[wallst07]

You are still stretching, nobody is claiming suffering doesn't exist.

But to compare modern medical care and nutrition to even 100-200 years ago and say it was better in the past is quite... insane.

You can't cherrypick specific problems now and then compare to the entire existence in whatever before times you think were better.

To put it another way... I would easily trade being below average income/class now, to top 1% 200 years ago every single time.

[qsera]

>But to compare modern medical care and nutrition to even 100-200 years ago and say it was better in the past is quite... insane.

No one is saying that though. I am saying that if the price for that is that everyone is more sick, then it is not a better thing.

[wallst07]

Ok, I agree if that is your hypothetical. But we have t define "if its happening" and what "everyone is more sick" means relative to before microplastics, or whatever your argument is.

I get your point, just disagree that more people are sick now (depending on the definition of sick). If you die, you're not sick anymore.

[qsera]

>just disagree that more people are sick now..

There are more sickness inducing things in air, water and food. And it is not slowing down. We are adding more and more of it..Look up "Regrettable substitution", and that is exactly as hopeless as it sounds...

So regulations are not doing shit.

So given that, and the basic implication that consuming more sickness inducing stuff would make more people sick, why do you need additional proof that people will get more and more sick going forward?

[pixl97]

>There are more sickness inducing things in air, water and food.

I mean, just no. Unfortunately I don't have a time machine to kick your ass back 300 years ago to a city like London so you get to experience it for yourself.

[qsera]

>I mean, just no.

What exactly are you claiming? Environmental pollution was more 300 years ago than it is now?

[defrost]

The claim is twofold, that London, a major capital city, arguably the largest most important city at that time, had little to no functional sewerage, turds floating down the Thames, people drinking cholera straight from the pump, etc.

Which was true at that time.

The second part of the claim is that is no longer the case for London, and somewhat implied is that few other large capitals of the world have such extreme issues now as London has had in the past.

London may have cleaned up, but that'd be a stretch for several large modern cities in India, South America, Indonesia, etc. that are straining their civic infrastructure or applying unevenly.

Globally, in total mass (or other measures) environmental pollution is "worse" now - just largely less visible (pushed from the G20 out to other countries) or dismissed (carbon dioxide is good for plants!! (etc.)).