Humanities desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 19

About a ID

Please help me to get an email id od Swamini Daya Matha the president of SRF. My ID is [email address removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.224.106 (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your email address to avoid you getting lots of spam - we will reply here. Are you saying you want to find an email address for this person? I can't find one on their website, so it probably isn't publicly available. Just email SRF and let them forward it. --Tango (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish independence

Does anyone know of any detailed studies done into the financial viability of Scottish independence? I've seen lots of talk about how much Scotland contributes to the Treasury and how much it gets out of the Treasury, but nobody seems to include the extra costs that would be incurred by an independent Scotland. There are fixed costs to being a sovereign entity that are independent of size (some defence costs, diplomatic costs, etc.), would an independent Scotland be able to afford these things? (There would be increased costs for the rest of the UK too, but since the rest of the UK is much larger than Scotland the extra costs would be proportionally smaller.) --Tango (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recent report by Professor Ronald McDonald of the University of Glasgow (how can anyone argue with someone called that?) argued that "fiscal autonomy" for Scotland would benefit both Scotland and the rump UK (ref). Fiscal autonomy isn't quite the same as the economy of a fully independent country; knowing exactly how that might go means the academics and politicians have to hypothesise the details of the settlement that Scottish negotiators make with their Westminster counterparts. The major uncertain factor is oil revenue; this was the subject of the 1974 McCrone Report (commissioned by the UK Government) which concluded "An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future." (ref); this report was classified secret until recently. Now the North Sea isn't the Bonanza it once was, but there's still quite a lot left. How much value that would be for an independent Scottish exchequer depends chiefly on two factors: firstly on how much of the North Sea is ceeded to Scotland as part of the settlement, and secondly on the future price of oil. It's not at all certain how the North Sea would be divided up between the two countries - would it follow the same trajectory as the border (which meets the sea at Lamberton, Scottish Borders heading roughly NE) or would it proceed due east, or at some other angle. The disposition of the seabed was reportedly manipulated by Whitehall in 1975, in order to disadvantage an independent Scotland. (ref). The second matter is the future price of oil; if it's high, that makes it economic to explore the remaining parts of the North Sea, and to expend more effort extracting every drop from the existing North Sea fields; if it's higher still that may make it economic for the large oilfields west of Shetland to be exploited wholesale ((ref)(ref); that's less practical if oil is cheap. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the specific line items you mention (the reserved matters, essentially) really only defense is a major cost; of the UK budget roughly 9% is defense, some £42B. I don't know the FCO's current budget, but this document puts it at about £1B in 2000, of which (just pro-rating) you'd expect Scotland's share to be £100M; even with inflation and the inefficiencies you talk about, we're maybe talking £150M, which really isn't a lot. But take into account the avowed stance of Scottish politicians (SNP, Scottish Labour, Scottish Lib-dem); they seem dead set on a much less interventionist, and a non-nuclear, defense posture, so you could expect that £4.2B Scottish proportion to fall quite a bit (much more than the foreign inefficiencies you talk about). But all this depends on the settlement, as above. No-one can tell what price Scotland will negociate for its proportion of Trident (a particularly militant Scotland could in theory end up with de-facto control of three Trident boats; a similar problem/opportunity struck Khazakstan and Ukraine, and we really don't know what deal they struck with Moscow); we'd just be guessing as to what defense commitments the UK would extract out of Scotland (Scotland has a border, coast, and land area out of proportion to its population, making it expensive to defend). And we don't know to what extent the EU's foreign affairs and (just maybe) defense policy will progress, making it less necessary for the smaller EU countries to have embassies etc. in every little country (they just leave it to the EU guy instead). As with gross revenue, above, it's all about the settlement, really. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What remains is a) the one-time cost of scission (which one would imagine would be cheaper than the cost of the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, given that so much is devolved already, but surely several hundred million quid) and costs (or savings) associated with stuff that isn't divided between the two. Again we're on the horns of an unknown settlement. It's pretty certain that, just because SCO and UK become different countries, they wouldn't completely divide everything (perhaps with cross-border bodies like the North/South Ministerial Council serving as a template); it's likely that the two will remain bound in defense and intelligence matters for decades. Rather than speculate about how much this will all cost, given we have so many unknowns, I wonder if anyone has costed the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia - I'll ask a fresh question to that effect below. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus genealogies

