Life in London at that time was indeed terrible.

But why do you think the poor people didn't simply walk out of town, out to where life was simpler, cleaner, and healthier? Because as bad as it was in London, if one didn't have money, it was worse in the countryside. Why? Because poor people didn't have maps (and usually didn't know how to read), didn't have land on which to grow food, didn't have family to go to (or the family members didn't have enough food or money to share), didn't have shelter, and couldn't protect themselves against whoever or whatever they ran into.

Your article reminds me of all the accusations conservative rural America makes against liberal big cities, all the while never realizing that life is generally better (and with greater opportunities) in the big cities. And yes, I've lived both sides of that argument.

Lastly, I'm unfollowing you. I cannot stand reading articles by a writer who repeatedly points out how the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket, but provides few if any solutions, and even less hope.

You can do better, Jessica. I hope you take this as the constructive criticism it is.