Pathological Altruism

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did not say that the initial use of asbestos did. I was quite clear about a certain period of use, AFTER its initial widespread introduction, and BEFORE it was finally banned. Your statement above is evidence of a lack of reading on your part.

I know you must feel that way, but you were speaking about altruism and changes being made for altruistic reasons. You are talking about a status quo, and industry inertia, and science that needed to be developed.

Who would think that people would start eating the paint? That is not a foreseeable harm. The only initial foreseeable harm in lead paint would be the exposure to it while painting, and maybe at that point they would understand for workers when sandblasting it off.

There was a period during which the risks were discounted despite the research being sound, because the benefits of lead paint were considered so great.

So 20 years of research, it is conclusive, they eliminate it. That doesn't fit your narrative.

I think you really ought to go do some research before you dismiss this out of hand based on your gut feel and whatever you think sounds clever. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Really? So lead was put in to paints because the Government was being altruistic and didn't care about the hazards of children eating paint chips?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you're going to try to do something that is helpful (altruistic) then it's your duty to try your hardest to make sure that it's actually going to help, and to not ignore concerns and worries about potential harm.

And no one here would disagree with that.

The disagreement is that for some reason a few posters seem to think there is a historical pandemic where people are being altruistic and know that the ultimate result of their altruism is doom and gloom, but they don't care and push forward anyway. Oddly enough, none of these people have put forth an actual example yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. Criticizing the particular type of help does not mean that we feel no help should be given. This is actually a subset of a bigger problem:

All too often we see <solution A> proposed as a remedy for <problem B>. Unfortunately, an examination of A shows that it's worse than doing nothing, but there are far too many who say "We have to do something about <B>, <A> is the only solution on the table, we need to do it!" Opposing <A> is taken as saying that nothing should be done about <B> when in reality it's saying we should look for better answers.

And while we are doing all this looking....do nothing? When are we going to start doing something significant about global warming or perhaps the abundance of plastic bags in the Pacific gyre? We have been doing a whole lot of nothing.

You're making my point here!

Ever hear of the expression "jumping from the frying pan to the fire"--this is a scenario in which it's defined that you're doing exactly that and yet you still are arguing we should jump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was a point where asbestos was suspected of causing cancer, and concerns were raised. But because it was seen as such a miraculous fire-retardant, it continued to be used. The known benefit of preventing fires was considered to outweigh the concerns and unproven worries being raised about its toxic nature. Even after research had been done linking asbestos to cancer, it continued to be used until it was made illegal to do so. Yes, for a good chunk of time it was foreseeable harm.

That's not how I remember it. More like the asbestos industry and its client industries settling lawsuits under seal and lobbying legislatures not to outlaw a profitable good. The cigarette industry springs to mind.

Note that during much of the time in question there were plenty of government contracts for asbestos-containing parts. Now the lawyers get rich suing the companies that made what the government asked for.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you really ought to go do some research before you dismiss this out of hand based on your gut feel and whatever you think sounds clever. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Actually, a lot of what you're parroting here is based on no knowledge at all, and is merely assumptions of what must be in order for it to fit your preformed notion of how things work.

Um, lead was used in paint for centuries. It is beyond comprehension that anyone would claim that it was foreseeable that there was potential for harm from eating lead paint chips.

 

[arkirk]

And while we are doing all this looking....do nothing? When are we going to start doing something significant about global warming or perhaps the abundance of plastic bags in the Pacific gyre? We have been doing a whole lot of nothing.

You're making my point here!

Ever hear of the expression "jumping from the frying pan to the fire"--this is a scenario in which it's defined that you're doing exactly that and yet you still are arguing we should jump.

When the fire gets hot enough, you are going to want to jump out of it. But wait! Give me a break, Loren. You appear to have problems escaping a very narrow realm of thought...those devoted to calculating profit and justifying it. There are others that are deeper in the fire than you are. If you stay in the frying pan, it's a cinch you'll be cooked to death.

Instead of squabbles about evil Muslims, we need to be evaluating what our coastline will look like in 20 years...which cities will disappear. Even if global warming were not man-made (which it is) we still need to respond to the threat of rising sea levels. In the end, this is going to cost so much more than these petty wars, we should not waste any of our precious resources on these wars. The reason to have altruistic intentions is obvious....just plain survival. It's something a good many of us have to learn.

