3 ms·

At the time (late 19th, early 20th century) antibiotics weren't a thing and vaccines, to the extent that they were there (not quite in the modern sense), had be

At the time (late 19th, early 20th century) antibiotics weren't a thing and vaccines, to the extent that they were there (not quite in the modern sense), had been around for a long time.

alexey-salmin 2y ago
Cowpox variolation was around for longer, but vaccines in the modern sense were pioneered by Pasteur in 1880s. This is also the time when the first antibiotics (not penicillin) were developed, even though they reached marked later in 1900s. The late 19th and early 20th century is exactly when the dramatic (around 4x) drop in child mortality took place. It wasn't of course only vaccines but also a general increase in healthcare and living standards. Without that drop I highly doubt that suffrage movement would gain any traction.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  Broad vaccination of populations against a variety of diseases wasn't a thing until a lot later. The antibiotics at the time were very limited and selective. Btw., the protests still were the thing that got the change at the time, not the technology! Seems to me any causal link is weak at best. Claiming that humans have no agency when it comes to society is rather a very strong claim that needs a lot of evidence. Usually people make the change, not technology (it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example).
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    > it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example Curious example indeed. It wasn't machines that killed communism but its economic inferiority. Same thing that killed slavery and serfdom and feudalism and sit-at-home-women and other outdated social systems before that. People are the same as they were 2000 years ago. The economic optimum is not, largely thanks to technology.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      Again, the people acted, not some abstract social technology - the people action created the change (contrary to your claim that it doesn't matter). Technology might help/enable to do certain things, but human action might or might not follow from that. Without human action things don't simply change (laws don't write themselves, societies don't constitute themselves from technology only, ...). The presence of different societal model at the same time with the same technologies available shows that human action makes the difference.
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        > the people action created the change (contrary to your claim that it doesn't matter). This never was my claim. Of course people action created the change. Your question was different though: > What technological breakthrough made, for example, women's suffrage possible? The answer to that is "reduction in child mortality". It didn't "create the change" but rather "made it possible" in a quite literal sense. Same with the fall of communism.
        RandomLensman 2y ago
        > if you look closely it was break through technology that made the advancements possible, not some social rights protest Edit: yes, sorry, not your claim but the claim under discussion Reads to me like social protest makes nothing possible, You so far advanced a hypothesis on suffrage, but not more.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        Well for one thing I didn't write that.
  - ocschwar 2y ago
    > Usually people make the change, not technology (it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example One of the triggering events of 1989 was a Japanese man walking to a university in Prague, putting a box of new modems in a student lounge and walking away.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  There was no 4x drop in child mortality during that time in, for example, the UK: 1850 to 1900 is about -20%, 1900 to 1920 another ~25% - the big 4x reduction from 1850 wasn't reached until about 1945. Protest and even suffrage somewhat proceeded the big reduction in the first half of the 20th century.

At the time (late 19th, early 20th century) antibiotics weren't a thing and vaccines, to the extent that they were there (not quite in the modern sense), had been around for a long time.

alexey-salmin 2y ago

Cowpox variolation was around for longer, but vaccines in the modern sense were pioneered by Pasteur in 1880s. This is also the time when the first antibiotics (not penicillin) were developed, even though they reached marked later in 1900s. The late 19th and early 20th century is exactly when the dramatic (around 4x) drop in child mortality took place. It wasn't of course only vaccines but also a general increase in healthcare and living standards. Without that drop I highly doubt that suffrage movement would gain any traction.

RandomLensman 2y ago
Broad vaccination of populations against a variety of diseases wasn't a thing until a lot later. The antibiotics at the time were very limited and selective. Btw., the protests still were the thing that got the change at the time, not the technology! Seems to me any causal link is weak at best. Claiming that humans have no agency when it comes to society is rather a very strong claim that needs a lot of evidence. Usually people make the change, not technology (it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example).
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  > it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example Curious example indeed. It wasn't machines that killed communism but its economic inferiority. Same thing that killed slavery and serfdom and feudalism and sit-at-home-women and other outdated social systems before that. People are the same as they were 2000 years ago. The economic optimum is not, largely thanks to technology.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    Again, the people acted, not some abstract social technology - the people action created the change (contrary to your claim that it doesn't matter). Technology might help/enable to do certain things, but human action might or might not follow from that. Without human action things don't simply change (laws don't write themselves, societies don't constitute themselves from technology only, ...). The presence of different societal model at the same time with the same technologies available shows that human action makes the difference.
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      > the people action created the change (contrary to your claim that it doesn't matter). This never was my claim. Of course people action created the change. Your question was different though: > What technological breakthrough made, for example, women's suffrage possible? The answer to that is "reduction in child mortality". It didn't "create the change" but rather "made it possible" in a quite literal sense. Same with the fall of communism.
      - RandomLensman 2y ago
        > if you look closely it was break through technology that made the advancements possible, not some social rights protest Edit: yes, sorry, not your claim but the claim under discussion Reads to me like social protest makes nothing possible, You so far advanced a hypothesis on suffrage, but not more.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        Well for one thing I didn't write that.
- ocschwar 2y ago
  > Usually people make the change, not technology (it wasn't machines protesting and overthrowing governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, for example One of the triggering events of 1989 was a Japanese man walking to a university in Prague, putting a box of new modems in a student lounge and walking away.
RandomLensman 2y ago
There was no 4x drop in child mortality during that time in, for example, the UK: 1850 to 1900 is about -20%, 1900 to 1920 another ~25% - the big 4x reduction from 1850 wasn't reached until about 1945. Protest and even suffrage somewhat proceeded the big reduction in the first half of the 20th century.