You're supposed to just be able to drink out of the river, but due to our own pollution and the lack of build up to diseases in the water we can't drink it directly anymore.
I prefer "disease-free water" to "water containing unpleasant pathogens that probably won't kill me, because I've already gotten sick from them many times and maintain natural immunity".
Also, immunocompromised people deserve life too. Physically weak humans wouldn't survive in the natural-selection world that preceded civilization—the purpose of human civilization is escaping, nullifying, the brutal morality of the natural world and substituting our own.
You're forgetting the people who absolutely were not fine. If those people die in childhood often enough, that eventually gets removed from or significantly reduced in the gene pool, but people have to die first. It's like asthma. Those kids used to just die. Now we have inhalers, so it appears like asthma is on the rise when it's more that less people die from it. It looks like adults who grow up drinking that water are fine, but you're ignoring the toddlers who died from drinking that water.
I have to respond here with "WTF are you talking about". You are engaging in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy without use of your critical thinking facilities. Any water source that has rotting plant material, or is exposed to the feces of animals puts you at high risk of serious illness. Some water sources will have natural bacterial contamination and/or mineral contamination (think arsenic).
Absolutely huge portions of the human population died to water quality issues before the 20th century.
He is also saying that animals are fine. Animals are not fine. Many animals that consume water out of the river only live for five years or so. Diseases still get them.
What are you talking about, almost all animals in wild live longer dan in captivity in Western Zoos. That's def. due to stress, but it means purified human water isn't a bigger factor then stress & movement. Animals and humans aren't stupid, we have an idea what water is safer then others.
I seriously have to ask if you're an LLM trained to spout BS?
I would like you to drop the source of your 'wild vs zoo' statistics? If need be, expand that into wild vs general captivity. Here, let me do it for you...
>We found that mammals from zoo populations generally lived longer than their wild counterparts (84% of species). The effect was most notable in species with a faster pace of life (i.e. a short life span, high reproductive rate and high mortality in the wild) because zoos evidently offer protection against a number of relevant conditions like predation, intraspecific competition and diseases.
I generally don't go out of my way to call out peoples BS, except in this case you're spouting things that are potentially dangerous to others. Don't go drinking out of puddles your dog does. I've seen dogs eat out of hot trash cans and be fine. Also I've seen dogs eat small chocolate bars and die. Trying to guess the quality of your water on the longevity of your dog is a great way to end up with brain cysts.
Isn't that because the ones who aren't healthy die? That sounds like saying we shouldn't bother having modern medicine because it causes us to have a lot more sick people. The problem is we wouldn't have a lot more healthy people that way; we'd have a lot more dead people.
> due to our own pollution and the lack of build up to diseases in the water
I'm not sure this is exactly correct. Modern people still need to boil water to safely drink it even if the water comes from a remote area which does not have any pollution or disease.
You are right that it is a reinvention though because we used to do this regularly because we had antibodies and other things which could handle whatever was in the water in small quantities. Everything we have now is so pure that our immune and digestive systems can't handle anything that isn't pure anymore.
Infant mortality was high for a reason. Some people may have been able to handle it, but not all. Even today, people in remote areas living as they always have with “clean” environments die of parasites, bacterial infections, and so on from their water sources.
> Modern people still need to boil water to safely drink i
Not everywhere. Drinking water in the little town I live in in Norway is merely filtered and a little aluminium sulphate added to precipitate out the solids. You absolutely could have drunk the water before that treatment with no ill effects. That's because it comes from a lake high in the hills above any industrial or agricultural activity.
>That's because it comes from a lake high in the hills above any industrial or agricultural activity.
Half correct, but not completely correct..
I'm also assuming it remains very cold or even frozen for a huge portion of the year. The water is never getting to a temperature that allows much of the dangerous things to humans to grow. For example here in Texas you're apt to get amoebas in the 25-35C waters.
Also that high in the mountains you're probably getting water off mineral rock that's had very few interactions with the biosphere to accumulate wastes from animals.
You don't need industrial or agricultural activity to kill you.
Industrial and agricultural pollution are not the only potential pollutants in tap water. There are natural sources of viruses, bacteria, and parasites that exist.
>Humans didn't have time to boil water before electricity & modern kitchen.
Again, you seemingly have very little knowledge of history at all. Outbreaks of waterborne diseases could happen at any time from a single bad water source. Just look up historical rates of dysentery. Humans in the past fermented and drank far more beer like substances for this reason.
Humans in the past also just fucking died... Anti-biotics and the chlorination of water explains the take-off rate of human population starting around 1900. Before then human populations were self limiting (and this goes for most animal populations too), when you get too many people or animals in one place, they pollute their own water. There was no 're-invention' here. Your entire premise sucks and does not reflect reality.
Note, for those thinking I'm foolish. This an example of the last decades. Amazon Tribes are forced to now use rainwater tanks with "taps"; since the Oil companies came decades ago the water in stream & rivers are not drinkable anymore.
So that's what I mean with a re-invention, tap-water is mostly needed due to human caused pollution.
Now were there pathogen in the rivers, for sure, did they get sick sometimes, most likely. Did it cause higher child mortality, I haven't been able to find data for or against that. But overall they were fine & it's up for debate whether those being exposed to small amounts of pathogens were a win or lose in the long run (some theories suggest our lack of pathogens are connected to auto-immune diseases & allergies)
Also our cities of course bring a lot of sewage issues causing another issue with water streams.
Also, immunocompromised people deserve life too. Physically weak humans wouldn't survive in the natural-selection world that preceded civilization—the purpose of human civilization is escaping, nullifying, the brutal morality of the natural world and substituting our own.
Clean water is a gift of life.