 

[RavenSky]

Are you claiming that my lack of evidence is evidence of lack?

Actually, that a person should support their position. Is that such a crazy idea?

You seem to be confusing unintended consequences with "easily foreseeable harm".

And neither would be "pathological" any way, so... OP fail.

 

[RavenSky]

I'll take your lead paint and raise it by two rows and take one step to the right: Arsenic-based pigments. At least lead paint will only harm you if you eat it. Before they figured out the problem arsenic-based pigments were killing people who were simply in the room for long enough.

How is this (1) "pathological" and/or (2) "altruism"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, that a person should support their position. Is that such a crazy idea?

You seem to be confusing unintended consequences with "easily foreseeable harm".

And neither would be "pathological" any way, so... OP fail.

Emily Lake is avoiding the pathological argument. LP is endorsing it, thought the WSJ never actually meant the word "pathological", they wanted to be sensational.

Note that during much of the time in question there were plenty of government contracts for asbestos-containing parts. Now the lawyers get rich suing the companies that made what the government asked for.

Which is an interesting note, but not relevant to the issue of "pathological altruism".

You're making my point here!

Ever hear of the expression "jumping from the frying pan to the fire"--this is a scenario in which it's defined that you're doing exactly that and yet you still are arguing we should jump.

Actually he didn't. He said action needed to be taken, not reckless action with "easily foreseeable consequences".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think you really ought to go do some research before you dismiss this out of hand based on your gut feel and whatever you think sounds clever. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Actually, a lot of what you're parroting here is based on no knowledge at all, and is merely assumptions of what must be in order for it to fit your preformed notion of how things work.

Um, lead was used in paint for centuries. It is beyond comprehension that anyone would claim that it was foreseeable that there was potential for harm from eating lead paint chips.

Unless you read non-sexy, non-political, non-philosophical botanical and medical texts of the ancient Greeks, which nobody did. But this is a total derail because lead paint was not altruism - it was a chemical product. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Repeat: Lead paint is a product not an act of altruism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Um, lead was used in paint for centuries. It is beyond comprehension that anyone would claim that it was foreseeable that there was potential for harm from eating lead paint chips.

Unless you read non-sexy, non-political, non-philosophical botanical and medical texts of the ancient Greeks, which nobody did. But this is a total derail because lead paint was not altruism - it was a chemical product. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Repeat: Lead paint is a product not an act of altruism.

I thought in an attempt to share their prosperity with the nation, Carnegie and Rockerfeller announced "Lead paint to all Americans in the most altruistic manner possible".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Unless you read non-sexy, non-political, non-philosophical botanical and medical texts of the ancient Greeks, which nobody did. But this is a total derail because lead paint was not altruism - it was a chemical product. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Repeat: Lead paint is a product not an act of altruism.

I thought in an attempt to share their prosperity with the nation, Carnegie and Rockerfeller announced "Lead paint to all Americans in the most altruistic manner possible".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkTxI0o9Hfw

 

[Emily Lake]

I think you really ought to go do some research before you dismiss this out of hand based on your gut feel and whatever you think sounds clever. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Actually, a lot of what you're parroting here is based on no knowledge at all, and is merely assumptions of what must be in order for it to fit your preformed notion of how things work.

Um, lead was used in paint for centuries. It is beyond comprehension that anyone would claim that it was foreseeable that there was potential for harm from eating lead paint chips.

Lead poisoning, both acute and chronic, was known of as far back as Rome.
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective

It's not like they didn't have plenty of warning. LEad paint was known to cause illness and disorders in children in 1904, and specifically linked to ingestion from crib paint in 1914, but it wasn't actually addressed in legislature until 1971.
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/History+of+Lead+Use

Lead paint was recommended and preferred for house paint despite being KNOWN to cause illness and injury, because it was believed to be safer from a public health viewpoint with respect to reducing contagion, and because of its durability.
http://www.leadlawsuits.com/index.php?s=699

As I said to Jimmy Higgins, you should perhaps do some research before you dismiss things simply because you don't wish to believe them true, or because they don't fit with your narrative. Whether you think it is "beyond comprehensible" or not, it still actually happened.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Um, lead was used in paint for centuries. It is beyond comprehension that anyone would claim that it was foreseeable that there was potential for harm from eating lead paint chips.

