By Ronald Stein
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California
For thousands of years before 1900, the population of the world hovered around one billion on the entire planet. In the short 200 years since 1900 the world population has “exploded” to the current 8 billion now living on this planet. What caused that quick growth from 1 to 8 billion?
Before 1900 most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born. Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age. Food shortages and insecurity were leading concerns in the 18th century, especially in Europe, and these were exacerbated by reduced harvests yields. Disease was another leading cause of death, with rats and fleas being the common carriers of disease, specifically plagues, during this era.
Questions pervade like:
- Why didn’t the world have electricity before 1900?
- Why didn’t the world have, a medical industry, electronics, communications systems, militaries, and transportation infrastructure like planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, and ships before 1900?
- Why didn’t we have more than 6,000 products before 1900 that the wealthier and healthier countries now use daily?
One answer is that it could be that electricity is a secondary energy source that we get from the conversion of other sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and oil. These sources are known as “primary sources, but electricity itself is not a “primary source”. Like electricity, the products used in industries and infrastructures are all dependent on products are manufactured from “primary sources” of energy like petroleum ‘
The causation of the world’s population exploding to 8 billion may be as simple as the fact that those products that are now used in every modern-day infrastructure and economy CANNOT be made FROM a “secondary” energy source like electricity. Those products need a “primary source” of energy for the manufactured derivatives that are the basis of those products.
Today, we are inundated by the gross fatalities being caused by humanity induced air pollution. These numbers are very important, but pale to the many other causes of fatalities that are impacting the 8 billion on earth.
While the pandemic has accounted for more than 600,000 fatalities just in America, the numbers pale when compared to those poorer countries that are experiencing 11 million children dying every year. Those infant fatalities are from the preventable causes of diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth as many developing countries have no, or minimal, access to those products from oil derivatives enjoyed by the wealthy and healthy countries.
When you include fatalities of “other than children” the world numbers get even worse…
- More than 40,000,000 abortions performed each year
- More than 8,000,000 world cancer deaths per year.
- 5,000,000 tobacco related deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8,000,000 deaths annually by 2030.
- 3,800,000 deaths every year because of household exposure to smoke from dirty cook stoves and fuels.
- 2,300,000 women and men around the world succumb to work-related accidents or diseases every year per.
- 1,800,000 from the coronavirus in 2020
- 1,230,000 world traffic deaths per year.
- 270,000 pedestrians killed on roads each year.
- 585,900 premature deaths caused by drugs per year.
After that slice of morbidity, I’d like to present a tad of relatively good news that may be of interest to supporters of zero-emission electricity, and that is the worlds usage of nuclear. Probably due to the safety of nuclear power reactors, today there are about 440 nuclear reactors operating in 32 countries around the world with 50 more new ones under construction. Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading of existing reactors.
Politicians and the media have been successfully suppressing from public knowledge the worldwide total of nuclear deaths – not annually, but from inception of nuclear – including Three Mile Island (March 1979), Chernobyl (April 1986) and Fukushima (March 2011) are LESS than 200 over 4 decades, versus the more than 50,000,000 annually from previous mentioned causes.
Many of the healthier and wealthier countries are mesmerized with subsidies for electricity from breezes and sunshine. Those countries are also slowing down efforts toward drilling for oil. By reducing the supply of oil, the supply chain to refineries is being reduced to manufacture the oil derivatives and fuels that are the basis of economies. Getting off fossil fuels is going to negatively impact lifestyles and the following industries and infrastructures that are dependent on “primary sources” of energy, after 1900:
- The almost 20,000 Private jets for the elites of our world.
- The almost 10,000 superyachts over 24 meters in length, again for the elites of our world.
- Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
- Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic sub-orbital spaceflight services company, for the very wealthy want-to-be astronauts.
- Commercial aviation, with 23,000 commercial airplanes worldwide that have been accommodating 4 billion passenger annually.
- The 56,000 merchant ships burning more than 120 million gallons a day of high sulfur bunker fuel moving products worldwide worth billions of dollars daily.
- The military equipment from each country consisting of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, and troop carriers
- The more than 300 cruise liners, each of which consumes 80,000 gallons of fuels daily, that have been accommodating more than 25 million passengers annually worldwide
Today, more than 200 years past 1900, the most important fact about today’s environmental movement, the book “Clean Energy Exploitations” explores how the healthy and wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia representing 6 percent of the world’s population (505 million vs 7.8 billion) could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what you have been told and believe will take place.
Simply put, in these healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth; or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam that plan to build more than 600 coal power units and African countries that are planning to build more than 1,250 new coal and gas-fired power plants by 2030.
The healthier and wealthier countries fail to recognize that at least 80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world are living on less than $10 a day, and billions living with little to no access to electricity, These poor folks need abundant, affordable, reliable, scalable, and flexible electricity while The healthier and wealthier are pursuing the most expensive ways to generate “secondary” intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine.
The book “Clean Energy Exploitations” helps citizens attain a better understanding that just for the opportunity to generate intermittent electricity that is dependent on favorable weather conditions, the wealthier and healthier countries like Germany, Australia, Britain, and America continue to exploit the most vulnerable people and environments of the world today.
Ronald Stein,
P.E. Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure
http://www.energyliteracy.net/
UK’s Sunday papers headlines:
Telegraph: Boris Johnson’s push for net zero plunged into chaos
Guardian: We’re on the brink of catastrophe, warns Tory climate chief
Times: The prime minister met his senior Downing Street aides and was, according to those present, “apopleptic”, “raging” or “f***ing tonto”.
So then, what’s Boris like on a bad day, when he’s in a foul mood?
oh, jolly good.And the Gravid Princess NutNutz will be distracted by her hormones
I never take seriously people who give those they disagree with childish nicknames. They do this because they think it makes them seem clever. Calling the PM’s wife nut nut, is pathetically juvenile and doesn’t help our cause. I wish people would stop doing it. Sheeple, a general term for those who don’t agree with you and Bliar, for ex PM Blair are 2 particular examples of this idiocy
So much for bumperstickers, cartoons, memes, caricatures, abbreviations, analogies, abstractions – all of our little epistemological shortcuts.
How about short books? Ever read any of user n.n.’s books, can you imagine them shorter?
I’m sorry, do you really object to me calling BoJo the clown’s wife Princess Nutnut? You’ll be telling me next to stop using misfish for Nicola Sturgeon or Sheer Karma for the Labour leader.