Why are the genealogies of Jesus different and seem to have inconsistencies? 208.180.136.118 (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies. Can you be more specific? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are various theories as to why this is the case, some of which aim to explain away the inconsistency, others of which claim that one or both are incorrect. Genealogy of Jesus#Explanations for divergence deals with this in some detail. Warofdreams talk 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the differences between that of Matthew's genealogy and that of Luke's genealogy? [1] [2] 208.180.136.118 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names can be confused from one source to another. The lists of the Disciples also vary. But you're missing the more obvious inconsistency, which is that God is Jesus' father, Joseph is not, so why does Joseph's genealogy matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a difference in the genealogies. [3] 208.180.136.118 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep asking the same question? Are you having trouble understanding us? First of all, there are two different genealogies - one through Mary and one through Joseph. Have you looked at the links that have been posted? That you have even posted?

To reply to you Bugs, Joseph's ancestry may have been given to show that he was a descendant of David as well, so that if people didn't get that Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, they would still see that he fit the bill of prophecy as a son of David. —Akrabbim^talk 14:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers. Sounds like a ligitimate question to me, as the responses below seem to have come to the conclusion that nobody has the foggiest idea why the differences. There does not even seem to be a consenses if Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth. Some say a descendant of David and others say (John 7:41 - 43) it is pretty clear that Jesus was thought originally not to be a descendant of David nor born in Bethlehem. Sounds like a lot of "theories" to me and very confusing. Maybe somebody can clear all this up, Christian or not. You would have thought that over all these centuries and the millions of people studing this issue that there would have been a consenses on this by now. Whassup? Maybe Bugs Bunny has an answer, however I doubt it. --67.99.29.30 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of greater concern to the OP is that religious thinking, unlike scientific thinking, requires axiomatic truths. Science abhors axiomatic truths; which is a Good Thing. You want your scientists to be willing to explore every avenue of research, and not to accept anything as "true" just because it is. That's fine, since science is not really equipped to explore religious axioms. In order to be a religious person, at some level you must have faith. That is, at the core of religion are religious axioms which are accepted as Truth without proof, even more importantly Truth without the possibility of proof, which is of course, the definition of "religious faith". Now, the Genealogies of Jesus are not these sort of axiomatic Truths. There must be some logical, scientifically provable reason for the inconsistancy, which is also consistant itself with the axiom that the Bible is 100% true and that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, etc. etc. As a religious minded person, you can accept that:

We may not now know the explanation for the inconsistancy, but the explanation would be logical and easily understandable should we ever know it.
Any possible explanation which has the conclusion that the axioms of Christianity are wrong must itself be wrong; so we can discard those.

Thus, any of the explanations wherby Luke's or Matthew's genealogy is actually describing Mary's decent; or that one traces a biological genealogy, and the other a legal genealogy, or that one traces a direct father-son genealogy, while the other skips generations, could each be correct. The religious person would hold that one of these is probably true, or another as-yet-unthought-of but equally plausible explanation is true, and not knowing which is true right now is OK. The conclusion that, because we are unable to pick which explanation works right now means that the whole thing is made up, and God does not exist, or that Christianity must all be wrong because we have not proven one or the other of these explanations, is itself a faulty conclusion. It is functionally exactly the same thing that the anti-evolutionary nutjobs do when they find some hole in the fossil record; they claim that because there is not yet any adequate explanation, that the only explanation must be that "all of evolution is wrong". This is clearly a bad conclusion, and its the same bad conclusion that holds that because there is not yet any one definitive explanation which explains how both Matthew's and Luke's geneology can both be true, then one must somehow reject all of Christianity as false. --Jayron32 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to the question is that nobody knows why the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke are so different. The discussion linked above by Warofdreams discusses several theories:

That Joseph had two fathers—one natural and one legal—as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers.
That the legal line of inheritance is traced throughout one of the genealogies. That Luke’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. That Matthew’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. That one or both of the genealogies are incorrect.

