3 ms·

Note what didn't happen here: he didn't create a startup company to deliver Luxury Water to rich people. He didn't patent the idea, and attempt to collect royal

by timr 11y ago

Note what didn't happen here: he didn't create a startup company to deliver Luxury Water to rich people. He didn't patent the idea, and attempt to collect royalties. He didn't discover the idea while attempting to get rich from some tangentially related business. Contrary to popular narrative, many of the technologies that make our lives livable came about because dedicated people devoted themselves directly to solving some important problem, not serendipitously while pursuing personal wealth.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
From an incremental improvement side, probably, but from a new product side, definitely not. You didn't get the Model T, the Macintosh, Edison power and light, etc because of some dedicated people already at their jobs, you got them via outsiders starting their own businesses and, yes perusing personal wealth, while pushing out the old guard. All the while the old guard kept most of the innovative people making TPS reports instead of doing worthwhile things. Most innovators have to flee their day jobs to do what they want to do in their field. Ford didn't make a better saddle, he made a better horse. The Model T had to come from the outside to disrupt horse and buggy and the only way to really do that is via a capitalist approach. Pursing of wealth is one of the major motivators here and there's nothing wrong with it. tldr; incentives matter
- timr 11y ago
  "From an incremental improvement side, probably, but from a new product side, definitely not." What in the world are you talking about? Chlorination decreased adult mortality by nearly 50%, and childhood mortality by nearly 75%. These sorts of public-health innovations are what gave us the ability to start pursuing those "new products" you value so highly. If that's incremental improvement to you, you need to re-examine your assumptions. The incentive here was saving the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
icebraining 11y ago
He didn't discover the idea at all, chlorine was already used to disinfect water. What he did was pump a full city's water supply with it, in secrecy, without any wide-scale trials.
maratd 11y ago
Let's not kid ourselves, this wasn't some poor sap working for the common good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Leal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Leal He was professionally established in leadership positions, both in the private and public sector. This man did well for himself. And there are plenty of examples of men who are well off today and who do selfless things because they can afford to. There is nothing wrong with earning a living and even, gasp, turning a profit.
- timr 11y ago
  If, by "professionally established in leadership positions", you mean to refer to the fact that he had a medical degree, and had spent his prior career working on these problems, then yes, I agree. That's exactly my point. But nothing you've cited is evidence that the man was rich (or even attempting to profit) from his work for the public good.
  - maratd 11y ago
    No, that is NOT what I mean. What I mean is that he: 1. Established his own medical practice in Paterson, New Jersey. 2. Was appointed City Physician. 3. Founded the outpatient clinic at Paterson General Hospital. 4. Became Health Inspector in Paterson. 5. Became Health Officer in Paterson. 6. Left the city's service and became the sanitary adviser to the East Jersey Water Company. 7. Became President of the Board of Health for Paterson. He was also a member of "a large number of professional associations". There is more in the wikipedia page, but I'm getting bored. He sounds like an awesome guy and certainly somebody who specialized in public health, but there isn't a shred of evidence that he wasn't a shrewd business man. On the contrary, everything points to him being just that. As far as him not capitalizing on his invention ... he didn't invent it, by his own admission. Also, let's not forget that he developed the delivery device in the employ of the water company. It's theirs, even if there is something to patent. If you work at Microsoft and develop a piece of software in the process of working for them, they own the fruits of your labor. That's not a foreign concept to that era.
    - deleted 11y ago

by timr 11y ago

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

From an incremental improvement side, probably, but from a new product side, definitely not. You didn't get the Model T, the Macintosh, Edison power and light, etc because of some dedicated people already at their jobs, you got them via outsiders starting their own businesses and, yes perusing personal wealth, while pushing out the old guard. All the while the old guard kept most of the innovative people making TPS reports instead of doing worthwhile things. Most innovators have to flee their day jobs to do what they want to do in their field. Ford didn't make a better saddle, he made a better horse. The Model T had to come from the outside to disrupt horse and buggy and the only way to really do that is via a capitalist approach. Pursing of wealth is one of the major motivators here and there's nothing wrong with it. tldr; incentives matter

timr 11y ago
"From an incremental improvement side, probably, but from a new product side, definitely not." What in the world are you talking about? Chlorination decreased adult mortality by nearly 50%, and childhood mortality by nearly 75%. These sorts of public-health innovations are what gave us the ability to start pursuing those "new products" you value so highly. If that's incremental improvement to you, you need to re-examine your assumptions. The incentive here was saving the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

icebraining 11y ago

He didn't discover the idea at all, chlorine was already used to disinfect water. What he did was pump a full city's water supply with it, in secrecy, without any wide-scale trials.

maratd 11y ago

Let's not kid ourselves, this wasn't some poor sap working for the common good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Leal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Leal He was professionally established in leadership positions, both in the private and public sector. This man did well for himself. And there are plenty of examples of men who are well off today and who do selfless things because they can afford to. There is nothing wrong with earning a living and even, gasp, turning a profit.

timr 11y ago
If, by "professionally established in leadership positions", you mean to refer to the fact that he had a medical degree, and had spent his prior career working on these problems, then yes, I agree. That's exactly my point. But nothing you've cited is evidence that the man was rich (or even attempting to profit) from his work for the public good.
- maratd 11y ago
  No, that is NOT what I mean. What I mean is that he: 1. Established his own medical practice in Paterson, New Jersey. 2. Was appointed City Physician. 3. Founded the outpatient clinic at Paterson General Hospital. 4. Became Health Inspector in Paterson. 5. Became Health Officer in Paterson. 6. Left the city's service and became the sanitary adviser to the East Jersey Water Company. 7. Became President of the Board of Health for Paterson. He was also a member of "a large number of professional associations". There is more in the wikipedia page, but I'm getting bored. He sounds like an awesome guy and certainly somebody who specialized in public health, but there isn't a shred of evidence that he wasn't a shrewd business man. On the contrary, everything points to him being just that. As far as him not capitalizing on his invention ... he didn't invent it, by his own admission. Also, let's not forget that he developed the delivery device in the employ of the water company. It's theirs, even if there is something to patent. If you work at Microsoft and develop a piece of software in the process of working for them, they own the fruits of your labor. That's not a foreign concept to that era.
  - deleted 11y ago