-
Re-read my post - I don't need to understand your coffee thing. I'm just pointing out to you that just saying 'building stuff is expensive' is not an argument when you don't know the costs of engineering mass social change.
Or do you? In which case I look forward to your data :)
Howard-
Nice attempt to spin that around but as you're the one that said it was comparatively less expensive than engineering behavioural change so I'll be waiting on your data. I've not made any counter claims against this point.
My argument was that building things and, if they don't work, knocking them down and rebuilding them differently is a poor methodology and is expensive. This was to counter your claim that it was in fact cheap as per the quote below.
The nice thing about building stuff is that a) it's cheap,
b) it's quick and c) it's really easy to tell if it's working - or not, and is easy to change.So your data on comparative costs that supported this argument:
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.
that'll be forthcoming shortly?
-
..I look forward to your data :)
The_Seldom_Killer
Kidneys
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.