> Why do there seem to be more examples of rapidly-completed major projects in the past than the present?
This is a great question, and I echo many of the sentiments here and elsewhere around general complacency, slowing rate of change (even as bits of technology get better faster), and so on.
But...
One of the reasons that big projects used to happen so fast, is that the interests of people negatively affected by those projects were quickly and efficiently ignored. Of course that's great being able to look back at the big projects is inevitably good, but it's not so great if you were one of the people whose interests were ignored. An advantage of the stasis we seem to be stuck in now, is that we as a society are not quite so willing to stomp all over the interests of whoever happens to be in the way of a great new idea. Is this a good trade-off overall? That's not so clear, but there are good intentions on both sides of the "how fast should be do big things?" question.
Louis C.K. has a joke exactly about this called "Of Course, But Maybe":
"Of course, of course slavery is the worst thing that ever happened. Of course it is, every time it’s happened. Black people in America, Jews in Egypt, every time a whole race of people has been enslaved, it’s a terrible, horrible thing, of course, but maybe. Maybe every incredible human achievement in history was done with slaves. Every single thing where you go, “how did they build those pyramids?” They just threw human death and suffering at them until they were finished."
I'm reading "Sapiens" right now and the author makes a similar point about empires (Roman, Chinese, British, etc.). Yes empires subjugated and killed lots of people, but they also brought them cultural innovation like money, rule of law, trade, standardization, etc.
And the centers of the empires were wealthy enough to developer what we call culture -- architecture, art, music, etc.
This is a great question, and I echo many of the sentiments here and elsewhere around general complacency, slowing rate of change (even as bits of technology get better faster), and so on.
But...
One of the reasons that big projects used to happen so fast, is that the interests of people negatively affected by those projects were quickly and efficiently ignored. Of course that's great being able to look back at the big projects is inevitably good, but it's not so great if you were one of the people whose interests were ignored. An advantage of the stasis we seem to be stuck in now, is that we as a society are not quite so willing to stomp all over the interests of whoever happens to be in the way of a great new idea. Is this a good trade-off overall? That's not so clear, but there are good intentions on both sides of the "how fast should be do big things?" question.