Abortion and 19th Century Science

[Xan]

Laws against murder don't take the murder rate to zero, no.  But I do believe they cut it way down.  It's certainly one more reason to not murder, therefore it suppresses the "natural" murder rate.

Do we need a law against rape to know it's wrong? How about stealing?

I'd like to think that I don't, but I can't speak for everyone.

Do you think those laws prevent rapes and theft?

I'll go out on not much of a limb and say that yes, they do; a LOT.

[Kshartle]

Laws against murder don't take the murder rate to zero, no.  But I do believe they cut it way down.  It's certainly one more reason to not murder, therefore it suppresses the "natural" murder rate.

Do we need a law against rape to know it's wrong? How about stealing?

I'd like to think that I don't, but I can't speak for everyone.

Do you think those laws prevent rapes and theft?

I'll go out on not much of a limb and say that yes, they do; a LOT.

What do you think would happen to the amount of rapes if murder was not illegal? Go up? Go down? Stay the same? How about theft? And I'm not just talking about your little....10 year old grabbing a soda or bag of chips at 7 eleven. We have theives working on the board of directors...heading up ponzi schemes, ummm....running the Fed.

[Gosso]

I fully support the latter as well.  But then turn on the TV or walk out the front door and we'll realize it is an impossible task.  It is like asking everyone to study the plays of Shakespeare, drill down into their depth and commentary on human life, and then have this impact the way that person lives their life.  It is a lovely idea, but not going to happen.  People won't change unless they want to change.  Until then we have human law to help maintain order and a civilized society.  The question is then what is a civilized society?  I think it should revolve around the moral compass (I know it won't happen, and we are currently moving in the opposite direction), others seem to think it should revolve around "if it feels good do it, as long as it doesn't appear to hurt anyone".  The latter is by far the more delicious fruit.

Human beings today treat children much better than they did in the past.  History shows humankind gets better over time, not just in his standard of living, but in his treatment of others.  There won't be any laws in a couple hundred years.  And in a hundred there won't be any gods.  No one will need either, because they won't be carrying around baskets of crazy to hide in this or that ideology.

You are more optimistic than I am!

IMO as long as people continue to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?", then religions will continue.  Also the hunger for meaning to the universe and life will push people towards religions.  There is even the possibility that people will want to live a virtuous life, which religions can help with.

I agree that as we mature as a species we become increasingly domesticated.  It is just a matter of what we do with this new freedom.  Do we turn into mindless drones (a la Brave New World), or do we thrive.  IMO the path of least resistance is towards becoming mindless pleasure-seeking drones (perhaps the top 1% will drag us along?).

Also if it costs us the lives of 60 million babies (and counting (and only in the US)) is our current system really working?  That's a lot of child sacrifice to appease the gods of sex and ego.  If there is no God or purpose behind the Universe then I agree that nothing really matters, as Dostoevsky said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".  I think there is meaning, which obviously sways my opinions.

[Kshartle]

If there is no God or purpose behind the Universe then I agree that nothing really matters, as Dostoevsky said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".

You don't think there is anything wrong with murder or rape if there really is no God? You think there is no such thing as wrong behavior unless some all-powerful being says it is?

You must think all these man-made laws are bizzare and wrong and at least in that point I would agree

[Kshartle]

I fully support the latter as well.  But then turn on the TV or walk out the front door and we'll realize it is an impossible task.  It is like asking everyone to study the plays of Shakespeare, drill down into their depth and commentary on human life, and then have this impact the way that person lives their life.  It is a lovely idea, but not going to happen.  People won't change unless they want to change.  Until then we have human law to help maintain order and a civilized society.  The question is then what is a civilized society?  I think it should revolve around the moral compass (I know it won't happen, and we are currently moving in the opposite direction), others seem to think it should revolve around "if it feels good do it, as long as it doesn't appear to hurt anyone".  The latter is by far the more delicious fruit.

Human beings today treat children much better than they did in the past.  History shows humankind gets better over time, not just in his standard of living, but in his treatment of others.  There won't be any laws in a couple hundred years.  And in a hundred there won't be any gods.  No one will need either, because they won't be carrying around baskets of crazy to hide in this or that ideology.

I hope you are right about this.

That said, I would expect that absence of laws will be an effect, not a cause.

