary to popular belief the Chinese are extreme short term thinkers (perhaps not the highest levels of government but certainly most people are), they will grab what they can right now and let the future be damned, it really is a universal disease over there.
Yes they have caught up but at tremendous cost. The environment is a smoking wasteland and corruption absolutely rampant. The thing about China is that it is very much all about perception. Yes they have outstanding railways and shiny cities but if you go just beyond the surface you will see that everything behind that is crumbling. A huge number of buildings are substandard and not just that but much of their infrastructure is very suspect. The Chinese regional bigwigs are absolute masters of putting a shiny veneer on everything but all it takes is heavy rain or an earthquake and huge amounts of stuff just collapses in a heap. Again on the IQ, you are probably right because it is not only buildings and bridges that are papered over but also pretty much all statistics who knows what the actual number is.
Of this aligning topic, why is it that in London , NYC, many big cities, lot of apartments and commercial spaces are empty, for long time, and this is "okay".... it can be in some cases over a decade like that. I get superficial explanation that coz value goes up over time so fast, there is no need, and taking a tenant with lower rate can lower property value due to calculations, but how society comes to this. It is weird longtermish thing coupled with seeming insider relations(to know London is seemingly growing forever and too few built).
In 2000s I read of UK construction business that biggest builders had hired some trust like unofficial setup that some guy(s) in his pc kept in excel blacklist of "difficult people" ie staff in construction, who wouldnt then get hired by any company. As we know blue collar industries, "difficult" is very easy to be even a little higher than avg IQ, pointing out shortcuts in quality and so on.... essentially any inconvenience to managers. It is not hard to see how this kind of culture festers poor quality. Then public policies to favor bigger and bigger construction companies and projects kill of these people to be even small construction business owner, as these bigger ones can hire private detectives and do all sorts of nasty harassment to make life difficult (like in hollywood). Dont know what to call this kind of setup and festering culture but it has nothing to do with IQ as explanation. Immigrant people without any training are of course favored as construction workers due to convenience(of them not talking), not even cost. You could say it is shady legal unofficial mafia style business of whole industry(majority at least).
Article here claims that billionaires have an above replacement fertility level, though they do not distinguish between male and female fertility.
As a side note they try to use this to attack Musk's claim that rich people don't have kids but the criticism isn't valid since they only look at billionaires. Comes across as a petty attempt to attack someone they envy as well someone who brings up issues (demographics) that threaten their worldview, specifically their sense of security in the liberal system.
I see that , especially for men, US joke is they have "3 rounds " of families always with 20-something woman during lifetime. Of women I have no idea how it works(other than Madonna and couple others famous ones).
It seems pretty consistent among regular people understanding, common sense, that globalism favors elite(work as multiplier to make them even richer while outsourcing actual work to other country cheaper, allowing also amazon web style adjustable scale from 0 to infinite , without social consequences as all problems are in that faraway country). Musk is special case resembling classic rockstar of 70s,80s who impulsively goes around and changes life. But lot of hollywood stars , CEOs etc have lot of kids when fortunes are so huge. Though still in world billionaires or even millionaires are small segment of societies, so even if everyone would have 9 kids, that has but tiny dent in overall statistics. Same goes to those billionaires if they chose not to have kids. Then million$ in world nowadays aint so much above normal engineer, doctor etc middle class that Id think that automatically allows expanding family. In some cases yes but context spesific, as 1mn-10mn$ is quite small amount of fortunes when life gets complex.
At least roofs from "the dark ages" (500-1400 AD) didn't collapse and buildings weren't treated as commodities. There are many buildings from this time still being used in spectacular condition, such as Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem built in 1189 AD in Nottingham.
One thing that is a bit confusing related to this topic is the fact that a relatively high IQ society (China) is massively worse at short term thinking (especially when in comes to infrastructure) even than the west. I don't want to think about what most cities in China will look like in 30 years, 2 yr old buildings were falling apart when I went there in 1999. Contrary to popular belief the Chinese are extreme short term thinkers (perhaps not the highest levels of government but certainly most people are), they will grab what they can right now and let the future be damned, it really is a universal disease over there.
Yes they have caught up but at tremendous cost. The environment is a smoking wasteland and corruption absolutely rampant. The thing about China is that it is very much all about perception. Yes they have outstanding railways and shiny cities but if you go just beyond the surface you will see that everything behind that is crumbling. A huge number of buildings are substandard and not just that but much of their infrastructure is very suspect. The Chinese regional bigwigs are absolute masters of putting a shiny veneer on everything but all it takes is heavy rain or an earthquake and huge amounts of stuff just collapses in a heap. Again on the IQ, you are probably right because it is not only buildings and bridges that are papered over but also pretty much all statistics who knows what the actual number is.
On the plus side: so much of the brutalists architecture will go away, one way or another.
Smart Britons will move into older homes.
Of this aligning topic, why is it that in London , NYC, many big cities, lot of apartments and commercial spaces are empty, for long time, and this is "okay".... it can be in some cases over a decade like that. I get superficial explanation that coz value goes up over time so fast, there is no need, and taking a tenant with lower rate can lower property value due to calculations, but how society comes to this. It is weird longtermish thing coupled with seeming insider relations(to know London is seemingly growing forever and too few built).
In 2000s I read of UK construction business that biggest builders had hired some trust like unofficial setup that some guy(s) in his pc kept in excel blacklist of "difficult people" ie staff in construction, who wouldnt then get hired by any company. As we know blue collar industries, "difficult" is very easy to be even a little higher than avg IQ, pointing out shortcuts in quality and so on.... essentially any inconvenience to managers. It is not hard to see how this kind of culture festers poor quality. Then public policies to favor bigger and bigger construction companies and projects kill of these people to be even small construction business owner, as these bigger ones can hire private detectives and do all sorts of nasty harassment to make life difficult (like in hollywood). Dont know what to call this kind of setup and festering culture but it has nothing to do with IQ as explanation. Immigrant people without any training are of course favored as construction workers due to convenience(of them not talking), not even cost. You could say it is shady legal unofficial mafia style business of whole industry(majority at least).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenaebarnes/2022/07/10/elon-musk-isnt-the-only-billionaire-with-9-plus-kids-meet-the-us-richest-people-with-the-most-children/?sh=5c953fa713b9
Article here claims that billionaires have an above replacement fertility level, though they do not distinguish between male and female fertility.
As a side note they try to use this to attack Musk's claim that rich people don't have kids but the criticism isn't valid since they only look at billionaires. Comes across as a petty attempt to attack someone they envy as well someone who brings up issues (demographics) that threaten their worldview, specifically their sense of security in the liberal system.
I see that , especially for men, US joke is they have "3 rounds " of families always with 20-something woman during lifetime. Of women I have no idea how it works(other than Madonna and couple others famous ones).
It seems pretty consistent among regular people understanding, common sense, that globalism favors elite(work as multiplier to make them even richer while outsourcing actual work to other country cheaper, allowing also amazon web style adjustable scale from 0 to infinite , without social consequences as all problems are in that faraway country). Musk is special case resembling classic rockstar of 70s,80s who impulsively goes around and changes life. But lot of hollywood stars , CEOs etc have lot of kids when fortunes are so huge. Though still in world billionaires or even millionaires are small segment of societies, so even if everyone would have 9 kids, that has but tiny dent in overall statistics. Same goes to those billionaires if they chose not to have kids. Then million$ in world nowadays aint so much above normal engineer, doctor etc middle class that Id think that automatically allows expanding family. In some cases yes but context spesific, as 1mn-10mn$ is quite small amount of fortunes when life gets complex.