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

171–180 of 208 posts

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

#171

Post by qiskit »

majormajor wrote: post #162
namaria wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of publishing, much like nutritional science, is great for scientists. You can fudge data into flip flopping conclusions every couple of years. Infinite papers = tenure.

And here's a reason science can die in complex societies: because people want to score points over engaging with it. On a surface level it's easy to say "suggestions are changing, therefore it's a scam." But it's also a highly-expected outcome of a field being actively researched! Working as intended = ammunition for those who want to play games instead. That's not to say there is no fraud, or bad actors. It's just t…

> But it's also a highly-expected outcome of a field being actively researched!

But that's the point. It isn't "research". It's meaningless busy work to justify a paycheck.

> It's just to say that your comment falls hideously short as a potential way of spotting bad acting, so far short that it looks intentionally misleading.

I disagree. The guy was offering his honest opinion. Your comment comes off as someone working in the industry selfishly trying to justify your existence.

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

#173

Post by panick21_ »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #168
panick21_ wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed. No its not actually. If anything the Soviet system collapsed because the elites didn't really like it that much. The elites had lost interest in preserving the system. Elites didn't like the party discipline. There is a reason why Soviet collapsed and China didn't. Just having demonstrations and unhappy population does m…

Workers going on a mass strike across the Easter Block countries in the "Solidarity" movement in the late 80s is how its generally viewed as being the beginning of the end of the soviet system. The communist governments were put in a position where there were going to have to massacre their own people openly revolting in massive strikes. I don't think Chinese government would survive another Tiananmen square incident…

> is how its generally viewed

Yes and as many historical topics, it a romantic tail that people like to tell rather then a great analysis of the truth.

> The communist governments were put in a position where there were going to have to massacre their own people openly revolting in massive strikes.

That's what many governments in history did. And that's exactly the point, the reason a state fails is when the elites have not enough reason to defend the current system. When they do, then the army shows up. And in Hungary in 1956 they were willing for example.

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

#174

Post by davidgay »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #143
MereInterest wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't the dole only implemented because land ownership had concentrated to a few extremely wealthy individuals? Only a few generations earlier, during the Second Punic War many landowners had either died or had their farms ruined to deny food to Hannibal, allowing the land to be bought at low prices.

> Wasn't the dole only implemented because land ownership had concentrated to a few extremely wealthy individuals? It was implemented because it got votes. It's not a coincidence that it was restricted to people who could vote. You get welfare whenever you expand the franchise too far.

> You get welfare whenever you expand the franchise too far.

So, pray tell, what was the step too far (in no particular order):

- women

- slaves

- non-property owners

- non-poll-tax payers

- 18 year olds

... and in which of those categories do you fall?

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

#175

Post by brutusborn »

majormajor wrote: post #162
namaria wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of publishing, much like nutritional science, is great for scientists. You can fudge data into flip flopping conclusions every couple of years. Infinite papers = tenure.

And here's a reason science can die in complex societies: because people want to score points over engaging with it. On a surface level it's easy to say "suggestions are changing, therefore it's a scam." But it's also a highly-expected outcome of a field being actively researched! Working as intended = ammunition for those who want to play games instead. That's not to say there is no fraud, or bad actors. It's just t…

It's expected for hypothesis that make up a field to converge over time towards something resembling "truth".

When hypothesis change wildly decade by decade (e.g. in nutrition research) without convergence, you can reason that the system isn't working as intended.

In the nutrition example, I think the lack of progress is due to inadequete data and tooling to tackle such a complex field, as well as the limitations imposed by ethical considerations.

Another issue is research bias due to funding from industry. I don't this should be as much of an issue since the efficacy of scientific methods should be mostly independent of funding source.

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

#176

Post by narag »

mr_toad wrote: post #121
narag wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very reasonable. But there was a slow collapse of the economy that is an intermediate cause in the chain of events that is central to the fall. You can speculate what caused that collapse, that in turn caused the fall and there are also many causes to consider, but again, there is one intermediate cause that is Christianism. The religion altered several aspects of the economy: slavery, commerce and lending. No…

> The religion altered several aspects of the economy: slavery, commerce and lending. It does seem that the western half of the empire was more dependent on slavery. But Christianity wasn’t the only factor in that. With fewer conquests there were fewer slaves to take.

OK, let's say breeding humans is less efficient than making wars, to keep the slave supply. But if in a scarcity market you impose an outright ban, would it improve the situation?

For the Economy, I ask, not sure if slaves were better off.

Also, the ban wasn't the only effect I mentioned. Actually it seems that attacking commerce and credit could be even more debilitating.

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

#177

Post by dukeofdoom »

googlryas wrote: post #134
stinkytaco wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, marshmal…

I see your point. But the flip side is how better off people do these silly calculations how they can penny pinch a 10% cheaper price on something the poor person should buy instead of what they want. What they neglect to consider is the experience of trying to penny pinch. And the decreased value of what they end up getting. I can penny pinch and buy a really crappy loaf of bread for $3.5 or pay $6 for sourdough bread with walnuts. Sure one loaf is much cheaper than the other, but you really do get less for less. Same with campsites. Sure I can penny pinch and get a budget campsite, but it won't be in a provincial park with nature. And I wasn't quoting some exuberant travel experience. Just a simple outing, a place a father my want to take his kid camping and fishing one day. The food prices are very realistic for actual real food. Sure you can do it for 10% cheaper, and 30% less of experience, and eating crappy food. But this is someone's vacation. Shouldn't they at least be able to splurge once in a while.

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

#178

Post by R0b0t1 »

ineedasername wrote: post #95
londons_explore wrote: post #73

Here is a counter-point[1] which finds high levels of lead toxicity in regular citizens. While this article seems to mostly be reasoning based on a literature review, the counterpoint uses analysis of roman skeletons. [1]: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/londinium-romans-blood-l...

That article ends with a note about the source of lead being indeterminate, with a chance the lead leached into human remains after burial. The issue also isn't just "did they have high lead levels?". The Roman empire around, with its lead pipes, for a long time. Why after hundreds of years would the lead of resulted in the downfall of Rome when Rome had flourished under the same lead-filled conditions previously?

While harder to define, it seems like as time goes on the Roman state apparatus becomes overtaken with people who are more likely to look out for their immediate benefit as opposed to act altruistically for Rome or their immediate community members.

My interpretation of this was the selfless people all died in battle, alternatively it could be the slow buildup of not only the individual but the societal effects of lead poisoning.

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

#179

Post by R0b0t1 »

panick21_ wrote: post #159
londons_explore wrote: post #35

This article argues against the fall of the roman empire being caused by severe lead poisoning. I would argue that it was more likely caused by widespread minor lead poisoning. If everyone is more forgetful and learns slower, then that isn't something that will be written in history books - the people themselves will just consider that 'normal'. Yet an empire of forgetful and slow-learning people won't be efficient.…

Most of the empire didn't fall and we don't see continues degradation over time, we see ups and down as the political winds shift. The Roman empire by 600 was arguably more powerful then it had been for 100s of years before. Did they remove lead pipes in that time and that made everything go faster again?

This is not true, you can check https://acoup.blog. He has a series on it. In very real terms Rome fell and the caloric intake and bone length of the Romans and their livestock took a massive nosedive.

https://acoup.blog/2022/01/14/collections-rome-decline-and-f...

Post reply on HN