WWI

[eyeball]

What does the mental health of the holder of that screen name have to do with WW I?

Thread drift and delusional statements.

[Moonbox]

You are claiming that because the aggregate impact is larger that the impact per person must also be larger.

No, I'm saying that industrialism led to a higher impact per person AND a much larger population. This is an exponential increase.

The population of Rome was maybe 30 million at its peak yet the lead pollution from 1 billion+ people with cars is ONLY 6 times more. Are you still so sure my argument is "silly"?

Rome's peak population was over double that, and it was only ~20% of the world's population at that time. What that article you linked shows us is that the civilizations of antiquity needed 800 years to match only 15% of the lead contamination levels that the world managed in the 1930-1994 period. Post 1930's lead fallout was thus around ~800x higher than in antiquity. Thank you for validating my point.

Potentially - but if you are afraid that you might have cancer you take precautions - you don't amputate your leg "just in case". Given the uncertainties a strong economy is the best defend against the unknown - even if that means continuing to do things that may be causing the problem.

I'm all for a strong economy, and I'm heavily against dumb money following dumb and ineffective green initiatives. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of really simple common sense things that we should be doing but don't. The gas-guzzling engines of 90's and the SUV craze were brilliant examples of stupid and irresponsible economics. Curtailing that stupidity did not harm the economy.

[TimG]

What that article you linked shows us is that the civilizations of antiquity needed 800 years to match only 15% of the lead contamination levels that the world managed in the 1930-1994 period

The article does not actually say the lead production we evenly distributed over 800 years so such a conclusion is not necessarily supported by the data. I would expect there to be one or more peaks. But the fact that pre-industrial technology put enough lead in the air to be detected shows that pollution is not unique to modern society.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of really simple common sense things that we should be doing but don't. The gas-guzzling engines of 90's and the SUV craze were brilliant examples of stupid and irresponsible economics. Curtailing that stupidity did not harm the economy.

SUVs are a flash in the pan and gas consumption is already dropping in north america. The real emissions growth is coming from countries like China. Even more will come from Africa if governments there ever clean up their act. Edited August 15, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

You seem to be missing the point. The argument made was pre-industrial technology had less of an impact on the environment. That is false.

It has not been proven false, so you can so patting yourself on the back.

Pre-industrial technology did have a large effect on the environment but the number of people was less so the collective impact was smaller.

Modern technology gave people the ability to affect large-scale environmental changes faster and on a greater scale, with greater lasting impacts (deforestation, extictions etc). This is simple common sense.

Whether you like it or not we have 7+ billion people on the planet. These people need industrialization to keep them fed and sheltered. That requires large scale changes to the environment.

No one is disputing that. The issue at hand is whether or not its actually sustainable.

The entire premise that "changing the environment" is inherently bad is the real flawed logic here. Some changes are bad for humans and some are good for humans. We should accept the good and seek to minimize the bad. People who suggest that it is desirable to return to some pristine "pre-human" environment are chasing rainbows.

No one is advocating that. Your'e chasing strawmen.

[Moonbox]

The article does not actually say the lead production we evenly distributed over 800 years so such a conclusion is not necessarily supported by the data.

You brought up the study, not me. I used the information provided therein, which very much supports my conclusion. The question of distribution is also a reach, and it's not just because you're now trying to question/discredit your own reference. The population of the world between 500BC and 300AD did not change enough to meaningfully impact the rates of lead fallout in comparison to the modern rate (800x higher). Maybe it changes the rate from 800x to 700x, or even to 600x. It doesn't really matter does it?

But the fact that pre-industrial technology put enough lead in the air to be detected shows that pollution is not unique to modern society.

Nobody said it didn't. It's a question of scale, which your study proves has increased exponentially.

SUVs are a flash in the pan and gas consumption is already dropping in north america.

Thankfully yes, but this could have happened a decade earlier at no/little cost to the economy.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Moonbox

[jbg]

What happened to the Cevalis ad? I missed it </sarcasm>