2 ms·

I think I detect a tone of sarcasm, but just in case: For the first ~99.95% of that time range, infant mortality was very high, and then it sort of dropped lik

I think I detect a tone of sarcasm, but just in case: For the first ~99.95% of that time range, infant mortality was very high, and then it sort of dropped like a rock. A lot of the change is attributable to breaking with tradition. I don't mention this by way of suggesting that everything traditional is dangerous, so much as to say that this is one of those spots where we should regard a simple appeal to tradition as being particularly unconvincing.

jacobolus 8y ago
Infant mortality was not primarily from “SIDS”, but rather from disease and poor nutrition. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of indoor plumbing, water treatment, antibiotics, vaccines, hospitals, or large-scale agriculture.
EpicEng 8y ago
>A lot of the change is attributable to breaking with tradition. Is it? I thought it was due to modern medicine. Do you have a reference?
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  Modern medicine is a result of one of those breaks with tradition - specifically, a change in mindset from using received wisdom such as, "this is how we've always done it" to a more experimental, evidence-based approach to deciding how to do things. In the spirit of modern medicine, I'd suggest that that article was chock full of stats that should get much higher billing than a line of reasoning that's of a kind with one of the main ones that people use to promote acupuncture.
  - faitswulff 8y ago
    My line of reasoning was "it must have been within acceptable ranges of risk because otherwise the species would be extinct or doing something differently," not a pure appeal to tradition. The statistics back this up, hence my mentioning them first.
    - mmt 8y ago
      I think it's a bit extreme to suggest that the standard for an acceptable range of risk is anything that doesn't cause our species to go extinct. We tend to put a greater value on human life than that, even (or especially), traditionally.

jacobolus 8y ago

Infant mortality was not primarily from “SIDS”, but rather from disease and poor nutrition. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of indoor plumbing, water treatment, antibiotics, vaccines, hospitals, or large-scale agriculture.

EpicEng 8y ago

>A lot of the change is attributable to breaking with tradition. Is it? I thought it was due to modern medicine. Do you have a reference?

bunderbunder 8y ago
Modern medicine is a result of one of those breaks with tradition - specifically, a change in mindset from using received wisdom such as, "this is how we've always done it" to a more experimental, evidence-based approach to deciding how to do things. In the spirit of modern medicine, I'd suggest that that article was chock full of stats that should get much higher billing than a line of reasoning that's of a kind with one of the main ones that people use to promote acupuncture.
- faitswulff 8y ago
  My line of reasoning was "it must have been within acceptable ranges of risk because otherwise the species would be extinct or doing something differently," not a pure appeal to tradition. The statistics back this up, hence my mentioning them first.
  - mmt 8y ago
    I think it's a bit extreme to suggest that the standard for an acceptable range of risk is anything that doesn't cause our species to go extinct. We tend to put a greater value on human life than that, even (or especially), traditionally.