Precisely. It can't be any other way.

[Gosso]

If there is no God or purpose behind the Universe then I agree that nothing really matters, as Dostoevsky said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".

You don't think there is anything wrong with murder or rape if there really is no God? You think there is no such thing as wrong behavior unless some all-powerful being says it is?

You must think all these man-made laws are bizzare and wrong and at least in that point I would agree

So what would happen to the person that does commit these "crimes"?  Is there still right and wrong in your society?  Do we just forgive the rapist for being horny, he was just following his instincts.  Or is it no longer possible for people to be wrong? 

This is very confusing, please enlighten me! 

[Kshartle]

ok money shot - I'm opposed to all laws, that includes laws against murder. It's a completely moot point because the only way it will be repealed is when the state is gone and humans will be a lot different than they are today. Only a whacky few totalatarians and their misguided followers will still be arguing that we need such nonsense at that point.

but murder is an initiation of force? the law against it doesn't prevent murder, but it does clarify the circumstances that allow defensive force (locking the bastard up) for the benefits of the rest of us, when the murderer isn't caught in the act and killed on the spot in self defense..

How's that working out? We have tremendous amounts of murders and other crimes, not to mention the overwhelming violence of the rulers against us forcing us in every which direction. I don't even want to go there...the violence is unbelievable. None of the laws prevent any of it.

How's the prison thing working out? Do you think the prison state makes you safer, happier, wealthier?

The thing that's difficult is to see what's unseen. Either that or understand and trust the logic of the principles at work.

It's all moot anyway. These laws will not be repealed until the majority (most likely) view them as unessesary because they've rejected the entire concept of the initiation of force (the state) as a solution to problems.

This is a long ways off and we can barely concieve of such a world and how it would work. I can somewhat because I've done a lot of thinking in this area.

[Kshartle]

If there is no God or purpose behind the Universe then I agree that nothing really matters, as Dostoevsky said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".

You don't think there is anything wrong with murder or rape if there really is no God? You think there is no such thing as wrong behavior unless some all-powerful being says it is?

You must think all these man-made laws are bizzare and wrong and at least in that point I would agree

So what would happen to the person that does commit these "crimes"?  Is there still right and wrong in your society?  Do we just forgive the rapist for being horny, he was just following his instincts.  Or is it no longer possible for people to be wrong? 

This is very confusing, please enlighten me! 

Sorry for answering with questions but I think the mental exercise is better than me just saying what I think. If I disagree with your answers I promise to share my thoughts on the questions.

What would you do if it was a family or friend that was raped and you knew where the rapist was and there was no such thing as the state?

What would you think if the guy down the street had raped someone's daughter and the father and some other men from the neighborhood decided to do something about it?

[Pointedstick]

Laws don't stop bad actions, consequences do. Laws without enforcement, or with insufficiently bad consequences, or which don't make people believe that they will be affected by those consequences, are ineffective laws. Therefore it is perfectly possible to have a society that condemns and harshly sanctions robbery, rape, and murder even without laws as long as there remains sufficient outrage against these acts and social institutions support penalties for people who commit the bad acts.

By the same token, in a society where robbery, rape, and murder are considered no big deal, no amount of laws will save the victims.

[Kshartle]

Laws don't stop bad actions, consequences do. Laws without enforcement, or with insufficiently bad consequences, or which don't make people believe that they will be affected by those consequences, are ineffective laws. Therefore it is perfectly possible to have a society that condemns and harshly sanctions robbery, rape, and murder even without laws as long as there remains sufficient outrage against these acts and social institutions support penalties for people who commit the bad acts.

By the same token, in a society where robbery, rape, and murder are considered no big deal, no amount of laws will save the victims.

Do you think it's possible that laws against murder increase the instance of crime since victims and their friends and family have no mechanism other than the state to administer consequences? The state has given itself a monopoly on administering consequences of crimes. We are so trapped mentally in this paradigm people can't even understand this. It's like the state having this monopoly is a force of nature like gravity.

It's obvious that the laws around what is money and it's creation increase the amount of infla err...theft.