Some people need a reason to feel superior to others. They make up standards and then look down on anyone who doesn’t live up to them.
I’ve never seen “Bliar” used before, but I kind of like it. I don’t know enough detail about Blair’s history to know about whether he lied or not, but if he did, then Bliar would be a description I could live with.
..I’ve never seen “Bliar” used before, but I kind of like it…
Probably originated in the Grauniad!
Cheers
Mike
Snobbish much. Anyone would think you had a double-barrel name… no, wait!
You never take seriously people who…???
Oh lighten up, DeeVee GeeJay! 😀
The report that the average UK taxpayer would have to foot a massive bill for NET ZERO … who would have guessed that. I am sure Griff would tell them to stop complaining they are saving the planet and making up for 0.1% of China increased emissions.
Funny how he did a full 180 turn from his former views on “greenery”….
…obviously can’t be trusted.
So you think anyone who changes their mind is untrustworthy? So if he’d changed from an idiotic green viewpoint to agreeing with us, you’d still be calling him untrustworthy would you?
Bayesian Inference. E. T. Jaynes cautions to maximum entropy of naive subjective priors as it can take much data update to reverse a wrong guess minimizing the entropy.
hes a politician
and any change of mind or stated goals by them…is always VERY suss, theres a deal or money or both
I read yesterday that a mild Wuhan virus infection can reduce a person’s IQ by one point, and a severe infection can reduce a person’s IQ by seven points.
Boris was in the hospital a long time. Maybe some cognitive tests should be done on him.
How long have I been sleeping?
Rich, just apply Climate Change math: 2021-1900=243
Did somebody say Climate Change math?
That would be 243.0731 and that’s not including the shortening of the year adjustment due to massive polar ice melt. Or, as experts predicted, it could be the lengthening of the year due to unprecedented drought.
Unprecedented wet drought due to the frigid heat.
Frigid heat? Sounds like a woman I once dated.
Wake up sleeping beauty or is it rip van winkle .
Only joking , unlike the world population explosion .
He just got confused by the date. It’s 2021, not 2120.
I sorta think he meant 1800, not 1900.
Looks like it
“In the short 200 years since 1900 the world population has “exploded” to the current 8 billion now living on this planet.”
New York war of the currents ‘exploded’ in 1890s
The city photo has street rails for transit, and electrical wires overhead. Not 1800. (Photos of 1800 would be hard to get!)
The whole thing is muddled. While you’re right about the photo’s obvious age, and electricity distribution only dates back to a short time before 1900, the population being 1 billion would correspond to 1800.
Whole article is a mess of wrong information, either it should be re-edited or not published or maybe it is meant to ‘show up’ ignorance of the WUWT readers, New York had electricity for domestic use in 1900. Has this man heard of Edison and Tesla. Niagara power station was providing electricity for Buffalo city in 1900. See my comment further down about life expectancy.
Every rant from Ronald Stein is full of factual inaccuracies, and he needs to realise this and either correct it or stop ranting. We’re always talking about how warmists twist facts to suit the message; skeptics who claim the scientific high ground have no need of an advocate who does the same thing.
Perhaps his most egregious error is stating that “For thousands of years before 1900, the population of the world hovered around one billion”. Even allowing for the wrong date, it never “hovered around” any number. Ever. It grew steadily and exponentially from the end of the last glacial maximum as humans started to enjoy a warm climate for a change and began progressively developing agriculture and technology.
In at least two previous pieces, he has used 1900 as some sort of magic date when things started to improve for human society. He persistently ignores that the 20th century oil-based energy revolution took place on the back of 200 years of industrial development based entirely on coal.
There won’t be too many warmists who see this piece of fluff, which is a good thing. Last thing we need is an exposé about skeptics producing fake news.
Where’s the big drops in population due to the various plagues?
The various population centers (Europe, East Asia, South Asia, North America, Africa) had population drops (plagues, wars, climate changes, etc.) at different times. Sort of balanced out.
Late 1800s, probably closer to late 1880 or early 1890. Look at the clothing styles, including head coverings.
Above the photo it says, “Queen Street 1900 Hull-Ottawa Fire.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Hull%E2%80%93Ottawa_fire
Thomas A Edison electrocuted an elephant once to scare people from thinking about using AC electricity generation systems commercialized by his arch rival George Westinghouse. Even great men respond to monetary incentives that over whelm their Reason and Sense to bias their judgement and make them look like fools to History.
Yes, that would make sense since world population in 1800 was about 1 billion, but in 1900 it was 2 billion.
Almost makes me think it was originally written as something like “At the start of the 19th century”, and then dumbed down to an actual year, but without thinking.
Anyway, bad proofreading is a self-inflicted wound to credibility.
Whole mess of misinformation appears on Cfact webpage.
https://www.cfact.org/2021/08/07/comparing-the-world-before-1900-to-today/
No he meant 1900 (read text), so not a short 200 yrs, but a long 100yrs (121yrs).
Apart from that minor typo, what he says is correct.
“Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age.”
Nonsense !
1500 – 450 million
(300y@.5B±)
1804 – 1 Billion
(100y@.5B±)
1900 – 1.6 Billion
(50y@1B)
1950 – 2.7 Billion
(20y@1B)
1970 – 3.7 B
(15y@1B)
1985 – 4.7 B
(10y@1B)
1994 – 5.7
(13y@1B)
2007 – 6.7
(11y@1B)
2018 – 7.7
I wrote about that in Gaia’s Limits, chapter 1. The period from about 1795 to about 1820 marked a VERY big human turning point. There were two fundamental inventions: vaccinia to defeat smallpox, and the steam engine enabling industrialization. By 1850 there were many real medical advances, the initial mechanization of farming, and the development of railroads and steam ships to facilitate transportation of industrial scale manufacturing. It all compounds in an accelerated population growth rate until fundamental new constraints on Earth’s human carrying capacity are reached. The book deduces two independent of economics: food (very complicated) and liquid transportation fuels (not very complicated). Both are reached about 2050 give or take a decade at current UN population projections, yielding an initial carrying capacity of about 10-10.5 billion that then degrades over time for multiple reasons.
Water availability (assuming virtual water), climate change, and future technology are not major factors in the big carrying capacity picture. Fundamentals like dietary requirements, root to shoot ratios, irrigated land salinization, and potential biofuel capacity are.
From my reading, a form of vaccination for smallpox existed well before the war of 1776.
1751 is what changed it all.
