The greatest (engineering) achievement of mankind

[Mr Shifty]

A man, a plan, a canal. Panama!

150 cubic kilometers of soil were moved for the project, which took over 20 years (counting both French and American construction periods.) The most advanced technology of the time was used to build the steam machinery for the project. Gatun Lake was the largest artificial lake ever built; and the Gatun Dam was the largest dam ever built. Tens of thousands of people died during the construction due to disease and accident. And the total cost was in excess of $10 billion (in today's dollars.) Currently, about 300 million tons of shipping pass through the canal every year, and it is currently being expanded to include a 3rd set of locks, which will be able to accommodate larger vessels and increase shipping available to 500 million tons per year. The current locks have been in operation for more than 100 years, and are expected to continue indefinitely.

[neamerjell]

The production and use of electricity. Without electricity, 90% of the stuff in this thread would not have been possible!

[Camacha]

Depends how you measure "greatness". Are you looking for a single monolithic piece of construction that was significantly difficult to construct? Or are you after a breakthrough technology that's had the most impact on people's lives or subsequent technology?

As I stated in the topic start there are a number of comparisons to be made. I think the monolithic (and absolute) ones are the most attractive because they are literally awesome, but other catagories can be impressive too. Amazing achievements with limited technology or, like you said, technologies that went on to change the face of the earth.

A man, a plan, a canal. Panama!

150 cubic kilometers of soil were moved for the project, which took over 20 years (counting both French and American construction periods.) The most advanced technology of the time was used to build the steam machinery for the project.

[...]

That is some pretty impressive work. Would you still consider it that amazing if it were done today, with modern technology? Because I have a feeling that we are losing the difference between the seperate conversations.

[Nuke]

while i was totally serious about nuclear weapons i also have to mention:

guns

because murica

[Camacha]

while i was totally serious about nuclear weapons i also have to mention:

Personally I am not so impressed by splitting the atom. Fusing it in a controlled fashion, that I would like to see. That would actually mean that mankind, for the first time ever, is independent of the energy provided by our star the Sun. That would enable massive undertakings without the quabbles over fuel and energy and make deep space exploration plausible. No more fuel running out, as it is easily picked up along the way.

Atom fission is strictly speaking also indepent of our star, but considering the limitations, associated risks and rarity of the source material this is more of a gimmick than a true solution. Weapons are of no interest to me, as they do nothing to promote mankind and only harm it.

[Nuke]

it may have been designed as a weapon. but it opened the door to the creation of very high energy devices which will be neccisary for our long term survival. you think we would be as far along with fusion if we didnt have the insights into atomic fisson given to us by the manhattan project? further more, do you think the political climate of the world would be as stable as it is without nukes? the threat of mad pretty much kept the cold war cold. so until fusion surpasses fission, im gonna have to say that nuclear weapons are the greatest achievement of mankind.

also you kind of need it for the badassery that is orion drive.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Nuke

[Drunken Hobo]

I was thinking about this earlier in the bath (as you do) but clean running water has got to be up there. To have this vital fluid pumped into almost every home in the developed world is a brilliant feat of engineering.

And as I live in the sociallist utopia of Scotland, you can have as much as you want without worrying about fees. You pay nothing on top of the standard tax. Teckle!

[Camacha]

further more, do you think the political climate of the world would be as stable as it is without nukes?

Yes. Yes I do. Arming up is never the solution to tensions, as things can only go wrong a lot faster. Talking to each other and finding common ground is a much more effective way of establishing peace. Just look at the UN, a Europe that is getting increasingly more united and even the United States. They/we decided the bigs wars were too horrible to happen again en now we sort of get along.

Are you trying to tell us a world where North Korea, Iraq and other similar countries have nuclear capabilities is safer? Not that I trust Russia or the US when it comes to these things (as the latter is the only country that actually used them), but people are used to those countries owning nuclear weapons and nowadays they sort of get along.

the threat of mad pretty much kept the cold war cold.

And they came unbearably close to blowing everyone and everything up. No matter how big a conventional war is, it will never destroy the entire planet making it unhabitable in the process. Mankind should not possess the power to destroy itself at the press of a button, since we can act like idiots sometimes. It only takes one mistake for things to go lopsided for a very, very long time. Currently we have only one planet, so it would probably be best to keep it in one piece as much as possible. As long as we can not simply get along on this tiny ball of green and blue, we are not ready for this kind of power.

