There is a difference, tbf. Starting primarily in the 19th century, when material science was better understood, it became possible to engineer things with much smaller safe margins than previously. This is, entirely unironically, a good thing - pre-modern buildings, when they are not shoddily made, are typically severely ‘overengineered’ by modern standards - that is to say, they use far more material than is needed for what they are used for and for how long they are intended to be in service.
But let it say nothing about the intelligence or creativity of modern engineers.
I was too undisciplined, and looking back I probably have too low of intelligence ceiling, for engineering, those guys are cut from a different cloth.
Also because we require them to do it for the minimum amount of all disturbances rather than the maximum amount of durability, says more about our values of society rather than their ability to engineer.
There is a difference, tbf. Starting primarily in the 19th century, when material science was better understood, it became possible to engineer things with much smaller safe margins than previously. This is, entirely unironically, a good thing - pre-modern buildings, when they are not shoddily made, are typically severely ‘overengineered’ by modern standards - that is to say, they use far more material than is needed for what they are used for and for how long they are intended to be in service.
But let it say nothing about the intelligence or creativity of modern engineers.
I was too undisciplined, and looking back I probably have too low of intelligence ceiling, for engineering, those guys are cut from a different cloth.
Also because we require them to do it for the minimum amount of all disturbances rather than the maximum amount of durability, says more about our values of society rather than their ability to engineer.