On: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall...

[AshamedCaptain]

> So often any of these single causal theories forget to look at timespan. Which was either decades or centuries...

I don't think anyone is (was?) suggesting that someone replaced the pipes overnight and they were all dead the next morning, but rather that it was an extremely gradual process that after centuries of extending its implantation managed to reduce cognitive capabilities by a couple points, etc.

The simple counterargument "lead use didn't increase" manages to kill such a theory, though.

[hinkley → AshamedCaptain]

In software we (or at least I) often see situations where careful forethought put systems and checks in place that survive long after the responsible parties are gone, and it can be difficult to identify or accept that the project failed this year because Tom quit last year. There are too many forces arrayed against looking too closely at those situations, and once the wheels come off there's no longer a quorum to even rationally discuss such a thing, except amongst a few veterans having a beer and trying not to draw too much attention to themselves.

If you idiot-proof something well enough, it can take a long time for the Universe to invent an idiot good enough to pull the whole thing down. We tend to look at Rome as one of the oldest well-documented cases of the power of logistics, so it's not outside of the realm of reason to suggest that a good process might survive even a generation or two before Chesterton's Fence wins out. But whether that's due to a loss of cleverness or just human nature is likely going to be hard to prove.

[kevin_thibedeau → AshamedCaptain]

Water piping isn't likely the primary cause of Roman lead poisoning. They were putting (acidic) wine into lead ewers to sweeten it and directly applying lead acetate powder to food.