I’m not sure that metaphor’s got legs here. The Donner Summit railroad tunnel was completed in 1868, for example, and blasting through solid granite in a (then-)remote mountainous area with harsh winters and little infrastructure doesn’t sound like low-hanging fruit to me, then or now.
On the other hand, that was one of the major engineering projects of the time, and reducing costs by a factor of five or ten still wouldn’t make it competitive with surface roads.
That particular tunnel in that particular place was worthwhile compared a surface route, which could only have been a long detour. By low hanging fruit, I mean a favourable cost to benefit ratio, not easy to do in absolute terms,
Isn’t that rather assuming the conclusion? I don’t actually buy Eliezer’s suggestion, but by making it he’s essentially saying that large-scale transit tunnels would have a favorable cost-to-benefit ratio after adjusting for overhead costs.
I’m not sure that metaphor’s got legs here. The Donner Summit railroad tunnel was completed in 1868, for example, and blasting through solid granite in a (then-)remote mountainous area with harsh winters and little infrastructure doesn’t sound like low-hanging fruit to me, then or now.
On the other hand, that was one of the major engineering projects of the time, and reducing costs by a factor of five or ten still wouldn’t make it competitive with surface roads.
That particular tunnel in that particular place was worthwhile compared a surface route, which could only have been a long detour. By low hanging fruit, I mean a favourable cost to benefit ratio, not easy to do in absolute terms,
Isn’t that rather assuming the conclusion? I don’t actually buy Eliezer’s suggestion, but by making it he’s essentially saying that large-scale transit tunnels would have a favorable cost-to-benefit ratio after adjusting for overhead costs.