Lead poisoning, both acute and chronic, was known of as far back as Rome.
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective

It's not like they didn't have plenty of warning. LEad paint was known to cause illness and disorders in children in 1904, and specifically linked to ingestion from crib paint in 1914, but it wasn't actually addressed in legislature until 1971.
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/History+of+Lead+Use

Because of altruistic reasons it stuck around in paint? If anything, altruism got it banned!

Lead paint was recommended and preferred for house paint despite being KNOWN to cause illness and injury, because it was believed to be safer from a public health viewpoint with respect to reducing contagion, and because of its durability.
http://www.leadlawsuits.com/index.php?s=699

That Lead Lawsuit link says that painting was preferred over wallpaper due to contagion issues, not painting with lead paint. Lead paint was preferred by painters due to its durability and ability to absorb lesser amounts of water.

Your link says governments began in the 30s telling parents to watch your children to make certain they don't eat paint chips. Recommended that baby and children furniture not be painted with lead paints.

Your link says the Federal Government suggest lead paint for interiors of buildings because of its durability. The durability would suggest that it was stay on the walls longer and not chip away. Public education worked in nearly eliminating lead ingestion to non-industry workers. The problem started when poorly maintained homes had the paint chipping away.

So according to your own link, the Government suggested this material because it was a more durable product, not because of disease prevention. Paint, in general was preferred to avoid disease issues related to wallpapers. So this was a quality of the product decision that didn't look down the road long enough (multiple decades), not an issue of an altruistic government.

As I said to Jimmy Higgins, you should perhaps do some research before you dismiss things simply because you don't wish to believe them true, or because they don't fit with your narrative. Whether you think it is "beyond comprehensible" or not, it still actually happened.

Maybe you should read your own research better.

 

[laughing dog]

Um, lead was used in paint for centuries. It is beyond comprehension that anyone would claim that it was foreseeable that there was potential for harm from eating lead paint chips.

Lead poisoning, both acute and chronic, was known of as far back as Rome.
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective

It's not like they didn't have plenty of warning. LEad paint was known to cause illness and disorders in children in 1904, and specifically linked to ingestion from crib paint in 1914, but it wasn't actually addressed in legislature until 1971.
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/History+of+Lead+Use

Lead paint was recommended and preferred for house paint despite being KNOWN to cause illness and injury, because it was believed to be safer from a public health viewpoint with respect to reducing contagion, and because of its durability.
http://www.leadlawsuits.com/index.php?s=699

As I said to Jimmy Higgins, you should perhaps do some research before you dismiss things simply because you don't wish to believe them true, or because they don't fit with your narrative. Whether you think it is "beyond comprehensible" or not, it still actually happened.

Instead of playing anagrams with "iridium", you should try to actually think before you respond. Nothing you have posted remotely resembles an "altruistic" motivation.

 

[arkirk]

Unless you read non-sexy, non-political, non-philosophical botanical and medical texts of the ancient Greeks, which nobody did. But this is a total derail because lead paint was not altruism - it was a chemical product. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Repeat: Lead paint is a product not an act of altruism.

I thought in an attempt to share their prosperity with the nation, Carnegie and Rockerfeller announced "Lead paint to all Americans in the most altruistic manner possible".

Jimmy, I think you should have used a winker emoticon behind this remark. I feel it was misunderstood...or maybe it wasn't. Which is it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're making my point here!

Ever hear of the expression "jumping from the frying pan to the fire"--this is a scenario in which it's defined that you're doing exactly that and yet you still are arguing we should jump.

When the fire gets hot enough, you are going to want to jump out of it. But wait! Give me a break, Loren. You appear to have problems escaping a very narrow realm of thought...those devoted to calculating profit and justifying it. There are others that are deeper in the fire than you are. If you stay in the frying pan, it's a cinch you'll be cooked to death.

