5 ms·

Except good chunks did go off and die because they couldn't adapt, or because they were easy to exploit. (E.g. child workers). Or lived in subpar housing due to

Except good chunks did go off and die because they couldn't adapt, or because they were easy to exploit. (E.g. child workers). Or lived in subpar housing due to urbanization, which made perfect breeding grounds for typhoid, cholera and assorted fun. You can't just handwave those changes away by saying "ultimately, they found other jobs". They didn't. There were entire generations that suffered. At some point there was an equilibrium, but it was far from instant, and "advanced" work doesn't help the person displaced.

malandrew 7y ago
> Except good chunks did go off and die because they couldn't adapt Maybe that's a feature, not a bug. It's worthwhile imagining how life might be impacted in the present if a sizable portion of the homo genus has not died off over the past ~2.5 million years because they couldn't adapt. How would humans today handle the continued co-existence of homo austalopithecus, habilis, erectus, etc over those ~2.5 million years up until the present?
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  You'll sing a different tune if you find yourself on the wrong end of that equation.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > You'll sing a different tune if you find yourself on the wrong end of that equation. (We all, eventually, end up on the other side of the equation.) Given that resources are indeed not infinite, there must be a limit to this planet's capacity to sustain human beings. Most governments don't seem to want to limit childbirth and instead _encourage_ it (more babies == more taxpayers). Once that limit is exceeded, barring technological advances, what other outcome can there be?
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      I think you understand perfectly well that I'm commenting on referring to catastrophic famine as 'a feature, not a bug.'
Guthur 7y ago
How did you come to the conclusion that children died out... The role disappear children instead stayed children for longer and continued education.
- groby_b 7y ago
  They didn't die out, but they died in much larger numbers, because the industrial revolution lead to an exploitation of child labor. Combined with non-existent protections, a lot of them did die on the job. Children started to be children for longer because labor unions helped end the practice. That was a good chunk of time after those jobs changed, and it wouldn't have happened without active pushback. (The AFL pushed for an end for child labor under 14 in 1881, and it took until 1938 to get the Fair Labor Standards Act) The idea that paradigm-shifting transitions somehow don't affect anybody because "there will be new jobs" shows a stunning unawareness of historical precedent, or how capitalism in general works.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "because the industrial revolution lead to an exploitation of child labor" I'm skeptical of the idea that before factories, farms didn't use child labor. Isn't the practice of closing school during the summer kind of suggestive? Anyway, you seem to be arguing the opposite of the previous post, that there were more jobs and this was bad. I thought the issue was there were fewer jobs and that was bad.
    - groby_b 7y ago
      Sorry, increased exploitation. And I'm mostly arguing that tech has a large contingent of selfish assholes who don't care about the impact that they have on other human beings.
    - glennpratt 7y ago
      > Isn't the practice of closing school during the summer kind of suggestive? I don't think that's the case since education wasn't a given for the poor. https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+school+close+for+summer https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+school+close+for+su...
burntoutfire 7y ago
> Except good chunks did go off and die because they couldn't adapt People were dying because of famines pretty regularly before the Industrial Revolution. I don't know which number of deaths was greater.

malandrew 7y ago

> Except good chunks did go off and die because they couldn't adapt Maybe that's a feature, not a bug. It's worthwhile imagining how life might be impacted in the present if a sizable portion of the homo genus has not died off over the past ~2.5 million years because they couldn't adapt. How would humans today handle the continued co-existence of homo austalopithecus, habilis, erectus, etc over those ~2.5 million years up until the present?

anigbrowl 7y ago
You'll sing a different tune if you find yourself on the wrong end of that equation.
- vageli 7y ago
  > You'll sing a different tune if you find yourself on the wrong end of that equation. (We all, eventually, end up on the other side of the equation.) Given that resources are indeed not infinite, there must be a limit to this planet's capacity to sustain human beings. Most governments don't seem to want to limit childbirth and instead _encourage_ it (more babies == more taxpayers). Once that limit is exceeded, barring technological advances, what other outcome can there be?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    I think you understand perfectly well that I'm commenting on referring to catastrophic famine as 'a feature, not a bug.'

Guthur 7y ago

How did you come to the conclusion that children died out... The role disappear children instead stayed children for longer and continued education.

groby_b 7y ago
They didn't die out, but they died in much larger numbers, because the industrial revolution lead to an exploitation of child labor. Combined with non-existent protections, a lot of them did die on the job. Children started to be children for longer because labor unions helped end the practice. That was a good chunk of time after those jobs changed, and it wouldn't have happened without active pushback. (The AFL pushed for an end for child labor under 14 in 1881, and it took until 1938 to get the Fair Labor Standards Act) The idea that paradigm-shifting transitions somehow don't affect anybody because "there will be new jobs" shows a stunning unawareness of historical precedent, or how capitalism in general works.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "because the industrial revolution lead to an exploitation of child labor" I'm skeptical of the idea that before factories, farms didn't use child labor. Isn't the practice of closing school during the summer kind of suggestive? Anyway, you seem to be arguing the opposite of the previous post, that there were more jobs and this was bad. I thought the issue was there were fewer jobs and that was bad.
  - groby_b 7y ago
    Sorry, increased exploitation. And I'm mostly arguing that tech has a large contingent of selfish assholes who don't care about the impact that they have on other human beings.
  - glennpratt 7y ago
    > Isn't the practice of closing school during the summer kind of suggestive? I don't think that's the case since education wasn't a given for the poor. https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+school+close+for+summer https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+school+close+for+su...

burntoutfire 7y ago

> Except good chunks did go off and die because they couldn't adapt People were dying because of famines pretty regularly before the Industrial Revolution. I don't know which number of deaths was greater.