4 ms·

From my comment: "… pre-industrial … most people …" etc. There's been probably as much or more protracted and concerted propaganda from industrialists (who hav

From my comment: "… pre-industrial … most people …" etc. There's been probably as much or more protracted and concerted propaganda from industrialists (who have more wealth and power to spread their messages) as the environmental sort. You're just fantasizing if you think there have been large populations of people who lived next to rivers on fire and horribly polluted air and water and litter and yet "didn't know they wanted" a clean environment. They may not have had the political terminology to talk about it, but basically nobody likes living in trash. The whole failure of large populations not to pick up their litter etc. makes complete sense to anyone who understands social-psychology, game theory etc. It's in no sense evidence that people liked living with litter or didn't want an unlittered environment. The environmental movement correlates strongly with the increasing amount of pollution and other environmental issues in the world. This is not arbitrary coincidence. It also involves things like increased understanding of the impacts of pollution from advances in scientific knowledge.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
The fact that people lived close enough to observe rivers on fire might imply that they were willing to put up with it, for "progress" or "jobs." I don't think anybody lived right next to them. Zappa lays claim[1] to the first use of the word "pollution" in any popular ( meaning non-academic ) media, by virtue of a song title, "Nine Types of Industrial Pollution." That's from 1969. [1] no doubt erroneously - he just meant in his personal light cone. I am actually saying - people can get used to anything, including living in trash. People went for centuries without bathing. My ( born around 1900 ) grandparents were once-a-week bathers. You're projecting the mores of the present on people who lived in the past - presentism, IMO. We also have a heck of a lot more trash than people used to. They'd use fire barrels and dig middens to dispose of trash of they could. Trash trucks are also relatively recent. Obviously, those in concrete cities could not do that necessarily. This I also know from direct observation.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Of course people are adaptable and get used to whatever. Once-a-week bathing is not a big deal at all. I hope you didn't intend to equate that with poisoned rivers. There's even lots of evidence that without bathing people maintain a healthier and less smelly bacteria population than happens with a regular bather who then has a bath-hiatus. There are even products now to promote a healthy probiotic skin culture and stop bathing… Of course there's relativity here. People who never had clean water won't complain about it the way those who had it and then saw it poisoned will. What's relevant is the change that the industrial revolution brought — including the WEALTH it brought that allowed people to be more secure and start caring about environmental issues since fewer of us worried about whether we would eat or whether we'd die of polio etc. My point isn't that there's no environmental propaganda or that things things aren't complex. The point is that the environmental movement is based on real on-the-ground issues that were going to come up because of the issues. It's quite unreasonable to describe it as though it's just some sort of manufactured concern.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

The fact that people lived close enough to observe rivers on fire might imply that they were willing to put up with it, for "progress" or "jobs." I don't think anybody lived right next to them. Zappa lays claim[1] to the first use of the word "pollution" in any popular ( meaning non-academic ) media, by virtue of a song title, "Nine Types of Industrial Pollution." That's from 1969. [1] no doubt erroneously - he just meant in his personal light cone. I am actually saying - people can get used to anything, including living in trash. People went for centuries without bathing. My ( born around 1900 ) grandparents were once-a-week bathers. You're projecting the mores of the present on people who lived in the past - presentism, IMO. We also have a heck of a lot more trash than people used to. They'd use fire barrels and dig middens to dispose of trash of they could. Trash trucks are also relatively recent. Obviously, those in concrete cities could not do that necessarily. This I also know from direct observation.

quadrangle 10y ago
Of course people are adaptable and get used to whatever. Once-a-week bathing is not a big deal at all. I hope you didn't intend to equate that with poisoned rivers. There's even lots of evidence that without bathing people maintain a healthier and less smelly bacteria population than happens with a regular bather who then has a bath-hiatus. There are even products now to promote a healthy probiotic skin culture and stop bathing… Of course there's relativity here. People who never had clean water won't complain about it the way those who had it and then saw it poisoned will. What's relevant is the change that the industrial revolution brought — including the WEALTH it brought that allowed people to be more secure and start caring about environmental issues since fewer of us worried about whether we would eat or whether we'd die of polio etc. My point isn't that there's no environmental propaganda or that things things aren't complex. The point is that the environmental movement is based on real on-the-ground issues that were going to come up because of the issues. It's quite unreasonable to describe it as though it's just some sort of manufactured concern.