SYMBOL

[Tim May]

On Sunday, September 16, 2001, at 09:00 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
>> As were buildings above 5 stories in ancient Rome.  Technology moves
>> on. The question is not, "Can 250-story buildings be made safe?"  The
>> only question is "How can they be made safe?"
>
> The question is: why should we bother? Tall buildings have intrinsically
> bad volume to crossection ratio, by definition. Both the static and the
> infrastructure is vulnerable, so the efforts would be far better spent 
> by
> decentralizing the society. Monkeys want to see monkeys, fine. We have
> video projectors and AR avatars for that, and last time I looked most of
> the fiber was idle.
>


* Let the builders pay _all_ costs for a structure; taxpayers should not 
"bail out" either the insurance industry or the builders (or the 
airlines, on a different note)

* If companies and their workers wish to spend 20 minutes riding the 
series of elevators to the upper floors, cool. (I expect many won't: I 
saw many people saying they hated working in the WTC...I expect this 
sentiment will be magnified 100-fold. Some in the Empire State Building 
were saying on CNN that they want to get out of that building as soon as 
they can.)

* Let the builders/owners also _insure_ their buildings fully for any 
damage. Had the WTC towers _tipped_ instead of pancaking, the quarter 
mile swath of destruction would likely have taken down a dozen other 
buildings. Any construction of a building tall enough to knock over 
other buildings needs insurance for this.

* I think the notion of a "symbol" is silly. John Young called it 
"vainglory." I have called it Heights of Hubris. I suppose Ayn Rand 
would call for a national pride effort (as she supported the use of 
100,000 slave lives to put an American flag on the moon).

* National symbols are not usually good things. Why would libertarians 
or transnationalists support such things? The best response to 
terrorism, mayhem, and statism (many states support Osama) is not to 
foolish rebuilt in the name of "symbolism." Rather, it's to use 
knowledge wisely. Specifically, to harden and decentralize markets.

* Using any coerced funding (taxes, bailouts, subsidies) to rebuld a 
gaudy and dangerous bauble, one that employees don't even feel 
comfortable working in, is not rational.

In any case, let the insurers and builders do it if they want. But 
they'd better not use any money taken by force from others. And they'd 
better have insurance. And they'd better be prepared for a lukewarm 
response from tenants. And of course they become the Number One repeat 
target. Wonderful idea.