To repeat Mr. Sowell's question - compared to what?

Europe is failing its children when it comes to air pollution, exposing nearly all children across the continent to air that falls below healthy standards and delaying the clean-up of the sources of pollution, research has found.

Breathing dirty air causes the premature death of at least 1,200 children across Europe each year, and many thousands more are afflicted with physical and mental health problems that could have lifelong impacts, according to the latest assessment of air pollution by the European Environment Agency.

Sure, that’s not good. We’ve managed to get over our feeling that the problem with modern capitalism is the absence of chimneys up to stuff waifs. We’re with the idea that less pollution is - on its own as an idea - a good thing.

But we do still insist on asking that question from Thomas Sowell - compared to what?

Fortunately we’re given a number here. 1,200 children a year. Deaths. No, we do not think that child deaths are a good idea. We do think we should be working to minimise them.

But now think about what would happen in the absence of a modern civilisation. In fact, just think back a couple of hundred years before a modern civilisation. The usual rubric is that 50% of children died before completing puberty - say, age 15. We’ll use that age simply because that is one of the cut off points that the usual population demographics does use.

The 0-15 age group is about 15% of the EU’s 450 million people. Translating that to the 750 million of Europe will be wrong but still instructive. 110 million children, of whom we would expect 50% to die before they are 15. Divide that by 15 to gain an annual toll from the absence of civilisation.

7.3 million children a year dead from not having modernity. 1,200 a year dead from the pollution - just the air pollution - effects of having modernity. We’re probably onto something of a winner here. Not that a civilisation or socioeconomic system should be judged solely by the child death numbers but we think that would be something usefully very high up indeed any shortlist if we’ve got to pick the one and only measure.

No, this is not to say that we shrug and accept those 1,200 choking their way into an early - possibly white coffin - grave. Rather, we concentrate on the idea that everything, but everything, has costs and benefits. So, we must be aware that yes, reducing air pollution might well reduce the number of grieving parents. But rolling back modernity will increase those funereal processions. We should only be doing the things - if we are to use this sole measure of child deaths - which reduce the net number of them. Or, as we so often say, where the benefits outweigh the costs.

Having fewer coal powered electricity stations might well be a good idea concerning air pollution. Not having dispatchable power 24/7/365 might well kill more. We do not say it will, we suggest it might and that that’s the sort of decision making that has to be done.

Or, as we insist at a higher level of abstraction. Anyone at all who insists that we must solve this particular and specific problem regardless of the cost is wrong. For the cost might well be greater than the problem being complained about - compared to what is the grand question to be asked of everything.