We could live in stone structures with architectural detailing like this, but most men would rather watch sportsball and eat seed oils.

https://nostr.download/e2490b169cc0a62af43960f451f7a7d06e33d81be736e1360aed9ee3e1acc0dd.webp

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Let's do it

These days we’re lucky if a man knows which bathroom to use.

In pre-industrial times, chances are you wouldn’t be living in a grand stone building adorned with ornate columns. You’d most likely inhabit a modest timber or mud dwelling, with no glass windows, no carved friezes, and certainly no Corinthian capitals. Monumental architecture was the domain of the elite: temples, cathedrals, palaces, perhaps the occasional public square. But realistically, you wouldn’t be in a city at all. You’d be a peasant in the countryside, living close to the land and far from marble.

These kinds of stone structures were built with immense labor, vast material resources, and often under punishing conditions. They represent not just beauty, but also hierarchy, scarcity, and centuries of concentrated wealth.

As for the three columns in the image, they’re an odd choice if the goal is to celebrate architectural greatness. They look more like eccentric design exercises or parody than actual heritage. They’re miles away from the clarity of Doric elegance, the balance of Ionic proportion, or the intricate refinement of the Corinthian order. Just as distant from the monumentality of Egyptian temples, the layered geometry of Islamic architecture, or the soaring lightness of Gothic cathedrals. The left one resembles an oversized screw, the middle a tree trunk balanced on river stones, and the right feels like it was borrowed from a baroque cabinet rather than a building. In short, they’re the shitcoin version of classical architecture.

The real issue isn’t that people have lost their sense of beauty, but that we live in a different age with different materials, methods of production, and economic realities. Yes, we should absolutely build better, more durable, more beautiful spaces, including aesthetic sustainability. But nostalgic aesthetics alone won’t shelter anyone. Sentiment is not a construction material.

And finally, ask yourself: would you really want to spend 5 million Sats per column or 100 million?

Beauty may be priceless, but in the real world, someone still has to pay the invoice.

Haha!

why is sportsball being lumped in with seed oils? sportsball is based.

When these structures were built only 1 percent lived in them ! 99 percent barely had a roof 😃

Life on average is much better . Money in bitcoin and chatter all day on nostr .. can't complaint!

Agreed but the example you provide is kitsch

With due respect Sir