You are reading a single comment by @The_Seldom_Killer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
You still don't seem to be getting the point I was making about coffee but it doesn't seem worth labouring the point any further.
However, as you're making a pretty clear assertion, I am going to have to ask for your comparative sources of data on the cost of building vs. the cost of engineering behavioural change. I'm quite interested to see this.
The_Seldom_Killer
Howard
The coffee thing was kind of a joke. And it depends on what you class as good coffee :) I would imagine that if you just look at the pure amount of good coffee sold then yes - it is 'a lot' in the same way that 'a lot' of water is drunk each day and a 'a lot' of apples are eaten etc etc. The reality though is that if you don't class a coffee from the usual suspects / hotels /
Pubs etc as good, and you look at the amount of 'bad' coffee drunk in the UK vs 'good' you will see that most - as I wrote before - is ducking shite,
Which doesn't preclude some of it being good. Of course the grounds and or beans might have been 'good' to start with - I suspect most of it is ruined by poor technique and badly maintained equipment.
In the same way, if you look at the cost of building something in isolation it looks pretty bloody pricey, but if you then compare it with, say, the cost and time required to change the driving habits and sense of entitlement of an entire nation or super city, an effort that would need to be maintained for a period of time and intensity, getting permission and smashing some concrete around starts to look like not such a bad idea.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't try both, concurrently which is what I would like, I just suspect the permenance of concrete and it's ease of manipulation will trump the cash return of asking the dominant species to play nice, and convincing the authorities that there's value in it for them to correct that behaviour by punishment if asking nicely doesn't work.