4 ms·

>We look back at those times now, and think it to be ridiculous that people lived under such conditions Honestly, I don't. I'm glad I'm alive now and not then,

>We look back at those times now, and think it to be ridiculous that people lived under such conditions Honestly, I don't. I'm glad I'm alive now and not then, but it isn't too difficult to acknowledge that industrial pollution in urban areas (which absolutely did kill people both passively and during smogs) was a necessary evil for the era and helped us get to where we are today. I'm sure people will say the same thing about internal combustion engines in 50 years' time.

sva_ 5y ago
I would claim that thinking those conditions to be ridiculous and considering them necessary are not mutually exclusive.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  It is neither funny, nor foolish or absurd.
  - sva_ 5y ago
    Something that might at some point be considered foolish might later be considered absurd, by having new information that informs it to be (very) hazardous.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      Perhaps, but I don't really see that analysis in the case of early industrialization. They were really doing a good job of optimising the small amount of capacity they had.
kiliantics 5y ago
Necessary for who? Those times saw a lot of poverty and suffering among the working class who had little choice in where they worked, while enriching only a small few industrialists. Similarly today, I don't see a lot of combustion engine use as necessary. Average car trip is only a few miles and could easily be made by bike. If we had designed cities for people, with good transit and cycling/walking infrastructure, we would have far less pollution in our urban environment. But instead we made policies that maximised car and gas sales rather than maximise health and wellness, again to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Those times saw a lot of poverty and suffering among the working class who had little choice in where they worked, while enriching only a small few industrialists. Industrialisation the 1800s and early 1900s saw the end of child labour and slavery, the rise of the 8 hour work day and an increase in life expectancy by an entire decade. Life then was terrible compared to the post-war era, but was constantly exponentially improving in material terms. >But instead we made policies that maximised car and gas sales rather than maximise health and wellness, again to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Poor city design and the existence of the internal combustion engine are two separate problems. Even with perfectly designed cities, we still reap huge benefits from the technology in terms of trucking, shipping and mechanised agriculture (!!!).

sva_ 5y ago

I would claim that thinking those conditions to be ridiculous and considering them necessary are not mutually exclusive.

lostmsu 5y ago
It is neither funny, nor foolish or absurd.
- sva_ 5y ago
  Something that might at some point be considered foolish might later be considered absurd, by having new information that informs it to be (very) hazardous.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Perhaps, but I don't really see that analysis in the case of early industrialization. They were really doing a good job of optimising the small amount of capacity they had.

kiliantics 5y ago

Necessary for who? Those times saw a lot of poverty and suffering among the working class who had little choice in where they worked, while enriching only a small few industrialists. Similarly today, I don't see a lot of combustion engine use as necessary. Average car trip is only a few miles and could easily be made by bike. If we had designed cities for people, with good transit and cycling/walking infrastructure, we would have far less pollution in our urban environment. But instead we made policies that maximised car and gas sales rather than maximise health and wellness, again to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>Those times saw a lot of poverty and suffering among the working class who had little choice in where they worked, while enriching only a small few industrialists. Industrialisation the 1800s and early 1900s saw the end of child labour and slavery, the rise of the 8 hour work day and an increase in life expectancy by an entire decade. Life then was terrible compared to the post-war era, but was constantly exponentially improving in material terms. >But instead we made policies that maximised car and gas sales rather than maximise health and wellness, again to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Poor city design and the existence of the internal combustion engine are two separate problems. Even with perfectly designed cities, we still reap huge benefits from the technology in terms of trucking, shipping and mechanised agriculture (!!!).