this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
1035 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
11864 readers
1585 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meanwhile in Europe, in some places you can literally get a castle for free!*
*Just as long as you can pay the titanic maintenance bill to maintain it to historical standards.
In an era of rapidly evolving technology, there ultimately isn't much point to construct buildings, especially individual homes, that will last for centuries. Yes, the house may still be there two hundred years from now, but will anyone actually want to live in it? Or will it require so much updating that you would be better off just building something new?
If we hit a wall on rapid technological progress, then things will be different. If you can be reasonably certain that human beings will be living much as we do now in 500 years, than building a house to last that long will make sense to me. Until then, why waste the resources?
I definitely want to see houses be made of materials that can be recycled. But raw durability is not itself a virtue. Remember the ultimate truth here. Buildings serve people. That's why they exist. And most people in 2026 do not want to live in a home built for the lifestyle of a 16th century peasant. How many people today know how to tend and cook on an open hearth wood burning stove? Yes, some homes that age do survive. But if anyone is still living in them, they have been heavily renovated and modified, many times over the generations. Old buildings like that are very much Ships of Theseus.
The wisdom of the American style of home construction is precisely in its impermanence. It's an admission that we don't have all the answers for all time, and that many of our choices today will seem foolish to our grandchildren. Yes, American homes can be quickly built and quickly torn down. But that is the entire point.
I am Ozymandius, King of Kings. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.
There's no wisdom there, dumbass. They build it that way because it's cheap.
Reminds me of the Grand Strategy mirage of history, wherein people ascribe some overarching, long-term vision to some sequence of ad-hoc decisions
A friend of ours bought a farm with land for 10k€. The land alone would have been worth that many times over, but the farm house, barn, and all the other buildings are somewhere in the range of 400 years old. And, of course, listed.
So they spent every weekend for over ten years and a fortune into renovating this and making it inhabitable. And the department responsible for historical buildings made the renovation process hell.
It's a real hard problem for localities to get right. On the one hand, you want to preserve old buildings. On the other hand, buildings are expensive as hell. And when those ancient buildings were constructed, they were built by modest people. They were never meant to be super expensive to maintain. But over the ages, techniques that were commonly known then became rare specialties now. Every Medieval peasant could thatch their own roof. Now you'll pay a fortune to bring in an expert in historical construction techniques to do it.
Yes, it would be ideal to require everything be maintained to historical standards and methods, but at some point, people just stop trying. People only have so much time, money, and resources. If you make it too difficult to renovate properties, they can't be updated for regular use. And if they can't be used, then who will put in the money to maintain them? The properties just end up being abandoned and slowly succumbing to the elements.
Some historical artifacts are easy to preserve. Give me a 300 year old violin and ask me to take care of it, and I can do so for almost no cost to me. Just keep it somewhere safe and dry, and it will be preserved just fine. But buildings require constant maintenance, and they are built assuming the easy availability of certain maintenance techniques. Requiring excessive adherence to historical standards does not result in more preserved homes; it just results in old homes being left to rot.