Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

talesoftimesforgotten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 208 posts

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#131

Post by cgriswald »

marcosdumay wrote: post #97
Ekaros wrote: post #15

So often any of these single causal theories forget to look at timespan. Which was either decades or centuries... If system survived previously with mostly same things in place there is really no reason why such thing as lead pipes would be the cause of downfall part. By any reasonable conclusion the culprit in such case should be some disruptive innovation. In the end gradual natural degradation of system is much mo…

Complex systems fail due to single causes exactly that way. First the system runs well; once the cause is introduced the system adapts so that the visible cost is minimal, but the adaptations are costly by themselves, and demand further adaptations; then the adaptation cycle runs for a while (that can be very long), until everything finally breaks down. It is very unlikely that the lead pipes that were there since th…

By way of example:

You can use a caustic solution to unclog your pipes and it will work flawlessly, every time for an indefinite amount of time. Then, at some point, you'll have leaks due to glue being eaten away, PVC melting, or other damage.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#132

Post by umeshunni »

foolfoolz wrote: post #117
bombcar wrote: post #2

It's interesting to note how many historical figures we really only know about through one or two sources, and those sources may be themselves biased.

i don’t believe anything that happened before hd video

Or after deep fakes

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#133

Post by gloryjulio »

pvg wrote: post #90
Ekaros wrote: post #15

So often any of these single causal theories forget to look at timespan. Which was either decades or centuries... If system survived previously with mostly same things in place there is really no reason why such thing as lead pipes would be the cause of downfall part. By any reasonable conclusion the culprit in such case should be some disruptive innovation. In the end gradual natural degradation of system is much mo…

This is more or less how more recent scholarship looks at complicated, long-term multi-modal sort of events and changes. Fate of Rome is a fairly recent book that examines things like disease and climate change, for instance: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691166834/th...

I don't know if that's a new viewpoint. I have been hearing about how the island and frequent disasters shaped Japan for as long as I remember.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#134

Post by googlryas »

stinkytaco wrote: post #108
googlryas wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has to be some kind of joke post. Or, you've never been camping. Or, more likely, you're just constructing scenarios to fit your perspective instead of being honest with yourself. - Cigarettes and beer are a necessary part of camping? - Not going far from home, but using ~23 liters of gas($50 @ 210/L) just to get there? - Staying at the most expensive camp site(AA fee schedule) in Ontario? - Paying for firewood…

I agree this is a troll, but I'd like to point out a few things: > - Not going far from home, but using ~23 liters of gas($50 @ 210/L) just to get there? Absolutely could see this. I live in the US, but the nearest spot I'd like to go camping is probably a $50 round trip. And I'd like to camp in different places, so we're starting to look at $50 being entirely reasonable if I made a list of places I'd like to camp. N…

Even spending $50 in one direction on gas isn't insane for a weekend camping trip, a couple hours of highway driving at current prices, but I don't think anyone would consider that "not far from home" as OP stated.

> For what it's worth, this is not allowed in many parks.

Sure, but you don't need to camp in parks. That helps save on the $60/night fee as well.

> You'll probably buy some special meat to grill, marshmallows to roast, some trail mix and maybe stop for food on the way out or back.

According to OP it is just a "basic sausage", not even a special meat. I end up spending about $15/day on food and I just pack what I want with no thought to cost.

I guess my point is...none of what OP described is completely unreasonable for a random person's camping trip. But it is completely unreasonable when using this camping trip as an example as to how a person making minimum wage can't even go camping without saving up for weeks.

To me, this post reminds me exactly of things you see on reddit's antiwork sub, where people say something like "You can't live on minimum wage", and to prove it provide a breakdown of how much it would cost to rent a 2BR apartment downtown, $500/month clothing allowance, $400/mo car lease, things like that. Stuff that I don't even do for myself despite making closer to 7 figures than 5. I've never camped at a AA fee schedule spot, never spent $25/day on food(while camping), never drank $25 of beer per day(while camping), never bought cigarettes, etc...

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#136

Post by ricree »

trashtester wrote: post #99
dralley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you really want to boil it down to a single reason, the best candidate would be "becoming militarily dependent on hired mercenaries and then not paying them" rather than something more interesting

Another, related view is to look at how many was on the dole. During the late empire, around 20% of the population in Rome was effectively on welfare, getting food from the state. Instead of drafting these poeple into the empire, Rome recruited foreigners for the army, while the productivity of the domestic population kept going down. Eventually the state, needing to pay both the welfare receipients and the army, ran…

Is that actually a useful correlation? Subsidized grain was a very prominent feature of the early empire. I'd be surprised if the late empire had a significantly larger proportion on it.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#137

Post by pvg »

gloryjulio wrote: post #133
pvg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more or less how more recent scholarship looks at complicated, long-term multi-modal sort of events and changes. Fate of Rome is a fairly recent book that examines things like disease and climate change, for instance: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691166834/th...

I don't know if that's a new viewpoint. I have been hearing about how the island and frequent disasters shaped Japan for as long as I remember.

It's definitely newer than Gibbon, in the case of the fall of the Roman empire.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#138

Post by ricree »

comrh wrote: post #96
dralley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you really want to boil it down to a single reason, the best candidate would be "becoming militarily dependent on hired mercenaries and then not paying them" rather than something more interesting

I always thought favoring biological heirs was up there too. The Five Good Emperors were all adopted and some of the absolute worst leaders only got there through luck of birth.

Probably true, but it was so baked into the system that it was hard to escape. Even the five good emperors chose their successors via adoption, so on paper it was still direct inheritance. For Marcus Aurelius to pass over his son would have been a huge break from tradition.

The best attempt to escape this was Diocletian's tetrarchy, but that just led to yet another civil war.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#139

Post by steve_adams_86 »

hansoolo wrote: post #130
leobg wrote: post #36

Beethoven, too, is suspected to have died from lead poisoning. In his case, too, a drinking cup for wine made of lead is the prime suspect.

He couldn't have seen it coming

Beethoven was deaf; are you thinking of Bach?

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#140

Post by kodt »

londons_explore wrote: post #41
dukeofdoom wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see that happening. Thinking about Canada. The other day I calculated it would take 25 hours of work for the minimum wage worker to afford a weekend camping. And I think that's a pretty good indication we're pretty close collapse. Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed.

My weekends camping rarely cost me more than $20. $1.50 on food per meal. $1 on camping gas or coal for the weekend. $200 of gear, but it will last me 20+ camping weekends. $0 on travel, because I'll be hiking.

You can hike to the campground from your home?
Post reply on HN