The lathe.
You need the machine to build the components to give the ability to research cells and build steam engines.
The caption on the picture refers to the 1900 Ottawa Hull fire.
The world human population reached one billion in 1804…
Although in the correct vein, this is aArant and self serving advertisement. As a post it is badly in need of editing.
Oops. a rant
Sadly, it is badly in need of a complete rewrite and fact-check. It has all the hallmarks of the modern belief that nothing of any significance happened before the computer was invented. I’m sure that most historians would be gobsmacked to learn that cargo carrying ships were only invented after 1900 – let’s ignore the extensive bronze age sea and land trade routes from England, across Europe and along the earliest form of the silk road into Asia that have persisted since then?
For a good read about the world of wood and the world of coal burning for domestic use in England, this book is wonderful:
The Domestic Revolution by Ruth Goodman.
Nobody would want to return to the world of wood burning. And, coal burning for domestic energy (cooking and heating) was no joy, either, although I was raised with coal heat,(with wood and propane cooking, and found coal heating to be fine, and in many ways preferable to forced hot air natural gas heating.
joel,
“coal burning for domestic energy (cooking and heating) was no joy, either”
I have no problem using coal as my primary source of defeating hypothermia in the British winter. Unlike gas or Electricity, the fire burns 24/7 and keeps the whole fabric of my old stone cottage warm. I use about 2 (imperial) tons per year so have just purchased a shipping container and 30 tons of Anthracite, which should just about see me out.
Any Greens that come knocking at my door in 10 years time pleading for warmth will be shot.
I find that interesting. You have in your possession a shipping container of anthracite? How many others around you burn coal?
I bet you can fire a great pizza.
I was raised with coal heat and liked it. And, it is fool proof. A coal bin, a shovel, and a coal skuttle. No pipes, valves, or storage tanks. Nothing can go wrong. No need for electricity.
But how I hated carrying out the cinders and ash from the cellar.
The absolutely worst job I ever had was cleaning filters from our coal heated barracks in 1956.
“Any Greens that come knocking at my door in 10 years time pleading for warmth will be shot.”
That’s not right! How could you shoot them?
That would give them a quick end to the misery they subjected to the whole world.
Better to just ignore them and let them freeze outside.
Yes, of course. Highways, gasoline-powered automobiles and diesel-powered trucks had nothing to do with it. Airplanes also had no effect on rail transportation.
You’re either intentionally disruptive, or seriously deranged.
If the government spends money on anything, there will by definition be a group of people with an interest in the continuation of that spending.
That does not in any way detract from the obvious fact that the decline of railroads is correlated with the growth in trucking, personal automobile ownership, and the build-out of a national highway system, as well as the growth in air travel. And in this case, correlation is due to causation.
Overall passenger-miles has gone through the roof since the 1800s, in absolute or per capita terms.
I’m not going to keep wasting time with you, Mark. As I said before, you’re either intentionally disruptive or seriously deranged.
With cars, you can go where you want, when you want.
With rail you are stuck with someone else’s timetable and you can only go where the tracks go.
If you actually believe that the only thing that matters is leg room, then you are seriously delusional.
OK, so you are doubling down on the nonsense that the only thing that matters is leg room.
As to opinions, I suspect that the millions of people, who when given the option, chose cars is there opinion.
It is mighty totalitarian of you to believe that your opinion trumps everyone else’s.
The large regional town near me is 650km from the state capital on the coast. The railway line to the big city is still functioning and carries freight, especially bulk grain. The locals have been lobbying for a return of passenger services for the last 20+ years; feel so neglected by the major parties that they voted in an independent who supported the Return our Trains campaign at the last state election.
Why would they want a passenger train – the roads are good here? Here’s my experience. A few years ago I was air ambulanced to the state capital for urgent eye surgery. For the next couple of months I could neither fly nor drive, but I had to keep returning for treatment. I went by train, but had to bus to the nearest town that still had a rail service (220km). I loved the train: comfortable seats, wifi, dining car, and it took you right to the centre of a city with excellent public transport. It was always near full. Even after I could drive and fly again, I kept going by train for subsequent treatment. I’d be on the train again in a flash except for the covid restrictions, but a rail service closer to home would be much better.
If the rail companies could make money on more passenger service, they would do so.
What the people want is for the subsidies to be increased so that they can have what they want without worrying about paying for it.
Aye there’s the rub. I’ve been deprived all my life of the yacht I deserved. I blame Ronald Reagan’s budget cuts. Oh how I would enjoy exploring the coastline if only affordable yacht subsidies would have been part of the infrastructure bill.
Our predecessors chose initially when the production of cars practically exploded. And I continue to choose as well, when I avoid the commuter train, regardless of all the legroom, a chose my car because I like leave when I want, go directly to where I am going and not be forced to stop at intervening stations. And people are continuing to choose when you hear so much about ridesharing and automated cars.
Rails good for totalitarian states, not where you have a choice.
Let’s see if I have this right. People stop using rail and start buying cars.
Because there are fewer people riding the rails, it’s hard to find the money to maintain them.
Because of this, the number of miles of rail is trimmed back.
Trimming back the number of miles of rail proves that they people had no choice when it comes to choosing cars over rail.
You really aren’t as smart as your mother told you.
Free clue:
Railroads in the US were never built for the sole purpose of hauling passengers, except inner city commuter lines in dense urban areas.
Suspicious graph – how in the world could passenger miles be the same given the huge increase in the population over the times series, coupled with the increase in distance that people commute?
Yes, I think it should be obvious by now that this Mark Ingraham persona is either a trollbot designed to derail rational discussion or a seriously deluded person in need of mental health care.
Railroads were overbuilt in the 19th century, so that had something to do with cutting back, as the railroads streamlined their operations.
Railroads are still a big factor in our economy and are not decaying. Railroads constantly maintian and upgrade their infrastucture. They can’t afford not to.
Railroad car loadings used to be a leading indicator of what the economy is doing.
I saw a report yesterday saying railcar loadings are currently going lower.
I used to work for a railroad. I loved it. Moing trains and cargo is a very interesting, complicated job.
And they remain the most energy-efficient transportation.
There was no Amtrak in 1960.
Oops, try again.
Does anyone think that rails *arent(sic)* an interest group policy?
Does anyone have any idea what an “interest group policy” is?