The line of descent mattered to Matthew and Luke because they wanted to show that Jesus was the heir of David, a matter of Jewish law and not of biological descent. For those who do not accept the gospels as literal truth, there is good reason to think that the reason the two accounts differ is that they were both made up. Jesus himself seems to question the relevance of descent from David in Mark 12:35 - 37. In addition, the two accounts occur in the respective birth stories, which are radically different and seemingly cannot both be true. For example, in the Matthew birth story, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem, while in Luke they live in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for a census. The discussion in John 7:41 - 43 seems to make it pretty clear that Jesus was thought originally not to be a descendant of David or born in Bethlehem, and that these facts were problematic for those who considered them important for messiahship. John M Baker (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anything else in this thread, thank you for treating me to the phrase "uterine brothers". Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to John M Baker's correct account just above and ignoring any "special truth" in this particular case, the general truth about multiple alternative genealogies is that, except in cases where one is simply in error, they are symptoms of the fact that they are constructions that have been invented for a purpose, in other words they are pseudo-etiological, inventing desirable connections. The genealogy's specific purpose in Matthew, as with that text's other historicisings, is to demonstrate that certain passages, read as if they had been intended as prophesies, have now "come true". For "House of David" see Davidic line.--Wetman (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wetman can explain further on "they are symptoms of the fact that they are constructions that have been invented for a purpose, in other words they are pseudo-etiological, inventing desirable connections" as that is too deep for me. --67.99.29.30 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what is meant is that related to allegory like what I see done in Middle Ages literature. This might account for the different genealogies if they were invented for some specific purpose other than family histories. That might account for the discrepancies if I am seeing the meaning of allegory correctly. Perhaps they were meant to be something like a fable or parable.--67.99.29.30 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on anagoge certain Medieval Theologians describe four methods of interpreting the Scriptures: literal/historical, allegorical, tropological (moral), and anagogical. A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. A fable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim. So the genealogies of Jesus could be looked at certainly from different viewpoints, from literal to anagogical (when by a visible fact an invisible is declared). --LordGorval (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For how many years was mahjong officially banned in China?

Wiki's article on mahjong states:

This game was banned by the government of People's Republic of China when the country was founded in 1949. The new Communist government forbade any gambling activities, which were regarded as symbols of capitalist corruption. After the Cultural Revolution, the game was revived, dissociated with gambling elements (see below). Today, it is a favorite pastime in China and other Chinese-speaking communities.

but the quote is unreferenced and no official end date to the ban is given. I think this is quite an extraordinary (though certainly believable) claim, and was wondering if anyone had an RL to expand upon it? 61.189.63.208 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source as requested, but mahjong was made illegal during the Cultural Revolution, in some areas earlier.

Mahjong, in its non-gambling form, was legalised on 23 October 1985 when the Ministry of Public Security issued the Notice on the Public Security Authorities No Longer Interfering on the Manufacture and Sale of Mahjong and Playing Cards ("关于公安机关不再干预麻将、纸牌的制造、销售问题的通知") -- that's the primary source and I'm sure looking it up will take you to the reliable sources you need. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this source to the article to confirm the ban in 1949. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet rejecting Ophelia

