Here’s a story about something that seems good but causes catastrophe. Sweden was the first country to experience polio. Then, polio marched around the globe. Nobody could figure out why. Sweden was a socialist country and it was the first country where the do-gooders had mandated inside flush toilets. Twenty years (one generation) after that milestone was achieved...polio. It turns out that for millions of years we’ve carried polio in our feces. We never suffered from it because we were constantly exposed to dried feces dust containing polio. Then, for an entire generation, no exposure and therefore no immunity.
So, along comes anti-bacterial soap. It kills 98% of the bacteria on your hands. But that’s like killing all the grass and weeds in your yard. You’ll soon have a lawn full of weeds and those weeds will be immune to the poison you’ve used on them.
What could go wrong? (I avoid anti-bacterial scrubs. If you’re not performing surgery, soap is just fine.)
“something that seems good but causes catastrophe”
It was more generally due to improved water sanitation, not just indoor flush toilets.
So while you are correct that polio outbreaks were a horrific side effect of improved sanitation, the reason water sanitation was developed was because of outbreaks of other diseases DUE to poor water sanition, such as cholera.
I have heard that argument...seems to be the same one as those warn about the use of antibiotics.
My point is more to the philosophy of whether it ought to be a government mandate....especially a central government as opposed to a local, more accountable government.
Thank you for that reference. I did look it up and had a fascinating read last night.
I don’t think that anything expresses the law of unintended consequences as well as this.