Sometimes I wonder if we've regressed in terms of attention to quality. Here in the US, I see lots of potholes on the streets and sidewalks. Meanwhile, the ancient cobblestone roads are still functional to this day.
For one thing, cobblestone roads wouldn't last so long under the weight and shear forces of modern vehicles. Y'know when Wile E. Coyote skids to a stop so hard that the road under him wrinkles up like a rug? A loaded semi truck braking hard can actually make asphalt do that, just as an example of the kind of forces involved.
For another, cobbles that are even a little bit wet become slippery deathtraps at even moderate driving speeds. Even when they're dry, highway speeds are going to be very uncomfortably bumpy. Hard on people and hardware both.
Basically, a good driving road requires a surface that is extremely smooth but also somewhat tacky, and that really limits what other properties it can have. You can't build something like that out of durable stone.
But you made the same bad comparison as the original one since only the asphalt road can bear the loads of modern traffic.
Cobblestones also get potholes and the like when subject to heavy car traffic.
And just FYI roman roads were maintained. We dont have documentation on this from the early imperial period. But from the Byzantine period we know that there were local people responsible for maintenance.
And we also know that even during Byzantine times many roads were reverting to nature. Road maintence was a real problem.
In a way we have, yes! In our modern society we optimize for profit. Always, everywhere. The reasons our roads won't last thousands of years is precisely that it would be less profitable.
Sure, but that was not my point.
> Also the Romans certainly must have been more obsessed by profit than us?
I don't know, I wouldn't say "certainly". I am not really sure how one can be more obsessed by profit than us. We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival (climate change, energy crisis, biodiversity crisis).
> They state was built on subjugation and enslavement of basically all the people they came into contact with.
You don't really know how Rome worked, do you? Because they had slaves does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". The Roman society is actually super interesting when you look into it.
They certainly enslaved a hell of a lot of them. Like everyone else, they had good points and bad points but they were pretty far from a meritocratic democracy as we would think of the terms today.
So it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because they serve very different purposes?
> We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival (climate change, energy crisis, biodiversity crisis).
So a bit like the Romans who weren’t particularly concerned about severe deforestation, soil erosion and related issues in addition to the extinction of multiple species (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holznot#Peak_wood just a hypothesis but it probably has some basis).
> does not mean they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with
They pretty much did. Especially during the late Republican period. Well not literally “all” but the populations of large/huge cities like Corinth, Carthage and others were exterminated/enslaved and millions of slave were imported into Italy to work and die in extremely gruesome conditions (depending on the estimates the numbers were comparable to the entire Atlantic slave trade)
> You don't really know how Rome worked, do you?
What makes you say that?
That’s like me replying to your claim:
> We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival
By asking “You don’t really know how does the modern world work, do you?”. Both of our claims were quite hyperbolical..
My point was that we could make extra-solid roads. But that would be more difficult and hence more costly. I did not mean that there is a conspiracy; it's just a system. I did not even say it's worse; it's different.
> So a bit like the Romans
You're turning it around. You said "the Romans were certainly more [...]" and I said "hmm I can't imagine being more [...] than us". So yeah, maybe they didn't give a shit, and we don't give a shit. Which is compatible with what I said (but not with what you said, which is that it was "certainly not similar").
> They pretty much did.
So you mean that from the start population of Rome to the empire around the Mediterranean Sea, they systematically enslaved everyone they encountered? So like 99.999% of the population were slaves, and the only non-slaves were the descendants of the people of the original Rome?
> What makes you say that?
The fact that you think that they enslaved "all the people they came into contact with". Romanization was more elaborate than just enslaving everybody.
> Both of our claims were quite hyperbolical..
I mean mine. Our society optimizes for the GNI, at the very real risk of causing global instability, famines, mass extinction, etc before the end of our lives. For a ton of people, it means their very survival.
Well.. that semantics, which is not something I have any interest in arguing about. I’ll restate, I’m certain that we care about the environment and sustainability much more than the Romans ever did.
> systematically enslaved everyone they encountered?
No, that was a hyperbole, I’m assumed that it would be pretty clear to most.
Again I’m not sure what’s the point of arguing about this. The were about as much slaves (as % of population) in Roman Italy as in the antebellum Deep South, except in the Roman case the conditions for most slaves were so poor was that their population could only be sustained through constant importation of new slaves.
And yes in some cases up to 90% of the population was either murdered or enslaved after some wars (eg. almost all of the people living in Carthage, in an entirely unprovoked and and unjustifiable war) and more often than not Roman conquests were followed by severe contractions of population and economic decline.
> I mean mine. Our society optimizes for the GNI, at the very real risk of causing global instability,
Perhaps. But I would not agree that’s true in relative/historical terms. Generally QoL for the overwhelming majority of the global population is better than it ever was in the past. Also we as a society are making many choices/decision that do not prioritize short term economic growth that would mostly be incomprehensible/irrational to the Roman elite.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pompeii-fixed-poth...
None of that has any relation at all with potholes. Potholes are dangerous and may not be even noticeable at a distance.
Of course, the two broad categories of road largely serve different purposes, so one can't go around replacing side streets with freeways, either.