In the play Hamlet, there is a relatively famous scene in which Hamlet, pretending to be mad, rejects Ophelia (The nunnery speech). What were Hamlet's motives for doing this? Was it just because he didn't want to blow his cover or was there a deeper reason? Library Seraph (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He had a feeling that he would not be getting out of his predicament alive, so to spare her grief he rejected her. His pandering clearly backfired as she soon meets her maker, leaving him in grief. At least, he would be if he didn't have a dozen other pressing problems. Vranak (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandering? "I do not think that word means what you think it means." :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. When you act primarily to cater to another's feelings, rather than what's authentic from your perspective, it's pandering. The whole 'cruel to be kind' deal. Hamlet was so vain that he figured Ophelia couldn't take whatever was to come, so he pushed her away from him in a preemptive action. Vranak (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Inigo was just saying, "pandering" means something different from what you're saying: [4] "Patronizing" might be the word you're looking for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is, as you said Vranak, that Hamlet was (supposedly) acting for her benefit but against her wishes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, was Ophelia engaged in prostitution? That's what "pandering" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point is clear regardless of whether you agree with my word choice. Vranak (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to come across as snarky, Vranek, but to hint to you that "pandering" is in modern English usually reserved for describing the action of providing someone the sexual services of someone else in the expectation of reward, so if you were to use it in another context you could inadvertently cause perplexity or offence. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

These are just the first few examples out of the very many that come up, and all are from professional, edited publications. Vranak's is a perfectly widespread usage. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Usually" does not mean "exclusively". In most if not all of those examples the term is being deliberately employed to co-opt the readers' disapproval by exploiting their familiarity with the more pejorative meaning. Vranek's use of the word had no obvious pejorative implication, suggesting that he might not appreciate its usually negative connotations. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandering in the sense of "kissing-up", and that still doesn't describe Hamlet's behavior. However, back to the proper sense of the word, "nunnery" was sometimes a euphemism for a brothel, so maybe Hamlet was onto something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear from this story [13], for example, that pandering can be used in the sense of being super-sensitive, not kissing up and most certainly not with any sexual connotations. Interpretations of Hamlet's actions aside, it is quite apparent that the word is frequently used in contexts without sexual overtones. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, 87.81.230.195... Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While pandering may be used in metaphorical senses without a literal sexual connotation, it is virtually never used by modern native (British) English speakers/writers other than to suggest a lesser or greater degree of disapproval. You might be surprised at some of the things dreamt of in my philosophy, Malcolm XIV: does yours encompass the possibility that you might be mistaken about something, bearing in mind that in this discussion you appear to be in a minority? Anyway, drifting rather far from the OP's primary concern. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you now concede that the word is not usually reserved for use in a sexual context, nor that if you were to use it in another context you could inadvertently cause perplexity or offence. In fact, if you look at the British National Corpus, you'll see that the word is almost never used to mean the action of providing someone the sexual services of someone else in the expectation of reward: [14][15][16][17]

Note, also, that I provided links as evidence that the word is often used in a non-sexual context, whereas you are content to make blanket assertions as "proof" of your rather protean position. And yes, this discussion is a derail, but that was because you insisted on being prescriptivist about Vranak's choice of words. Good night, sweet prince. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the grammatics, you should remember that nobody can give you a definitive answer to your question (except possibly one person, and he's dead). Hamlet is a play that has many interpretations, and not everyone agrees that Hamlet is only pretending to be mad. However Vranak's interpretation is a pretty good one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing with the general idea that the interpretation is really up to the director (compare Olivier's and Hawke's Prince for two very different and very competent takes on the scene), I should point out that _Ophelia_ dumps _Hamlet_ - "My lord, I have remembrances of yours, That I have longed long to re-deliver; I pray you, now receive them." She tries to provoke a reaction, and provokes a rather more drastic one than she (or, rather, Polonius/Claudius) hoped for... Tevildo (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Dissolution of Czechoslovakia?