[Kshartle]

i don't think it prevents murder and i said so in my above post, but in this world free of government force, how will you deal with murderers who are not killed at the scene if the crime by victims? i don't like or believe in the prison industrial complex. i prefer banishment, let the punishment fit the crime . if the crime is severe and breaks a fundamental rule of society then the punishment is "create your own society" one that has no contact with ours ... set aside a enough livable acreage, make leaving it impossible, give them a pioneer cart with enough food, tools, materials, seeds, livestock, how to books to get started and they are on their own... if they want rights then they should build a society of their peers that grants them, if they want to live in a cannibal mad-max thunder-dome... i don't care its their problem not mine....

TennPa nailed it when he said the world free of government force will be the effect of much better people in general. Much better people means more wealth and so many other things that will make murders a fraction of what they are now.

How would I deal with the murderer who fled the scene? Well....how would deal with someone who murdered your closest friends or family members if there was no state? You've been trained to think that the consequences are all the domain of the state. Break through that programming and imagine it for a moment. How about if your neighbor or friend's daughter had been attacked or murdered? What might you be inclined to do then?

[Pointedstick]

And to elaborate on my earlier point, I think it's highly relevant to the subject of abortion too. The laws in a democratic or otherwise representative society will usually, roughly mirror the average belief system and moral compass of the population. Laws get changed when people consider them obsolete, and by the same token, laws people they believe they still have a use for will simply be re-implemented. You have to change people's minds about abortion before you can ban it (if you even need to at that point).

This is also why the common libertarian question of "would society fall apart if government disappeared tomorrow?" is ineffective. Even though it probably wouldn't, it's moot since people would just re-create a new government because they're not yet ready to go without it.

That said, sometimes laws can hinder the progress of psychological change. Most humans are creatures of habit and respect institutions, so when something is illegal, it is often automatically assumed that this is a good thing. In such cases, it is more difficult to break through the psychological conditioning and often requires concentrated movements designed to shatter people's perceptions en masse. Think of something like the civil rights era. Or Gandhi's resistance to British rule. Sometimes you have to shock or shame people out of their conventional mode of thinking through especially impressive oratory, displaying senselessly victimized innocents, or just good old fashioned bandwagoning.

[Gosso]

You don't think there is anything wrong with murder or rape if there really is no God? You think there is no such thing as wrong behavior unless some all-powerful being says it is?

You must think all these man-made laws are bizzare and wrong and at least in that point I would agree

So what would happen to the person that does commit these "crimes"?  Is there still right and wrong in your society?  Do we just forgive the rapist for being horny, he was just following his instincts.  Or is it no longer possible for people to be wrong? 

This is very confusing, please enlighten me! 

Sorry for answering with questions but I think the mental exercise is better than me just saying what I think. If I disagree with your answers I promise to share my thoughts on the questions.

What would you do if it was a family or friend that was raped and you knew where the rapist was and there was no such thing as the state?

What would you think if the guy down the street had raped someone's daughter and the father and some other men from the neighborhood decided to do something about it?

So you subscribe to vigilantism?  No written laws, no courts, no fair trial.  I'll get my spider-man suit!  Wouldn't it just be a John Wayne movie?  Boys will be boys.

In an enlightened society then I agree this is a possibility.  But I'd say we are hundreds of years away from doing away with laws and their consequences.  We need to abolish all poverty and somehow tame human behavior (sedatives perhaps?).

In your society would you be opposed to perhaps an enlightened religion that mainly produced beautiful art and poetry about the mysteries of the universe?  Or is this too dangerous?

[Pointedstick]

Here is now I envision the apprehension of criminals who have fled would work out in a non-government society (pastebomb incoming):

It is easy to imagine how a non-violent issue would result in both parties to agreeing to some sort of mutually agreed-upon arbitration with a professional, but how would private justice systems bring in those who have committed violence against others and fled the scene, hoping to avoid responsibility? Not all crimes, after all, are as immediately obvious as the violent act witnessed by all or caught on camera (though a surprisingly large number of crimes are indeed perpetrated in such an obvious manner). Wouldn't some sort of police force be required to discover and bring in offenders not wanting to be caught?

In the Private Society, an investigation force would still be needed to track down the perpetrator in cases where a crime is committed out of sight and the perpetrator has fled. People could engage the services of private investigators or even private investigation firms in response to crimes committed against them. Many such investigators and firms would likely adopt popular policies such as not being paid unless they found the perpetrator or recovered the stolen property, similar to how many lawyers operate their firms in today's government societies. This “private investigator”? system still functions smoothly in many government societies today in cases when the official police force is uninterested in the matter or proves incompetent, offering hundreds of years of evidence for private investigators' ability to find hidden criminals and solve difficult crimes.