Please note that I do not object to fusion, I do object to weapons based on this principle. A few tests would have been enough to further our understanding.

[Nuke]

weapons will only get bigger as we expand our empire and master higher energy systems. it will be neccisary to find an outside enemy to unify humanity and stop infighting.

[Skyrunner27]

Arguably I want to say the Space Transport System. Yes I know i didn't acheive some of its goals but it achieved things that were not set as goals for the program. Such as construct most of the ISS, act as a space station on demand, and launch numerous satellites.

[Camacha]

it will be neccisary to find an outside enemy to unify humanity and stop infighting.

True. I have always said this. I sometimes long for some signal or form of contact for that very reason. Even if our civilizations are seperated by an impassable void (time - they might be gone before we ever detect them - or sheer scale) it will unite mankind unlike anything else. Let us be chauvinist on a world wide scale.

[Seret]

the threat of mad pretty much kept the cold war cold.

The Cold War wasn't that cold. Sure, there was never a nuclear exchange between NATO and the WarPac or tank battles in central Europe, but there was plenty of conventional warfare through proxies. Nuclear weapons aren't particularly good at stopping conventional wars, because everybody knows the other side aren't likely to use them except in dire circumstances.

[Aghanim]

it may have been designed as a weapon. but it opened the door to the creation of very high energy devices which will be neccisary for our long term survival. you think we would be as far along with fusion if we didnt have the insights into atomic fisson given to us by the manhattan project? further more, do you think the political climate of the world would be as stable as it is without nukes? the threat of mad pretty much kept the cold war cold. so until fusion surpasses fission, im gonna have to say that nuclear weapons are the greatest achievement of mankind.

also you kind of need it for the badassery that is orion drive.

Agree. Our understanding of inertial fusion currently doesn't scale up toward multi kiloton explosion. Orion definitely need some other way to provide that explosive impulse before it will be seriously considered by everyone, because mass making nuke and losing some of it is not a good idea...

[NASAFanboy]

Let me get this clear. Disarmament is not, never, or ever will be a solution. It's like trying to fix the economy by removing each and every bank corporation. It simply does not work that way

Why?

The threat of nuclear destruction is the main reason the superpowers of the world aren't fighting. It's that. It's the reason the USSR didn't invade us, or the reason we didn't invade the USSR. It's what keeps entire nations safe from hostile neighbors (Israel). Because of MAD, we use smaller countries to fight each other in conventional conflicts, and thus, smaller conflicts and smaller impacts on the civilized/developed world. I support this. Why?

First of all, a war can impede scientific progress, especially in the field of space exploration.

All the superpowers of the world today are spacefaring/spaceflight capable. If they enter into a conflict, this will badly "stunt" their (And everyone who is partnering with them) growth in space exploration/civilian technologies, and will simply cause a bloody war with millions of losses on either side. However, the threat of the extinction of the human race is often an deciding factor in political conflicts, as it/the leverage of other world leaders, will often force diplomats to seek out peaceful purposes.

Total Disarmament will never happen. It is a dream, a stupid dream that will cause more issues than it will solve.

You'll think differently when your country is invaded and you only have conventional means to fight back.

I know one thing. North Korea and Iran are probably never going to disarm. Then why should we?

We don't need to arm up. We need to arm newer, better, and advanced.

Edited October 25, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Seret]

Because of MAD, we use smaller countries to fight each other in conventional conflicts, and thus, smaller conflicts and smaller impacts on the civilized/developed world. I support this.

That's pretty callous. American veterans of the Vietnam war and Russian ones of Afghanistan may not share your viewpoint on this, and neither would the citizens of all the lucky countries who got to host those other proxy wars.

[NASAFanboy]

That's pretty callous. American veterans of the Vietnam war and Russian ones of Afghanistan may not share your viewpoint on this, and neither would the citizens of all the lucky countries who got to host those other proxy wars.

Yes, but that's a minority of the population. If we went full-on conventional warfare on another superpower, the death toll would be in the millions.

And as for the civilians...

I'm probably going to be hated a lot for my views, but it's rather...not neat. If you are going to minimize he impact on the technological development and highly developed areas of the world, your going to have to leave some behind as the losses of war. Yes, they'll die, but more will die if we went conventional. For example, a attack on Baghdad, for instance (With conventional weapons), might only kill 6,000. In contrast, a attack on New York (Conventional) probably will kill upwards of 100,000 and destroy much more infrastructure. Also, in that 100,000, there will likely be a higher literacy rate/higher education, meaning the loss of 100,000 people who probably would be of high use to Humanity. Long story short.

