Humans have built structures which have stood for thousands of years, if not longer. There is evidence of this around the world, particularly in places like Peru and Egypt. So why don't we do this more often? Perhaps we forgot how to do it, as well as why we should do it.
The goal of building truly-permanent structures is aligned with the equilibrium concept of posterity. Humans would be more inclined to build permanent structures if they were concerned more for their posterity than for themselves. When posterity becomes the priority, projects which will take longer than one individual's lifetime to complete finally are seen for what they are-- worthwhile endeavors.
Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) is also paramount when it comes to building permanent structures. The "stick-built houses," and even the brick buildings, of today cannot just be built and then left alone. Instead, ongoing maintenance is required to keep these structures intact. Even then, the building is likely destined for demolition within 100-150 years of the time its construction is complete-- and that's if something else does not destroy it first.
Permanent structures, on the other hand, can indeed be "built once" and then left alone, except maybe for some minor maintenance. There are exceptions if, say, someone tries to destroy part of the structure, which did indeed happen to the great pyramid (this is how people originally got inside). What does this matter for EROEI? In the long run, stick-built structures have a negative EROEI, whereas permanent structures have a positive EROEI.
Currently, a very large amount of life-energy on this planet is dedicated to the construction and maintenance of buildings with a lifespan of 100-150 years or less. Individuals spend the majority of their waking hours working for money, so that they can spend the majority of their money on building, maintaining, and/or renting dwellings for themselves and their families to live in. What if the need for this went away?