Instead of squabbles about evil Muslims, we need to be evaluating what our coastline will look like in 20 years...which cities will disappear. Even if global warming were not man-made (which it is) we still need to respond to the threat of rising sea levels. In the end, this is going to cost so much more than these petty wars, we should not waste any of our precious resources on these wars. The reason to have altruistic intentions is obvious....just plain survival. It's something a good many of us have to learn.

Pure evasion.

You said we need to do something even when the only proposed approaches have been shown to be detrimental. Your reply here doesn't even touch on this.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll take your lead paint and raise it by two rows and take one step to the right: Arsenic-based pigments. At least lead paint will only harm you if you eat it. Before they figured out the problem arsenic-based pigments were killing people who were simply in the room for long enough.

How is this (1) "pathological" and/or (2) "altruism"?

It was a subtopic--an example of something that was originally thought to be a good idea but later was found to be a bad idea.

 

[Emily Lake]

Lead poisoning, both acute and chronic, was known of as far back as Rome.
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective

It's not like they didn't have plenty of warning. LEad paint was known to cause illness and disorders in children in 1904, and specifically linked to ingestion from crib paint in 1914, but it wasn't actually addressed in legislature until 1971.
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/History+of+Lead+Use

Because of altruistic reasons it stuck around in paint? If anything, altruism got it banned!

Lead paint was recommended and preferred for house paint despite being KNOWN to cause illness and injury, because it was believed to be safer from a public health viewpoint with respect to reducing contagion, and because of its durability.
http://www.leadlawsuits.com/index.php?s=699

That Lead Lawsuit link says that painting was preferred over wallpaper due to contagion issues, not painting with lead paint. Lead paint was preferred by painters due to its durability and ability to absorb lesser amounts of water.

Your link says governments began in the 30s telling parents to watch your children to make certain they don't eat paint chips. Recommended that baby and children furniture not be painted with lead paints.

Your link says the Federal Government suggest lead paint for interiors of buildings because of its durability. The durability would suggest that it was stay on the walls longer and not chip away. Public education worked in nearly eliminating lead ingestion to non-industry workers. The problem started when poorly maintained homes had the paint chipping away.

So according to your own link, the Government suggested this material because it was a more durable product, not because of disease prevention. Paint, in general was preferred to avoid disease issues related to wallpapers. So this was a quality of the product decision that didn't look down the road long enough (multiple decades), not an issue of an altruistic government.

As I said to Jimmy Higgins, you should perhaps do some research before you dismiss things simply because you don't wish to believe them true, or because they don't fit with your narrative. Whether you think it is "beyond comprehensible" or not, it still actually happened.

Maybe you should read your own research better.

1) Why did you rename the quote to call me "Mr. Baxter"? What sort of underhanded passive-aggressive bullshit behavior is that? If you have something to say, then please come out and say it. Your snide hints and condescending arrogance is tiresome. please be forthright in your dealings with me. I've asked this of you several times, and I have been very polite and straightforward with you. There's no call for such nastiness and repeated offensive behavior on your part.

2) Lead paint was documented as causing illness in children in 1904. Ingestion of lead paint was known and documented to be a health problem in 1914. Painting was recommended to reduce contagion, and lead paint specifically was preferred due to its durability.

The government KNEW it was a health risk, and a risk specifically to children, but didn't start warning parents for another 15 years. The risk wasn't considered as great as the benefit. It wasn't outlawed until the 70s.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead of playing anagrams with "iridium", you should try to actually think before you respond. Nothing you have posted remotely resembles an "altruistic" motivation.

What does this mean?

I am starting to think that you might define "altruism" after the fact, depending on whether the outcome was beneficial or not. I don't believe that any action of any government or corporation could possibly be considered "altruistic" by your standards.

 

[laughing dog]

What does this mean?

Which words did not you understand?

I am starting to think that you might define "altruism" after the fact, depending on whether the outcome was beneficial or not. I don't believe that any action of any government or corporation could possibly be considered "altruistic" by your standards.

I have no idea why anyone would draw such an observably false conclusion.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which words did not you understand?

What do anagrams of iridium have to do with anything?