I see where you're coming from. However that fallacy assumes that someone or something was injured and that there's a perverse incentive at play to incentivize destructive behavior. In this situation I'm not sure it applies. Who or what was injured by installing this tunnel? Were the tunneling companies now selling high-speed tunnels to other companies?

Fair enough. Though I imagine the ecological impact and carbon footprint is probably significant. We all live in a reasonably closed system, so the impact of every significant development touches us all.

If kids breaking windows is a societal problem, an economic system that has to frequently produce windows would result in stronger windows, making them less attractive for kids to break. A top down solution imposed by police, laws, and imprisonment also makes society poorer, arguably more so.

> an economic system that has to frequently produce windows would result in stronger windows, making them less attractive for kids to break.

If I just opened a new window factory, I'd absolutely be interested in as many windows breaking as possible, so I can sell more products. It would make a lot more economic sense for me to produce cheap, thin windows: I need less raw material to produce them and they will break more easily, giving me more opportunity to sell replacements.