In cases of murder, the victim's relatives or friends would be the ones to hire the investigators. In the absence of friends or relatives, anybody else interested in the matter could hire the investigator, taking on both the cost of the investigation and also the compensatory reward should the murderer be found and forced to pay, essentially “homesteading”? the criminal proceedings in the extremely rare cases when the victim was someone with nobody else who particularly cared about their death. If this sounds implausible, it would at least be no worse than the status quo under most government societies. Murderous sociopaths have always preyed upon those at the margins of society with few family connections. Runaways, prostitutes and homeless people are at great risk of victimization despite the government justice system. Many of these crimes are actually never solved, tragically enough. At least in the Private Society, strangers would have a financial incentive to solve such crimes.

Once the investigator or investigation firm found the suspected criminal, violence or the threat of it would likely be needed to bring them before an arbitrator. If the criminal did not go willingly, the investigators would need to use the typical tools of coercion used by police today: handcuffs, firearms, and the like. The burden of proof would have to be extremely strong for the investigators to take the risk of using such violence; they would be placing themselves in jeopardy from the suspect's own capacity to pursue legal action against them on very real charges of kidnapping should it turn out that they had the wrong man. As a result, the case would have to be virtually bulletproof before investigators felt willing to take the risk of forcibly apprehending a fleeing suspect, in stark contrast to government police officers who will handcuff, taze, and shoot nearly anyone in any circumstance, it seems, safe in the knowledge that their wanton and irresponsible use of unnecessary force will be protected by their brethren closing ranks around them in any subsequent investigation. Not even children and pregnant women are safe! Typical consequences for such outrageous brutality include desk duty and paid leave, with almost no police officers actually being prosecuted for committing the types of violent crimes against innocents that would get an average person living in a government society a harsh prison sentences for a similar assault or kidnapping.

[Kshartle]

What would you do if it was a family or friend that was raped and you knew where the rapist was and there was no such thing as the state?

What would you think if the guy down the street had raped someone's daughter and the father and some other men from the neighborhood decided to do something about it?

So you subscribe to vigilantism?  No written laws, no courts, no fair trial.  I'll get my spider-man suit!  Wouldn't it just be a John Wayne movie?  Boys will be boys.

In an enlightened society then I agree this is a possibility.  But I'd say we are hundreds of years away from doing away with laws and their consequences.  We need to abolish all poverty and somehow tame human behavior (sedatives perhaps?).

In your society would you be opposed to perhaps an enlightened religion that mainly produced beautiful art and poetry about the mysteries of the universe?  Or is this too dangerous?

Gosso.....you are inferring my answers and not answering.

I guess I will infer yours to mean that you would go kill or otherwise impose some consequence in the first instance and you would not be concerned in the latter instance.

Is that correct?

[Kshartle]

sounds like you are proposing a rational anarchy solution (moon is a harsh mistress).. the problem is angry victims don't weigh evidence or make levelheaded decisions, if we let the victims friends and family determine guilt and punish the "guilty" seems like a recipe for every neighborhood to become a Hatfield and the McCoy's never ending feud of accusations and vengeance... 
in a far more enlightened society than we have i could see some possibility for some of the government functions prosecuting crime to be privatized/ personalised but we are so far from that it is still a bit sci fi to me

What do the police do when they arrive at a crime scene?

[Mountaineer]

Laws don't stop bad actions, consequences do. Laws without enforcement, or with insufficiently bad consequences, or which don't make people believe that they will be affected by those consequences, are ineffective laws. Therefore it is perfectly possible to have a society that condemns and harshly sanctions robbery, rape, and murder even without laws as long as there remains sufficient outrage against these acts and social institutions support penalties for people who commit the bad acts.

By the same token, in a society where robbery, rape, and murder are considered no big deal, no amount of laws will save the victims.

Interesting perspective from a non-believer.  Think about the presuppositions necessary to hold this view:

Victim - a possible presupposition is the one raped, robbed or murdered did not want that to happen.  Why is that?  How do you know they did not want that to happen?  What is the origin of the moral compass that is apparently operational?

