You said earlier that mathematicians don’t make new things, they simply explore the logical consequences of their axioms. Are you changing your mind about that?

“An abacus is good at being an abacus” is obviously true, but rather uninformative. A computer is better than an abacus at calculations is what we were talking about.

You would want to go back to Byzantine times in terms of water distribution? You don’t think our system is better as a system for distributing water?

I was explicit about “for what?” “for whom?” Not sure what “for why?” means.

No, once that goals or functions are specified, claims of better or worse are not at all arbitrary.