Loss of 10,000 scientists and engineers is a bigger loss than the loss of 30,000 uneducated people. I'm sorry, but Imm telling the truth here. This is the same way that the army will send entire units to recover people of value, as even though it will result in more losses than rescued, they of are higher use and value to the DoD.

Vietnam veterans are not bitter and PTSDed. In fact, a Vet from Vietnam is more likely to be in a stable job and stable monetary system than a non-serving man during the Vietnam years.

History also seems to forget that the US contributed very little to Vietnam, and so did the Soviets to Afghanistan.

Edited October 25, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Moon Goddess]

Can I vote for "0"

I'm not sure it's truly engineering, but zero is such a powerful concept that is very very essential to all of the rest of these engineering achievements (save for the wheel) would not be possible.

It came around much later than you may think and it it's not obvious it really did have to be invented.

So I say if Zero isn't the greatest engineering achievement it's the greatest mathematical achievement.

[shoveycat]

I think the greatest engineering achievement (absolute) is nationwide plumbing networks. It may seem pretty stupid, but it supplies the object people cant go two says without to billions of people. And for the relative achievement, id probably have to say the Roman Empire, they managed to control over four percent of all land on Earth, using only the technology of the time. It also provided the basis of modern science, culture, economy, and politics.

[Seret]

For example, a attack on Baghdad, for instance (With conventional weapons), might only kill 6,000. In contrast, a attack on New York (Conventional) probably will kill upwards of 100,000 and destroy much more infrastructure.

What are you basing these numbers on? I don't really see where you've got them from.

[NASAFanboy]

What are you basing these numbers on? I don't really see where you've got them from.

Off my mind.

Even so, more developed areas of the superpowers have much higher population densities, which means more deaths and killings per attack.

Meanwhile, third world countries used in proxy conflicts are undeveloped, and this, lower population densities per 100 feet

[Mr Shifty]

Off my mind.

Even so, more developed areas of the superpowers have much higher population densities, which means more deaths and killings per attack.

Meanwhile, third world countries used in proxy conflicts are undeveloped, and this, lower population densities per 100 feet

Your mind is wrong:

Population density of Baghdad: 9,250 people/km²

Population density of New York City: 2,050 people/km²

Source: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

You seem especially prone to making false assumptions based on nothing. Please learn to do some research so you can make cogent and useful contributions to these discussions.

[John FX]

I`ll go for hydroponics, nuclear power and air conditioning. If I were to choose three techs to go to another planet with I`d choose those three. I`d like antibiotics and other medicines as well of course but they would be my first choices.

[Tygroux]

The internet.

Guys, we built a planet-sized computer network.

We could fusion nuke half the planet, abandon it for 2 thousands years, i'm pretty sure space archeologists would still find remains of it.

And if we left it running, and compare it to the human brain, i wonder if it would count as a life-form... and a planet-sized life-form with that.

Edit: That's also the closed thing we have to a hive-mind...

Edited October 25, 2013 by Tygroux

[NASAFanboy]

Your mind is wrong:

Population density of Baghdad: 9,250 people/km²

Population density of New York City: 2,050 people/km²

Source: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

You seem especially prone to making false assumptions based on nothing. Please learn to do some research so you can make cogent and useful contributions to these discussions.

Yes, but read point two.

The loss of 10,000 educated and diverse peoples is a greater blow to the human race than the loss of 50,000 uneducated and nondiverse people.

I am not prone to taking false assumptions, though I will gladly resort to a fight in PM.

Now, the population density for NYC is 27K per Sq Mile.

The density for Baghdad is less.

That figure you show me is wrong, completely wrong.

Please learn to actually use several sources.

Your figures are completely off the chart. And I'm starting to doubt that the said website is even a correct source.

Edited October 25, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Wahgineer]

Greatest achievement over all:

I would vote the space shuttle. It is considered to be and pretty much is the most complex aircraft/spacecraft ever devised. And, to boot, it actually worked, and for 40 years at that.

The shuttle was also one of those rare cases where it combine function and finesse, i.e., it worked exceptionally well and looked good, too.