3 ms·

Deaths during construction of the Panama Canal were overwhelmingly from tropical diseases, notably yellow fever and malaria: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hea

Deaths during construction of the Panama Canal were overwhelmingly from tropical diseases, notably yellow fever and malaria: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_construction_of_the_Panama_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_con...> The transmission of yellow fever by mosquitos was established by Maj. Walter Reed, US Army, the physician for whom Walter Reed Hospital is named: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed> The shear lethality of tropical diseases to Europeans prior to the 20th century really cannot be overstated. I'd run across a statistic that the life expectancy of a British soldier stationed to Africa was on the order of six months: In 1824 half the 600 soldiers garrisoned in the Gold Coast died within a few months, and the House of Commons was told in 1826, that of 1,567 troops sent out in the previous two years, 905 had died. Europeans died mainly from malaria and yellow fever - or from the “cures” which were nearly as dangerous as the ailments. Blood-letting was common. Leeches were standard colonial surgical equipment, being placed on the patients shaved head to “suck out” the fever. Great blisters were raised with steaming cloths or mustard packs and then broken to drain away the fever. On the same principle, salivating was induced by calomel, often at the expense of the victim’s teeth, or by quicksilver and mercury, an even more drastic “treatment” that inflamed the mouth and sometimes caused the sick man to suffocate on his own swollen tongue. <https://web.archive.org/web/20070106173014/myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenanderson/histemp/whitemansgrave.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070106173014/myweb.tiscali.co....> Drawing a distinction between death by disease and by accident may be somewhat arbitrary, but still seems a distinction worth noting.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think this further supports the point about the unfathomable cheapness of life before the 1900's.
- runarberg 3y ago
  I would put that date a little closer in time actually. And I actually have a precise date. I think that labor was unfathomably cheap until July 6th 1935, when the National Labor Relation act was enacted. Both the tunnel and the canal (under USA supervision) didn’t start construction until 1904. But that said, by far the majority of the deaths during the construction of the Panama Canal were under French supervision, in the 1880s. This effort failed primarily because of the heavy toll on human lives. While people did die under the Americans, and while labor conditions were horrendous, it was nowhere near on the same caliber as the decades prior. Further indicating that you cannot just disregard human lives completely and still get the job done (you could only do that to an extend; until July 6th 1935 that is).
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    It has never been practical to simply disregard the practical financial and labor implications of human life and get the job done. If all your workers starve, they wont shovel. If there are no replacements, work stops. I think what is interesting is the expansion from purely logistical/financial implications to include other considerations. These other considerations including legal ones, as labor laws were passed, civil liability law developed, social sentiments changed, and welfare increased so that people didnt have to choose be 50% chance of death or starvation.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  There's a key distinction that I'd like to point out. Operational safety based risks, such as experienced in direct earthworks, blasting, transport, etc., disproportionately affect front-line workers. Infectious disease based risks are largely indiscriminate between front-line and managerial staff. That is, unskilled labourers and administrative, clerical, officer, etc., staff all largely face a similar threat against vector-transmitted diseases. The only option for the latter is to avoid the location or posting entirely. That may be a subtle shading, and points about the US NRL made by runarberg are well taken, but again, it seems significant. Note that tropical diseases were an issue across the Panamanian isthmus for travelers and transport workers (sailors, teamsters, railroad) who traversed the region even before the canal was built, as an overland leg in the East-to-West-coast route which avoided both the time and perils of going 'round the Cape, encircling all of South America. A railroad was opened across the isthmus in 1855. That effort cost 5-10k workers' lives itself. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Railway> And, somewhat supporting your viewpoint, Adam Smith describes the career duration of workers at his time (~1750--1775): "A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigor above eight years." -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8, "Of the Wages of Labour" <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...> Similarly, prior to the development of modern sanitation and hygiene (fresh water supplies, sewerage systems, regular bathing, handwashing), cities were net population sinks and relied on in-migration from surrounding countryside (often driven by limited employment and income potential there) in order to simply maintain population levels. Infectious disease deaths within cities could top 50 thousand per year in 19th century London and New York, out of populations of 1 million or fewer.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >cities were net population sinks and relied on in-migration from surrounding countryside. Now that's interesting. I consider myself dark realist when it comes to history but I haven't read that. I'm guessing it must be constrained to some pretty specific circumstances and period in time.
    - 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I think this further supports the point about the unfathomable cheapness of life before the 1900's.

runarberg 3y ago
I would put that date a little closer in time actually. And I actually have a precise date. I think that labor was unfathomably cheap until July 6th 1935, when the National Labor Relation act was enacted. Both the tunnel and the canal (under USA supervision) didn’t start construction until 1904. But that said, by far the majority of the deaths during the construction of the Panama Canal were under French supervision, in the 1880s. This effort failed primarily because of the heavy toll on human lives. While people did die under the Americans, and while labor conditions were horrendous, it was nowhere near on the same caliber as the decades prior. Further indicating that you cannot just disregard human lives completely and still get the job done (you could only do that to an extend; until July 6th 1935 that is).
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  It has never been practical to simply disregard the practical financial and labor implications of human life and get the job done. If all your workers starve, they wont shovel. If there are no replacements, work stops. I think what is interesting is the expansion from purely logistical/financial implications to include other considerations. These other considerations including legal ones, as labor laws were passed, civil liability law developed, social sentiments changed, and welfare increased so that people didnt have to choose be 50% chance of death or starvation.
dredmorbius 3y ago
There's a key distinction that I'd like to point out. Operational safety based risks, such as experienced in direct earthworks, blasting, transport, etc., disproportionately affect front-line workers. Infectious disease based risks are largely indiscriminate between front-line and managerial staff. That is, unskilled labourers and administrative, clerical, officer, etc., staff all largely face a similar threat against vector-transmitted diseases. The only option for the latter is to avoid the location or posting entirely. That may be a subtle shading, and points about the US NRL made by runarberg are well taken, but again, it seems significant. Note that tropical diseases were an issue across the Panamanian isthmus for travelers and transport workers (sailors, teamsters, railroad) who traversed the region even before the canal was built, as an overland leg in the East-to-West-coast route which avoided both the time and perils of going 'round the Cape, encircling all of South America. A railroad was opened across the isthmus in 1855. That effort cost 5-10k workers' lives itself. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Railway> And, somewhat supporting your viewpoint, Adam Smith describes the career duration of workers at his time (~1750--1775): "A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigor above eight years." -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8, "Of the Wages of Labour" <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...> Similarly, prior to the development of modern sanitation and hygiene (fresh water supplies, sewerage systems, regular bathing, handwashing), cities were net population sinks and relied on in-migration from surrounding countryside (often driven by limited employment and income potential there) in order to simply maintain population levels. Infectious disease deaths within cities could top 50 thousand per year in 19th century London and New York, out of populations of 1 million or fewer.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >cities were net population sinks and relied on in-migration from surrounding countryside. Now that's interesting. I consider myself dark realist when it comes to history but I haven't read that. I'm guessing it must be constrained to some pretty specific circumstances and period in time.
  - 3y ago