[Silixon]

There's a Pascal's wager in this situation. In the worst case, there's no cognitive effect from pollution, but you clean up the environment anyway. Even without the possibility of improving your ability to reason, there are many other obvious benefits to reducing pollution, quitting smoking, and many other major changes about which the effects have been debated and exaggerated over time.

[zeveb]

> There's a Pascal's wager in this situation. In the worst case, there's no cognitive effect from pollution, but you clean up the environment anyway.

And, as with Pascal's wager, that's unconvincing: one could spend all that money differently, on things one would like (just as in Pascal's wager, choosing to believe in God isn't cost-free: it means loving others, being charitable &c., even if one would rather not).

[marcusjt]

See also "The Precautionary Principle", which environmental policy should ideally always follow but alas all too often doesn't, as in this case.

[antt]

>there's no cognitive effect from pollution

The worst case is that there is a positive effect from pollution. When one looks at the historic data it wasn't until people started living in smog filled cities that children started attending schools.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming causation and correlation just because it gels with something in your subconscious.