Hacker News Reader

Sure it was. It preserves the current environment which is preferable from both aesthetic and ecosystems point of view.

On the surface, what about the long term effects of boring giant holes and tunnels through underground?

There was a previous Swedish tunnel project that had a number of incidents, among others groundwater pollution caused by a new sealing compound that contained acrylamid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallands%C3%A5s_Tunnel

Probably most of it is rock, and the tunnel is probably sounded by concrete.

Regardless, I have no doubt the Swedes did an analysis and weighted the pros and cons.

What about the aesthetics and ecosystem of the bedrock? Are we suddenly caring more about living things than inanimate objects?

Yes, in general we do.

The joke is that rock that deep underground has no ecosystem.

It may however be involved in the water table, which is always critical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com