“Interest Group Policy” – basically its a buzz-word he probably picked up somewhere. I’m pretty sure it’s actually meant to be “Special Interest Group” then investment, interest or policy – something like that. It refers to a public policy or investment that benefits a niche or minority group rather than all of society. Classing all road users as a niche group is rather stupid – it’s the majority or almost entirety of the population by this point so is probably some 6 or 7 thousand years out of date.
The US is about to increase spending on rail in the Infrastructure Bill. I suspect that at least the seed money for the two new rail tunnels under the Hudson (to replace the aging ones currently there) is in the Bill. The New York State and New Jersy State delegations to Washington have been pushing for the ~USD5B to build them. BTW, how much did the newest trans-Alpine tunnel cost, and how long is it?
The bill will have to be passed before we can know what is in it. No doubt, there will be lots of Democrat surprises in there, and no doubt, they will favor the Blue States with their spending.
Why would 18 Republicans vote for a bill, produced by the Democrats, that they haven’t even read? Optics trumps saving the nation from a Democrat takeover, for these Republicans. They look so pleased with themselves. How delusional can they be?
Widely affordable automobiles, or similar vehicles, are the greatest advance in individual freedom to ever come from human ingenuity. How are highways a “policy”?
We’ve been building roads for over 8,000 years so far. Please define an interest group that has developed independently on several continents, in different cultures and over such a long timeframe. As to rail – it’s use is or was far more important as bulk freight carrying rather than passengers, once the car was available. If you persist in this then try to put these things into context, what alternatives were available and when; what happened when alternatives became readily available.
Ahhhhh! Now I get it. That’s why FedEx and UPS make extensive use of rail. That’s why Amazon and everyone else ships “Next Day” to your door by train, right?
Oh, wait… no they don’t.
–
Rail is obviously superior in almost every case. 🙄
–
–
–
No it’s not. Companies use ships, rail, and trucks according to what they need transported and when it needs to get to its destination.
If a spare part is needed in hours, you buy a seat on an airplane and fly the part to the city where its needed and a courier is waiting at the gate to pick it up and deliver it to the user.
If you need something by the trainload, you schedule a train.
–
Mark i: “It’s
almost alwayssometimes rational to use rail over other modes.”There. Fixed it for you. You need to turn the rail hype down from 11 to 3. Companies use whatever means of transport makes the best sense to meet their shipping objectives. I’m sure they’d cheerfully eschew your input.
P.S. I scheduled delivery of a vacuum cleaner from China via rail and it hasn’t arrived yet. Must be on a s-l-o-o-o-w train from China. I could have sworn I specified Express. 😜
That train is encountering significant drag from the Pacific Ocean. 😉
Dang! I should have specified Pony Express, Red94Viper.
I’m such a dumbass sending it by train.
There’s a very steep grade at the Marianas Trench.
You are simply blind to the romance of long distance railroad travel. And, think of all the boxcar ridding hobos.
No I’m not, Andy. I’m a train nut and I have wonderful memories of traveling across the U.S. by passenger train in the late ’50s.
(Yes, I saw your invisible winky. Thanks, Andy.)
Johnny One-Notes like Mr. ingraham are the ones who are simply blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other.
Wind has a place in its place. Solar has a place in its place. Trains have a place in their place as do, trucks, planes, and automobiles.
Popcorn is wonderful! I suggest Mr. ingraham live solely on popcorn for the rest of his life, and take the train from his door directly to work. It’s all good, according to him.
(Now I have to go read what nonsense he wrote Bye Andy. Good talk, eh?)
Mr. ingraham,
Wouldn’t it be most efficient if we put you in a 6 x 8 pen and delivered food to your cage twice daily? No cars or trains needed. No coal gas or electricity either. Just bread, water, and a blanket. That would be most efficient now, wouldn’t it?
Yes, I do believe that would be most efficient. Step right up Mark i. All those who believe in maximum efficiency, such as you are advocating, can head straight for my high (very, very, very high) density dwellings. I can assure you you won’t freeze to death or starve to death.
Give me all your money and I’ll get you all set up. I’ll even let you out of your pen for an hour on Saturday afternoons, rain or shine, unless that proves to be inefficient.
Johnny “One-Note”. ingraham. You follow your star, and I’ll follow mine.
Wait up… I know you think you have all the answers, but trust me, if <b>I</b> ruled the World, everything would be perfect for everyone. So step aside and let someone who really knows how to properly rule the World have at it, eh?
What’s that have to do with the glory of rail transportation, Mark?
That’s just your opinion.
Oh you’re only saying that in the hope of early release!
“Highways encourage suburbanization.”
God forbid that people should be allowed to live where they want.
“Cities are more effcient”
So the proto-totalitarian wants to arrange society so that the only choices people have, are the ones you want them to have.
Just because you lack sufficient imagination to understand why anyone would want something you don’t want, is just evidence of your narrow minded self centeredness.
Rural areas lack highways and paved roads????
Not only are you an idiot, but you are an extremely bigoted one.
Your last sentence simply makes no sense. You strike me as someone who has been educated way beyond your intelligence level.
My parser failed on that one also.
Mark W—
Have you ever seen the bit in The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon explains Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock?
You are playing Sheldon and Ingwum is playing Barry.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Q6-wMx-K8
(There’s even a train reference in there!)
Love driving in the suburbs and the rural areas! Nice twisty roads, beautiful trees changing colour, interesting architecture, nice relaxed people to talk to when ever I need to stop somewhere.
Cities are like rat-cages, and bring out the worst in people and make them easier to control. The city is a necessity in the old way of doing things, but technology is allowing us to get back to a more natural way of doing things.
I saw a book advertised one time that was a guide to driving all over the United States using only back roads.
That sounded like an interesting adventure to me. If I had the time to spare, I would do it. Now that we have GPS and computer maps, something like that ought to be pretty easy to accomplish, without getting lost.
“Rural areas lack highways, or even paved roads…” What? Exactly, pray tell, which century are you living in? Or which backward, 3rd world country are you referring to? Where I come from all rural areas have proper roads and (albeit minor) highways.
He’s just typing the first random thoughts that enter his mind.
You are being too generous in referring to his ramblings as thoughts.
This is the same guy who proclaims that he simply can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to live in a city.
He’s repeatedly demonstrated that his world view is limited to what he wants to see.
I have driven Interstate Highway 80 in the US. It serves an enormous amount of rural country.
“Rural areas lack highways …” Where do you live?
