2fast4u said:
nah, in all honesty i wouldnt go that far. not building extremely high skyscapers certainly does not mean not going with technology in general and i doubt you would think that of me either ...
Well, normaly I probably wouldn't, but it sounds like you are willing to halt anything in the name of personal safety, which is extremely counterproductive. Imagine if after the first failed apollo mission, we decided to discontinue the space program indefinitely. What you are suggesting is exactly that.
Maybe thats how every other country in the world works, I honestly don't know. All I know, is that america does not give up on anything. It never has, and it never will. That is why we are so successful. Now, skyscrapers serve a purpose, they provide several advantages over spreading several smaller buildings. Now, maybe your logic is to settle for less, at the expense of advancement, because you are worried about physical risk, but thats not how we work. We move forward in spite of any danger. Apollo 1 burned, so we made Apollo 2. The origional twin towers weren't designed to take a hit from a 757, but we do have both the technology and the ability to make it so. To add to that, airport security has increased massively since 9/11. So, again, why shouldn't we?