Really interesting that the Romans already knew that lead pipes were bad. To be fair, though, they had a lot of other spurious beliefs, and I can understand why people would have assumed it was just superstition. Especially since the toxicity is very slow.

> That seems like a terrible idea because people forget why useful regulations were needed.

To me that seems to indicate that we need to keep a record of why laws are made, so that the case is simply ready to be made when the sun is due to set.

Neither contemporary recordings nor history books are hard to find.

But the people who have something to gain by unwisely rolling back regulation, and who have money to buy themselves platforms, are deliberately not talking about the reasons the laws exist, so short of something more akin to state control of media, what are you going to do?

> To me that seems to indicate that we need to keep a record of why laws are made

Whether and why a practice is useful generally has little or nothing to do with people's understanding of whether and why it is useful. The arguments people advance for everything, including valuable things, are almost uniformly nonsense and easy to disprove.

So, a record of why laws are made wouldn't really serve any purpose.

Laws should be measured against the reasons they were created.

If you start doing a good thing for a bad reason, you should stop?

An alternative would be if instead of sunset provisions laws are made to explicitly include testable goals, and a process for challenging them by proving they don't achieve their intended goal.

On the other hand, what about autism and vaccines? Or wifi emissions?

and I wonder what they will say about cellphone radiation in 30 years? (or some time in the future where there's not a strong litiginous cellphone industry)