Laws do not stop bad actions - a possible presupposition is that we are completely free to follow the law or not.  Why don't we?

Laws that do not have enforced consequences are ineffective - a possible presupposition is that behavior is caused by an external force, or comes from within due to wanting to follow the guidance of that external force.  Why is that necessary?  Where did that desire come from?

So, PS, are you really sure you are a non-believer?  I think the seed is there and perhaps you are not aware it is sprouting. 

For me, this is just another observation of why Christianity is so appealing; it is for me the most logical explanation for my scientifically trained mind of "why" humans behave the way they do, "why" the universe functions exactly the way it needs to to stay in existence, and "why" I can be at peace when the world around me seems to be going to "hell".  I know that I am and will be OK and absolutely nothing other men can do to me matters in the long run.  But that is just me.

[Gosso]

What would you do if it was a family or friend that was raped and you knew where the rapist was and there was no such thing as the state?

What would you think if the guy down the street had raped someone's daughter and the father and some other men from the neighborhood decided to do something about it?

So you subscribe to vigilantism?  No written laws, no courts, no fair trial.  I'll get my spider-man suit!  Wouldn't it just be a John Wayne movie?  Boys will be boys.

In an enlightened society then I agree this is a possibility.  But I'd say we are hundreds of years away from doing away with laws and their consequences.  We need to abolish all poverty and somehow tame human behavior (sedatives perhaps?).

In your society would you be opposed to perhaps an enlightened religion that mainly produced beautiful art and poetry about the mysteries of the universe?  Or is this too dangerous?

Gosso.....you are inferring my answers and not answering.

I guess I will infer yours to mean that you would go kill or otherwise impose some consequence in the first instance and you would not be concerned in the latter instance.

Is that correct?

In the first case there would obviously be consequences.  Perhaps there would be a 1-800-KILLER1 number that I could use, and they would dispose of that vile creature.  Hopefully they don't get the wrong dude...that would be embarrassing.

In the second case I assume they would call the same number.

I suppose this provides quicker results, although I'd be rather annoyed if someone called the 1-800-KILLER1 number because I cut them off in traffic.

[Xan]

Here's an interesting (and brief) article on the perfectibility of man.  I think that's a delusion which is quite common here.

http://mortalweight.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... f-man.html

This fellow refers to the "tyranny of nature", which is something Moda often brings up, although not quite with that phrasing.  Also, I've pointed out before that this belief in an ultimate, law-free society is exactly as silly as any Marxist utopia ever dreamed up, and the article points out why: both Marx and Kshartle have great faith in the perfectibility of man, which is a false doctrine.

[Kshartle]

sounds like you are proposing a rational anarchy solution (moon is a harsh mistress).. the problem is angry victims don't weigh evidence or make levelheaded decisions, if we let the victims friends and family determine guilt and punish the "guilty" seems like a recipe for every neighborhood to become a Hatfield and the McCoy's never ending feud of accusations and vengeance...
in a far more enlightened society than we have i could see some possibility for some of the government functions prosecuting crime to be privatized/ personalised but we are so far from that it is still a bit sci fi to me

What do the police do when they arrive at a crime scene?

argument by question? et tu kshartle

so are you proposing (i have to guess here) that society is made up of individuals calm enough, smart enough, rational enough, skilled enough (even though its probably its the first crime they have had to do so) to investigate a crime scene, interview witnesses collect evidence, handle evidence without corrupting it, understand and follow rigorous protocols, follow leads etc?

don't get me wrong i think we should be headed in the same direction you "likely" do, i am a big fan of "rational anarchy" but i don't expect us to get there in my life time and possibly never, we cant even accomplish making basic literacy happen for a significant portion of the population, (governments fault ). Just going cold turkey on government doesn't seem like the best way to get a government free world.. seems more likely to end in mob rule, which becomes BIG mob rule, which is no different from government and probably worse..

No I'm literally asking what the police do at a crime scence.

They investigate. They collect evidence, they take pictures. Why do they do that and what would better than doing all that?

What is the best evidence possible?