I hate to have to correct you on this as it was a wonderful post in the main. Interesting news is that Fedex Freight has started shifting it’s transport capacity away from trucks and onto railways. If the shift towards EV’s continues, this might make some sense for long distances.
No, Richard. I hadn’t run across that FedEx Freight-by-rail bit.
Sounds like a great solution for them if they get forced into electric OTR trucks, which can’t be long haul at this point.
Thanks for the pointer.
They’re held up; awaiting completion of AOC’s tunnel to Hawaii!
Ah, just another person pushing the agenda of everyone moving into cities.
About 50 years ago, I read a paper produced by Harvard University, that presented the results of extensive analysis of all transportation modes used for hauling goods. The conclusion was that rail was the best solution for distances over 400 miles. Now, I’m sure that alkl the parameters of the study have changed by now, but I’m sure that short-haul rail freight is still just not competitive with over-the-road trucking. Terminal costs, and switching, are expensive v running flat out over the prairie. Plus, of course, the truck can pick up at the point the shipment starts its journey, and deliver it directly to the endpoint. Trains aren’t quite so good at that.
BTW, I love railroads, but presently, in this country, they are only good for long-haul bulk shipments, or long-haul containerized freight. It;’s all got to do with physics and economics.
So we should all have rail spurs leading to our individual homes?
The fact that millions of people decided to use cars and trucks instead of rail, proves that they aren’t rational and only you are?
Not my proposal, Mark. You’re the one insisting trains are best way to transport goods. Remember? I refer you to your own comments above and elsewhere.
–
I’m a bit more into letting people figure out what’s best for themselves.
–
But, hey! If you’re willing to let me decide, I’ve got solutions. You may not like them, but I’ve got solutions.
–
OTOH, you’ve got solutions too, but I’m not willing to let you decide for me.
–
So if we’re both the smartest guys in the room, then it only makes sense that you stick to trains for transporting your goods and I’ll use whatever is best – ship, train, truck, automobile, or bicycle courier – to transport my stuff.
–
No problemo. We’ll both be right, eh?
–
–
P.S. You’re not a vegan, are you? I absolutely hate it when someone insists I adhere to their diet, don’t you?
You replied to the wrong Mark. I’m on your side.
Yup. I hit the wrong reply to, MarkW in replying to Mark ingraham.
Thanks for pointing out the error. I never noticed I was “off the Mark.” 😜
“The Smartest Man In The Room”, Mr. ingraham is starting to get boring. Meanwhile, he’s begun talking to himself (August 8, 2021 12:05 pm)
I’m saying that you are 100% wrong, but your ego will never permit you to admit that.
You only put trains in where you are moving a lot of goods or people in a consistent manner. Hence for people they really only work for mass transit to major city destinations. Everywhere else automobile transport dominates and if that has escaped your grasp of reality seek therapy.
Including all the US Interstates that cross a great deal of rural land. Take out a hiughway map of the US, and trace IH80 and IH5 for two examples. Oh, and IH44. We have a great deal of empty land here – it would, in many cases, be an improvement if it were rural. Yet our Interstates go right on across, serving those chunks of empty land just as much as they serve the cities and the dreaded, evil, suburbs.
You are among friends here. We will keep your secret. What planet are you really from?
The Daily Planet, Clyde.
Mark ingraham has been going nuts since they eliminated phone booths. Has to change into his tights and cape in dumpsters, now. Sometimes, progress sucks. Ya gotta feel for ‘im, Clyde.
P.S. You do realize that Jor-El gave him the knowledge that enables Mark to decide what is best for you and me.
I’ll take the A Train.
Meanwhile, in another world (Australia), the main phone company Telstra, fully privatised in 2011, has just announced that all calls from public phone booths to local fixed line and mobile phones will be free (but not international calls). It may be for PR purposes, but a lot of people who are struggling financially, either long-term or due to covid unemployment, will benefit.
Right universe, wrong planet. He’s clearly from Htrae (aka the cube-shaped Bizzaro World)
Everything was higher quality? Really? Care to document that?
I’m not talking luxury goods for the elite, I’m talking about stuff the average person could afford.
Your cites are complete nonsense and are easily refuted by the thousands of studies that have not found the decreases you are so desperate to believe in.
So anything made out of plastic is crap.
You have a right to your own opinion, even when that opinion is crap.
I have some bakelite items that are in great condition even though they are 80+ years old. But some recent plastic crates I’ve left outdoors (in the shade, under the verandah) fall apart when you touch them. A lot of modern plastics really are crap.
What is obvious to you, rarely is so to anyone else.
Mark, watch my video link. He’s screwing with you.
In many situations that plastic crap will outlast and outperform anything built historically and for a fraction of the cost. I think you are confusing built in obsolescence which many modern plastic products have to meet a price point to market.
Really you sound like some old fart sentimental for the good old times and products.
Wait a minute – not all of us old farts are sentimental about the good old times.
You proclaimed that all goods were superior.
Now you want to limit it to just food.
It’s called “moving the goal posts”. Typical tactic of trolls of Mr. Ingraham’s caliber.
“In the short 200 years since 1900”
It’s been shortened to 120yrs … that’s a 40% discount !!
Are we having so much fun that time is flying faster ??
(:-))
clearly man’s CO2 emissions are affecting the passage of time. It’s worse than we thought!
“For thousands of years before 1900, the population of the world hovered around one billion on the entire planet.”
That’s new.
Why am I not surprised that your “articles” are rejected. Actually, Charles the Moderator said that you haven’t actually submitted an article. Are you delusional?
Charles the Moderator posted his two articles.
So one, they have been published.
Two, the articles he submitted were cut and pastes of two of his posts.
Three, the articles he submitted were so disjointed and illogical I’m not surprised they were not published, even if they had been longer.
Well that clearly and concisely answers Clyde Spencer’s question from a few comments above.
They were lousy articles, I read them. As comments on a page they were ok but superficial. As potential articles they were vague, brief and barely served even as an introduction they were so superficial and with not one single citation, supporting fact or quote, no links to supporting articles or subjects; in short, they were nothing written by a nobody.
Shows how bad your “articles” (and using that word to describe them is being extremely generous) were.
when I look at population estimates, they are usually growing. even setbacks get rapidly replaced.
the thing about exponential growth, is whatever linear scale you use, previous growth looks flat, or ‘hovering’. But it is real growth.
here is our government citing various experts. check it out.
Historical Estimates of World Population (census.gov)
Good article, but it hasn’t been 200 years since 1900. Unless you are using Common Core.
