[maximente]

the takeaway from the article to me was, despite whatever tech implementation they chose - be it better drainage, rainwater capture, recycling, etc. - it wouldn't solve the issue that Mexico City is just growing way too fast for its own good.

it's not blaming engineers so much as recognizing that all this tech doesn't address the fundamental "problem" and may actually make it more difficult to solve or worse: he alludes to such with the lithium/electric car issue. imagine the engineers built an even better system the first time - it'd probably allow even more growth, worsening the unsolved problem.

[godelski]

This is how I read the article as well. Which makes the title a misnomer in one sense but correct in another, which I think was the intent. Technology is great and no doubt makes our lives better, but it isn't a cure all.

I frequently say that we've solved (almost) all first and second degree problems (problems which are cause->effect our cause->effect->effect). A big problem that were facing today is we have high order problems and we're treating them like first degree (the call is always clear "it's easy, you just..."). We've clearly advanced to a stage, at least in the first world, were we have extremely complex issues that are interconnected with many others. Luckily we're also at a stage (in all worlds) where we can recognize this, but we need to act on it. I often see complex issues (name literally any popular topic discussed in political climate: climate, guns, civil rights, reputations, etc) addressed as simple to solve issues. While all of them are solvable, over simplifying actually distracts from the problem. And I think the author of this article would agree with me, they often make things worse in the long run. With these great advancements we've made we not only should, but have a duty, to think better about the future and complexity of the issues at hand.

A good engineer can solve a problem. A great engineer recognizes the usefulness of a thousand page reference manual on orings and uses that reference.

[rramadass]

I read it as, The growth of Mexico City may have accelerated and exacerbated the problem but certainly "unintended consequences" from the projects were not planned for. It is not a blame game as much as asking how could Engineering not have thought of such future catastrophes and planned accordingly. He provides the answer himself; it is because the failures were slow and creeping and hence the Politicians/Bean counters ignored them in pursuit of short term "development".