And yet, you have provided no evidence of such. The evidence of harm is far from conclusive, and given the replication crisis, your stating these claims as facts is completely unjustified.
> Not they are harmful because they didn't exist before the 1900s.
What do you think the non-existence of these things prior to the 1900s proves exactly, that you keep bringing it up as if it's a relevant point? My points about the 1900s appear to be just as relevant to the discussion as your points.
> I see a pattern here where you state that common scientific knowledge is wrong unless I provide citations for it
I see a pattern where you keep claiming something is "common scientific knowledge" without any providing evidence of such a consensus.
> then when I do you just ignore those citations and the entire subject and proceed to call some other common scientific knowledge wrong. You can use google too.
When you do? When was that exactly? You've provided a single link to some articles that talk about CO2's effects on plant growth, completely ignoring the fact that I had already acknowledged that even if nutritional density were decreasing, the abundance is sufficient to feed the growing population.
Further, I'm not the one making dozens of unsubstantiated claims, you are. The burden of proof is on you here, not me to prove or disprove your claims, and yet I've gone out of my way to correct your misconceptions about history.
> I am well aware that people post common misconceptions on their blogs. If I link to a blog post about how the earth is really flat will that make it so?
Convenient that you ignore the paper that mentions the prevalence of osteoporosis is due to the aging population. Here's another one for you to deny: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24087808
> The history of type 2 diabetes is easy to learn about, it did not exist until the early 1900s.
Oh, do you mean it did not exist as a diagnosis? Because that seems like a fairly trivial point. If you literally mean that humans from history did not suffer from maladies that are a result of our biology, then that's a much stronger claim, so prove it.
> They didn't waste food, therefore they were all starving. Brilliant logic.
Nice how you just skip all the mentions of how common starvation was, and the actual justification for feasting in early winter.
> You linked to poor evidence for suicide rates. That is not the same as no evidence.
I asked for evidence. You have not provided any. Numerous sources I found all discuss how no robust evidence exists. Thus far, there is literally no reason to believe your claims, and considerable reason to disbelieve them.
> Neither of your links are even related to my statement, so going "DURRRR RONG!!11" seems a little odd.
You claimed that stone age hunter/gatherer societies were healthier. The first link I provided definitively proves otherwise.
You claimed that stone age hunter/gatherer societies didn't suffer from mental illness like depression. Historical documents discussing depressive symptoms are common. Are we to take this as evidence of some depression-like condition that's not depression? Are you seriously claiming that that's more believable?
> That's possible. Or perhaps you've fallen into the much more common trap of romanticizing the present.
Except I haven't made any such claims. At best, I've implied that there is no reason to think historical humans were much different in the maladies they suffered, except modern circumstances and abundance have clearly led to significantly lower infant and adult mortality. Which is actually well documented, commonly known fact, and runs contrary to what you have claimed.
> Again, there's a big difference between "the evidence is not strong enough to know that with 100% certainty" which is the case and "completely baseless" which is what you wish.
Since you've provided no evidence at all, and the evidence I've cited so far actually runs counter to what you claim, "baseless" is pretty accurate.