What’s wrong with you?
You forgot to mention we’ll all be dead within 48 months from the end of oil.
It really is fascinating how you interpret any decrease in oil production, no matter what the reason, as proof that your particular fantasies are finally coming true.
Of all the stupid things you have written, that has got to be amongst the dumbest.
Oil production goes up and down based on market conditions. Do you actually believe that oil companies always operate every well flat out, all the time, and the only reason why they would drop production is because the wells are running dry?
When prices go down, companies stop exploring for new oil and slow down their drilling activities. They also slow down the pumps to leave the oil that they don’t need in the ground.
If it is possible for you to get over this notion that you already know everything, and spend some time trying to learn something from the little people that you look down on, maybe you wouldn’t always come across as an arrogant idiot.
You are an excellent example of Kruegger-Dunning syndrome, though I doubt you know what that means.
It’s actually the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’, it’s not a psychological syndrome. If you want to use weapons grade psychology, that one is one of the most overused and least effective of the lot.
Basic economics is just made up?
Just how out of touch with basic reality are you.
It’s a fine world, griff, Loydo, Simple Simon etc like to live on. Not to forgett the climate priests.
> For thousands of years before 1900, the population of the world hovered around one billion on the entire planet.
Totally incorrect – there was no hovering, just a previously ramping exponential growth: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/international-programs/historical-est-worldpop.html
> In the short 200 years since 1900
?!? basic arithmetic failure.
Chance of the article being worth any more time? Very low.
And yet I wrote a reply…
Well he did say “a short 200 years”. A short 200 years obviously doesn’t equal a long 200 years.
It’s kinda like a US ton vs a metric ton?
A simple typo, not more, not less.
Nope, some kind of ‘information sabotage’, a shorter version appears on cfact
https://www.cfact.org/2021/08/07/comparing-the-world-before-1900-to-today/
And that version also has both of the erroneous “200 years” references. Any “information sabatoge” seems to be self-inflicted
If the error was only in one place, one could chalk it up to a typo. The author, however, twice referred to 200 years in relation between 1900 and today:
” In the short 200 years since 1900″
“Today, more than 200 years past 1900, ”
The closest anyone got to refrigerating perishable foodstuffs was ice houses, which go back as far as 1780 BC, maybe further, when ice wells/pits were used to preserve perishables like meat and fish. And yes, it does go back further than that, but there’s no specific starting point.
Ice boxes were an 18th century development for city folk. The Amish still make them, and they are quite useful in power outages, if you have room for one. But most people were still using ice houses or ice pits up to the development of using a circulating coolant with a pump (electric) to keep stuff cool
That’s a great point that we take so much for granted that we don’t even consider it. Just from the reduction of spoilage alone, many illnesses would be avoided and stomach cancer is probably reduced as we do not have to resort to preservative methods, like smoking or curing that can produce carcinogens.
I don’t suppose the Amish in Mexico are able to cut much ice from lakes in the winter, so they must use ice that was produced by refrigeration.
So, we’ve all picked up on the “1900” error. Best to correct it to avoid further confusion.
While I am pessimistic about many things recently, life for most in general is better not worse. Human creativity will continue to flourish and improve the human condition given the opportunity.
One needs to consider that knowledge is a great resource to use in decision making. Medical knowledge especially allows us to use the best treatments. Even those in Nigeria can crack a book and learn from those who came before us. We can use this as a basis to improve.
One reason why I am pessimistic currently is that we’ve abandoned tried and true practices in the covid propagandemic. Historically, insanity such as this can run several years or longer.
I defy you to provide data for that “Nutrient density of food has gone down 30%” claim.
Consider the picture painted in this video. It is certainly a different world than the west is currently experiencing.
I’ve visited Singapore a couple of times. Probably the cleanest metro area that I’ve ever seen. I took a few taxi cab trips and not once did a driver attempt to cheat me. There’s something to be said for the rule of law there.
It has a lot going for it. As a visitor, it reminded me of a real life Disney World. Language is no barrier there and if one is in Asia for a while, it’s a great place to decompress.
The Cloud Forrest dripped of AGW propaganda, which is about the only negative that I experienced.
You were already deep in nutso land, but now you have gone so deep that not even your smokestacks can be seen anymore.
Nigeria has decent health care throughout most of the country.
Do you have any evidence that the immune systems are so much weaker than they were 100’s of years ago, or is that just what you have decided in order to support the insanity that you have decided to believe in.
Last time I checked, politico is a left wing politics site. If you actually believe that nutrition density is down 30% and nobody has noticed or commented, you are even more delusional than you have led us to believe so far.
Pointing out that the healthcare system in Nigeria isn’t as bad as you are so desperate to believe is not “defending the healthcare of Nigeria”.
The fact that you once again have to use such a lame excuse is just more evidence that you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
There are physical ( as in physics) limits to height in humans, as can be seem in the bone, joint and muscular issues that afflict those people who suffer from giantism (caused by hyperplasia of the adrenal gland). Then there are genetic differences between groups who have lived for very long times in different climates.
The first generation of Europeans born in Australia were nicknamed ‘cornstalks’ because they were so much taller than their parents. This is attributed to a much better diet, both quality and quantity, than that of their parents who were convicts, most from very deprived backgrounds.
But there wasn’t an equivalent increase in height with each later generation, even though the range and quality of food continued to improve to well above the level of the early convict settlements. Otherwise Australians would be 10 feet tall by now! We seem to have hit ( quite a while back) a limit to human height, although like other western countries many of us are still increasing in width.
“Food shortages and insecurity were leading concerns in the 18th century, especially in Europe, and these were exacerbated by reduced harvests yields.”
In the 1960s a book with the title “The Population Bomb” was published, providing proof that within a couple of decades we would all be dying due to starvation. With a substantial increase since then, starvation is less of a problem now then it was in the 18th century. Why? how about the possibility that food production has substantially increased as the result of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting increase in plant growth?
Praise is due to our burning of coal, the biggest factor in the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. The one thing for which we can be grateful to the Chinese is their increasing use of coal to generate power. Kudos also for the technology developed here in the U.S. for reducing the pollution caused by burning coal.
Global warming? Take another look at all of the cold weather around the earth lately. As I have said before in other posts, the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle is now starting to affect us, and the result will be the next BIG ice age. Good luck to us for surviving that, and the effects it will likely have on our ability to grow food.