[Kshartle]

Here's an interesting (and brief) article on the perfectibility of man.  I think that's a delusion which is quite common here.

http://mortalweight.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... f-man.html

This fellow refers to the "tyranny of nature", which is something Moda often brings up, although not quite with that phrasing.  Also, I've pointed out before that this belief in an ultimate, law-free society is exactly as silly as any Marxist utopia ever dreamed up, and the article points out why: both Marx and Kshartle have great faith in the perfectibility of man, which is a false doctrine.

I have no faith in the perfectibility of man. Statists do. They think we can get perfect people to control us.

It's because I reject such nonsense that I oppose the state and the laws and the violence. Create an agency of violence to solve the problem of violence.....wow way to think that one out.

Voluntary cooperation results in win-win and is far superior than the initiation of force to solving problems. I am confident that man will keep finding better ways to solve his problems, as he constantly does.

Good job totally mischaracterizing though.

[Pointedstick]

Here's an interesting (and brief) article on the perfectibility of man.  I think that's a delusion which is quite common here.

http://mortalweight.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... f-man.html

This fellow refers to the "tyranny of nature", which is something Moda often brings up, although not quite with that phrasing.  Also, I've pointed out before that this belief in an ultimate, law-free society is exactly as silly as any Marxist utopia ever dreamed up, and the article points out why: both Marx and Kshartle have great faith in the perfectibility of man, which is a false doctrine.

I agree. This is why--though I do believe that over time most individual humans are generally becoming less brutal--I try to only make arguments in favor of a stateless society that in no way depend on it. Mutual consequences, public information on past behavior, and the fact that lots of people will be carrying guns around offer some pretty stiff penalties for acting like a barbarian. We may never be angels, but I think we can evolve a society that makes us think twice about behaving like devils.

[Pointedstick]

argument by question? et tu kshartle

No I'm literally asking what the police do at a crime scence.

They investigate. They collect evidence, they take pictures. Why do they do that and what would better than doing all that?

What is the best evidence possible?

again i don't know what your question is arguing
-that self defense is better than government force? of course it is... but the good guy doesn't always win the gun fight....
- that everything should be monitored by cameras at all times? might be a solution but it is a bit thin on privacy, or does your wanting privacy eliminate the need to go after those that killed you?

the idea that private company's can investigate better and serve justice (not getting the wrong guy) better than government. maybe true in some future world, but practical application opens a whole mess of issues and conflicts that need to be resolved, i think pointedstick is trying to work through something like this... i bet he would agree its not as easy as it sounds..

For sure.

[Xan]

It's because I reject such nonsense that I oppose the state and the laws and the violence. Create an agency of violence to solve the problem of violence.....wow way to think that one out.

Government is an agency of violence, whose effect is to lower the overall violence in society.  Forcing people to not be violent in fact reduces violence.  There's no particular reason to expect that the minimum of the graph of violence as a function of government is at zero government.

Voluntary cooperation results in win-win and is far superior than the initiation of force to solving problems.

Maybe, maybe not.  You still haven't resolved the use of defensive force across varying definitions of property.

I am confident that man will keep finding better ways to solve his problems, as he constantly does.

Right, because you believe in the perfectibility of man.  I don't think we're really much better people than ever.

[Mountaineer]

Here's an interesting (and brief) article on the perfectibility of man.  I think that's a delusion which is quite common here.

http://mortalweight.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... f-man.html

This fellow refers to the "tyranny of nature", which is something Moda often brings up, although not quite with that phrasing.  Also, I've pointed out before that this belief in an ultimate, law-free society is exactly as silly as any Marxist utopia ever dreamed up, and the article points out why: both Marx and Kshartle have great faith in the perfectibility of man, which is a false doctrine.

Thanks for the article link, Xan.  I thought it was right on the money - but then again, it just espoused my beliefs that far from man becoming increasingly perfected, he is becoming increasingly unperfected (sometimes due to his ignorance, sometimes due to his intelligence).  The perfection graph has its ups and downs, but the overall trend in my opinion is downward and will be until Christ returns to judge all and initiates the new heaven and earth.  The downward spikes are usually quite dramatic and overwhelm the slight upward ticks (e.g. downward spikes: Black Death, opium wars, treaties that caused WWI, Hitler, Stalin's genocide, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Sudan, abortion, banning of DDT, etc. and upward ticks: Mother Theresa, widespread use of antibiotics and antivirals, Martin Luther, industrial revolution (?), refrigeration, etc.).

... Mountaineer