Here's one modern example: https://pagethink.com/v/project-detail/Wiss-Janney-Elstner-A...
It really means massiveness and stability, in order to have an acceptable margin of safety.
One aspect of the theory is the notion of a line of thrust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_thrust
Arch dams might be the only type of "contemporary" looking structure that is habitually made in this way out of unreinforced concrete.
Although Gaudi was interested in structural optimization (using catenary models), he is an outlier in terms of design. He didn't comprehensively consider seismic aspects, though apparently he didn't do too badly: https://blog.sagradafamilia.org/en/divulgation/seismic-activ...
Thanks! Those were some interesting reads.
The poster you are responding to didn't even suggest a course of action. He mearly provided evidence that the "obvious" course of action might not be so obviously correct. You are free to (as another poster did) question the relevence, interperatation, or quality of the evidence, or provide other evidence or arguments to disagree with what the poster was presenting. But you should not attack someone for trying to have an evidence based discussion.
Even if he turns out to be completely wrong, figuring out how he is wrong will likely be far more enlightening than simply asserting that he is wrong on moral grounds.
I don't see how that isn't a suggestion of a course of action -- one that that is a blatant misuse of a study (with small effects only measured over a small time period) toward ideological ends, i.e. supporting the seizure of children of disadvantaged parents.
Moreover, I refuse to have an evidence-based discussion about whether certain people deserve human rights. That shifts the Overton window to present such ideas as acceptable, when in a civilized society they should not be.