1) The number of abortions per year in the US is actually twice the number of infant deaths in 1900. Abortion doesn’t count in longevity statistics, infant deaths do. You get one right.
2) Life expectancy is NOT calories. Short of starvation, a low-calorie diet has a much greater life expectancy than a high calorie diet. The greatest food production is 1) China, 2) US (California produces more food than any state in the Midwest, Texas too) 3) Brazil, and 4) India. Warm climates produce more than cold. Ag tech has advanced markedly since 1900. Claim otherwise and you’re lying.
3) All the top industries that contributed to the massive GDP growth since 1900 have nothing to do with the infrastructure that existed in the 1800s including durable goods manufacturing, Professional, Scientific,and technical services, and information.
4) While I’m not a liberal, modern living standards are FAR better than anyone had in 1900. The average height of a person today is about 10cm taller than it was in 1900. While Native Americans were the tallest race in 1900, the average person today is taller than native Americans were at the turn of the century.
5) World steel production has risen dramatically, almost all of that rise is due to China, India, Korea, and other Asian countries. US steel production has dropped but we import far, far more than we ever did before and manufacture far more products from domestic and imported steel than we did in 1900.
You’re 1 for 5.
1) When you decide to go with made up data, you really do go all out.
2) Whether steel is recycled or not isn’t relevant. Once again, you have shuffled through all of the available statistics until you find the one that supports what you want to believe.
Once again, you focus on trivialities in order to find something that you can distort into supporting your religious convictions.
Amongst soldiers, wars tend to get the young. In civilian population, wars tend to get everyone who gets in the way.
Amongst those who are impoverished by war, the elderly and the sick are the most likely to die.
If you actually knew twice what you think you knew, you might be as smart as a 5th grader, but I doubt it.
One need only chart the world’s increasing population alongside the same time line of ambient CO2 levels’ increase for proof that ever more CO2 is to all creatures, great and small, always better.
This is direct support of a comment I made a couple of weeks ago… the “Social Cost of Carbon” is definitely negative (i.e., actually a benefit) and might even be infinite!
Look at all that smog and haze, and nary an automobile in sight. It must be man’s use of the wooden wheel to blame! (snicker)
The photo is obviously not 1800, yet the world population in 1800 was 990 million, and 1.65 billion in 1900, which suggests he is talking about1800, not 1900.
New York war of the currents
While I get the point of the essay, there is too much nonsense in it.
Life expectancy between 20 to 30 years, even if true for some period, is only about infant mortality and childhood disease deaths. People who escaped those calamities lived, on average, much longer.
“One answer is that it could be that electricity is a secondary energy source that we get from the conversion of other sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and oil. These sources are known as “primary sources, but electricity itself is not a “primary source”. Like electricity, the products used in industries and infrastructures are all dependent on products are manufactured from “primary sources” of energy like petroleum ‘”
The above quote, and the paragraph that follows it, do not make any sense. If there is a “reason” or answer to the questions asked, in that verbiage, it is surely cryptically hidden.
“Today, we are inundated by the gross fatalities being caused by humanity induced air pollution.”
Not to express any adoration for air pollution but this is just a repetition of unsupportable propaganda. There is belief, but not objective evidence, that air pollution produces many fatalities. That study from China, covered by WUWT a couple of years ago, was a comparison of “life expectancy” in two different regions, one where coal for home heating and cooking was readily provided and one where coal for home heating and cooking was forbidden. The populations were sizeable. The statistics divulged that the no coal people lived, on average, a couple of months longer.
Electricity is a means of transmission not a source of energy
It is a form of energy, directly useable. Electricity can be transmitter much more readily than can sources such as coal and oil but it isn’t a ‘means of transmission’.
Simple check of historical world populations for the last 1500 years didn’t have the world population exceed 1 billion after 1800. Google or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
Very short 200 years
2 + 2 = 3, for very small values of 2.
😜
I attribute the population growth to 3 things… 1) vaccines, 2) antibiotics, 3) cheap energy. That last allowed/allows all our modern conveniences, contributes to overall improved health, and provides not only sufficient but possibly excess food production cheaply enough that even the poorest rarely go hungry, and produces that food on less land (total? or just per capita?) than it took to feed the 1 billion at the beginning of the 19th century, and with far fewer people growing it (98% of the U. S. population were farmers in 1800, today it’s 2%. Go ahead someone check my figures, I’m going by memory.)
Common Core Math. 1900 was 121 years ago. And unless you are using the same thanks shit as “11 million illegal aliens”, world population is only 7.5 billion if even that.
“… almost 10,000 superyachts over 24 meters in length, again for the elites of our world.”
That’s odd, I’ve never thought of myself as elite.
Meanwhile:
“Why didn’t the world have … militaries … before 1900?”
They probably had militaries in the Eemian.
1)If you compare the numbers of babies that are aborted with the number of children who died before they got out of childhool, you will find that your beliefs have no basis in reality.
2)If you think that there are more resources in cold places, I suspect that you have never actually left that city that you love. PS: It takes more calories to live in cold places. Once again, your beliefs have no basis in reality.
3)Economic growth is fake? So the fact that we have more stuff, better quality stuff and live much better than do people 100 years ago is just a figment of our imagination? Your beliefs have no basis in reality.
4) I guess if you are just going to make stuff up, something that insults liberals isn’t to bad.
5) Why should anyone care what the the steel that is being manufactured is made from? There was little recycling back in the 50’s, so of course more steel is made that way today.
You are ignoring the fact that much steel making has moved offshore.
You are ignoring the fact that modern products use a lot less steel than did the products of the 50’s. Your opinions have no basis in any form of reality known to modern science.
I think you’re a complete idiot.
Stop being ridiculous. What are you, 8 years old? Grow up for heaven’s sake.
Lalalalalala …
We don’t want to hear this. The END is nigh anyway …
I take it you mean 1800 not 1900. Secondly, no navy operates battleships any longer.
And why hasn’t fossil fuel delivered electricity and a grid to those increasing millions of people without electricity over the last 50 years?
what credible plans and intentions are there to supply them via fossil fuel?
Ask China.
Wind and solar as energy sources pre-date fossil fuels, and yet they’ve failed to deliver a grid to those increasing millions of people too, so what’s your point (oh wait, I forgot this is the griffter I’m speaking to, the only point is the one on the top of his head).
That those people don’t currently have a grid has nothing to do with the proven ability of fossil fuels to power such a grid and everything to do with the political realities of the countries those people live in.
