![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm sitting back and enjoying the current war controversy opinionated discussion over at ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
little_details . The original poster's question is, basically, If a guy back on a hypothethical earth roughly equivalent to 10,000 B.C. gets his legs mauled by a Big Nasty Animal, will his wounds get infected, and how likely/survivable is amptuation?
Until comment #10, the consensus of most people - particularly #5 and on - was NO! He's as dead as a doornail! THOSE STUPID PEOPLE back then did't know squat about infection or surgery or amputation or stopping bleeding or anything!!!! And I know this because I know infection is life-threatening because it happened to ME in the 21st century!!!!1
...because no one who ever got even cut back then ever escaped infection or failed to die of it. HA.
I do hate statements of this nature. Especially when cited without actual evidence of any kind. O hai, archeaology? Exists.
Which is what commenter #10 proceeded to point out. Finally.
It's not as if I really even care about the subject at all. But I like truth, which includes getting a true picture of How Things Were, in all its variety and strangeness. But people extrapolate freely from the specific to the general (Citing one's own hospitalization is evidence of what, please? Your failure to use soap and water?), and more heinously, state even a fairly accurate norm as the no-exceptions rule. It's like the thing with weather, and temperature averages: An average is made up of a whole lot of below-averages and above-averages. You can't take an average and then ignore everything outside like it didn't exist.
And you know what?little_details is about getting help for writing, not about researching for papers. Some of the best stories involve some of the wildest chances out there. If it could happen, go ahead and write it!
little_details . The original poster's question is, basically, If a guy back on a hypothethical earth roughly equivalent to 10,000 B.C. gets his legs mauled by a Big Nasty Animal, will his wounds get infected, and how likely/survivable is amptuation?Until comment #10, the consensus of most people - particularly #5 and on - was NO! He's as dead as a doornail! THOSE STUPID PEOPLE back then did't know squat about infection or surgery or amputation or stopping bleeding or anything!!!! And I know this because I know infection is life-threatening because it happened to ME in the 21st century!!!!1
...because no one who ever got even cut back then ever escaped infection or failed to die of it. HA.
I do hate statements of this nature. Especially when cited without actual evidence of any kind. O hai, archeaology? Exists.
Which is what commenter #10 proceeded to point out. Finally.
It's not as if I really even care about the subject at all. But I like truth, which includes getting a true picture of How Things Were, in all its variety and strangeness. But people extrapolate freely from the specific to the general (Citing one's own hospitalization is evidence of what, please? Your failure to use soap and water?), and more heinously, state even a fairly accurate norm as the no-exceptions rule. It's like the thing with weather, and temperature averages: An average is made up of a whole lot of below-averages and above-averages. You can't take an average and then ignore everything outside like it didn't exist.
And you know what?
little_details is about getting help for writing, not about researching for papers. Some of the best stories involve some of the wildest chances out there. If it could happen, go ahead and write it!