If abortion replaced infant mortality, why has the population increased? Why have the statistics for infant mortality decreased in most countries, irrespective of whether that country has legalised abortions and independent of statistics on abortion rates? Why do we have records of abortions being performed for thousands of years if they are just now replacing infant mortality?
For seven years I was on the County Cemetery Commission. It was a five person body of all volunteers that had a $20,000 a year budget. Our mission was to identify and repair old cemeteries not covered by the perpetual care act or being maintained by a Church or other society.
We would identify the cemetery, get the land owner to turn it over to the county (they got a tax break for doing so) and then fix it up and fence it in, record the burials. We would reset and repair the grave stones, order new ones from the VA for veterans if they did not have one or if theirs was damaged. Landscape and fence it in and put up a sign with the name of the grave yard. Once completed the cemetery became the responsibility of the township trustee to maintain.
Some things one learns doing such work on cemeteries from the 18th and 19th centuries. .
8. Hmm. I do but it may differ from the later tradition that was created to explain the alignment. A lot of early non-christian cultures buried their dead on a roughly north-south (feet towards south) alignment. In order for baptised Christians to show their faith after death, they turned the burials round to a west-east (feet towards east) alignment. This also coincided with the early Christian practice of facing east to pray, and the early churches often being on an east-west alignment (with the important part of the church towards the east end). The idea that graves faced east to see the second coming was a much later invention.
Even the Indian grave yards from the 19th century laid their graves out with their feet facing east. Probably because they had been converted. Their head markers were simple triangular unfinished stones with no engraving. I should have said that ALMOST invariably they are buried with their feet to the east. There are a few facing west, including one of the revolutionary war veterans.
There are 12 Revolutionary War Veterans buried in Madison County, IN that we know of. We had not identified the locations of several of their graves however. One veteran of the war of 1812 had served in a Virginia regiment, part of which was in Ft. Sumter that famous night and part of which was posted just outside the fort. Either way he witness the “rockets red glare” first hand. Another was a Captain that fought in the battle of the Thames where the war chief Tecumseh was most likely killed.
The old stones are often really works of art. Softer stone used back then does not preserve so well but they really did put a lot of work into those who could afford it. We cleaned all markers that needed it before resetting them. Stones that were broken we repaired with epoxy and then framed with aluminum angle set into a concrete foundation. When originally mounted they were set into a rough piece of flagstone with a grove cut into it to receive the grave marker. probing for the foundation stones was a very effective way to identify grave locations when the stone had been displaced or was gone. Often the markers had been knocked over and then over time covered by a layer of dirt.
I was the one that came up with ideal of mounting the stones in concrete and I received a ration of crap from various others on Cemetery Commissions in other counties for doing so. But really setting them in a concrete foundation deep enough to be below the frost line and then having a 4″ high curb above grade was the best way I could figure out to prevent damage from mowers and trimming with string trimmers which over time cut into the soft stone. It also made it less likely the stone would be displaced by tree roots.
The four greatest enemies of such preservation are:
My time on the commission ended when I became a truck driver and could not make it to most of the monthly meetings. I had become pretty disgusted by some of the politics involved also.
Here is a link to the Commission website. Pioneer Cemeteries and Their Stories – Madison Co., IN (cemeteries-madison-co-in.com)
Good comment, rah.
One summer, long ago, I worked in Colorado relocating a Native American cemetary to another place to make way for a highway.
I had the job of digging the holes for the new graves, which was mostly done by a backhoe, with me and another guy keeping an eye on things.
There were always relatives showing up as the new coffins were reburied in the new graves.
A job like that will make one think about a lot of things.
Fascinating. Thank you
Another lesson learned. Working with the dead is one hell of a lot easier than working with the living.
So is this blog post from the future, or am I missing some kind of subtle humor, or what…?
I mean I only made it through differential equations in college math, so subtracting 1,900 from 2,020 shouldn’t be that hard, but you never know how math education changes.
The 80% living on less than $10/day is 2005 data. It is below 71% in 2015 and must be even lower today.
121 years since 1900
If you survived passed age 5 the actual average age of death was in the high 40s early 50s.
No, no, no…
“Among 378,048 death certificates from 2020 listing COVID-19, 5.5% listed COVID-19 without codes for any other conditions.”
To put it plainly, 5.5% – 20,793 died from Covid
https://archive.is/6TirP#selection-755.0-755.121
UNCLE! I give up, Charles Rotter.
There is a glitch I’ve seen a few times before on other threads in a long string of replies. I got bit by the glitch above.
It seems that after a certain number of replies, when you hit reply it posts it right beneath the preceding comment and credits it as a reply to that person, regardless of which comment you actually replied to.
The crossed up two of my replies, showing one to Mark ingraham as a reply to MarkW and then, when I carefully made note of the error to MarkW, it posted that as a reply to Mark ingraham.
In a previous life, I used a program that would crap out after a certain large number of iterations, a large number that was rarely reached. Perhaps something similar is going on here.
Of course there’s always the old-fashioned way of replying using “@so-and-so. I think I’ll go back to that; belt and suspenders.
I’ve wondered since I was old enough to think for myself, why didn’t anyone invent a bicycle until the 19th century?
(Before 1900)…Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age.
Okay, nitpick time.
First “Before 1900” is a big place with poor signposts. 1899 was before 1900. So was was the Roman Era and all of Pre-History. Not really setting us good goal posts here.
Second, Life Expectancy is not the same as Life Span. The common error here is to look at Life Expectancy and assume every died Logan’s Run style before their first grey hair and Ye Olde Times were filled with 20 year olds.
This is grossly incorrect. The reason Life Expectancy figures were so low was that childhood was almost literally murder. Infants died in numbers hideous to comprehend and dying during childbirth was a real and common threat to mothers.
The point being casually orbited around by the original author – being ‘modern’ is better for your health – is still completely valid, and if you are successfully out of childhood these days then you should unironically give thanks to your First World Solutions to real and deadly Fourth World Problems, but I have always found ‘Life Expectancy’ to be lazy writing and a close cousin to clickbait.
Okay – nitpick rant over.
” In the short 200 years since 1900″
“Today, more than 200 years past 1900, ”
Once could be attributed to a simple typo, but twice in the same article? Perhaps the author should have spent more time checking his maths and facts and less time hawking his book. Because this article’s errors aren’t doing anything to convince me that his book is worth a look.
‘In the short 200 years since 1900 ..’ Oops!