Thinking about the Scottish independence question above got me thinking - has anyone studied how much the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia actually cost (financially)? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...not to mention how much it saved.--Wetman (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It cost so much they were overdrawn at the bank. [Fill in obvious punch line here.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what about Slovakia? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is word for "crescendo" but with just complexity (no. Voices etc)

So crescendo is for more and more loud, bu what is name for more and more complex, more instru ents/voices ie complexity like "wall of sound", evennif it is the same loudness throughout, thanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.65.154 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, crescendo is a Italian musical terms used in English . But I don't think you'll find what you are after in that list. Things like tempo and volume are not represented objectively by notes in musical notation so terms like crescendo and andante are needed to indicate to the player how to play the notes on the page. How complex and how many instruments play a part IS written by notes, so you don't need a special term for it. Vespine (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The study of increasingly complex information linkages—music is one kind of information— is a goal of network theory and network science.--Wetman (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a word for this, akin to crescendo. The best I can think of at the moment is "increase in instrumentation". But that is far from a standard term. I don't think there is a standard term. Pfly (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Density" is the word you're looking for. That's the term most often applied to the concept you are describing, in academic journals, etc. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A musical example would be Ravel's 'Bolero'. Or even Elvis' 'Suspicious Minds'. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another would be towards the end of Part 1 of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells, which even has a running commentary (by Vivian Stanshall) so that you can tell how each new instrument affects the overall sound. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so "increase in density".. more a phrase than a word, but still. Pfly (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting to know. I recall that Vivian Stanshall did something similar in the track "The Intro and the Outro" on the album Gorilla, but I can't check right now because I only have the album on vinyl and don't have the means to play it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that track on a popular media-sharing site and must say that it gives a perfect demonstration of the concept of density. It's even better than I remember it, although I probably haven't heard it for nearly 40 years. Listen out for the vibraphonist, the sousaphonist, and the accordionist. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fugue comes close to the idea you're looking for. Ravel's Bolero is a great example of a fugue - one instrument comes in, then others join one at a time, each playing a variant on the theme of the first instrument. As also noted above, the "introduction" at the end of Tubular Bells could also possibly be considered a fugue. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. A fugue is an example of music that increases in density, but not all pieces that increase in density are fugues. Ravel's Boléro is not a fugue in the ordinary understanding of that term. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fugues are not the best example. They are a fairly strictly defined form only tangentially related to an "increase in density/instrumentation". True, fugues tend to start with one voice, adding additional voices one by one. But the similarity ends there. Most of what makes a fugue a fugue involves other processes relating to melody, imitation, etc. Neither Bolero or Tubular Bells is a fugue. A quick skim of fugue should make this clear. Additionally, it is not uncommon for fugues to be composed to single instruments, like a keyboard--Bach's The Art of Fugue being (perhaps) a good example. The OP specified an increase in instruments. Even if we consider an increase in "voices" on a single instruments, fugues get all the voices sounding relatively quickly and progress from there. Pfly (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Hm. Seems like I've been using the wrong definition for fugue for years without realising it. Grutness...wha? 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is love?

...romantic love?

189.121.121.92 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a nice article at love that probably covers it as well as one can expect to. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth it ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love is... all you need! -- The Beatles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Love and Death:

Sonja: There are many different kinds of love, Boris. There's love between a man and a woman; between a mother and son...

Boris: Two women. Let's not forget my favorite.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nature's way of fooling you into reproducing. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loving your siblings is nature's way of fooling you into reproducing? Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the Appalachians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but loving your siblings is not commonly understood under the expression "romantic love", as specified above. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the question what is romantic love? It's rather unclear to me. I thought the question may be what is love and is love the same thing as romantic love? Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To your genes it's all the same. Take the Honey Bee, for example. The worker bees don't reproduce themselves, yet the slave away in the service of the hive. Why? Because by doing so they help the queens and drones produced by their hive (their siblings) survive and reproduce better. Their genes get passed on (because they share them with their siblings), even though it's not a direct transmission. On average, you share half your genes with full biological siblings. That's the same amount you share with your children. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haddaway knows, but he isn't telling. (start head bobbing....now!) --Jayron32 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's helping your genes to reproduce not helping you to reproduce. Even if you strongly believe in the gene-centered view of evolution it's still important to distinguish between you (or an individual organism) reproducing and your genes reproducing even if you think the organism is a moot point. Note that the commonly expressed phrase 'an organism is just a gene's way of making more genes' does distinguish between the two. Consider also that if you love your siblings excessively but not in a sexual or romantic kind of way, you may negatively affect your chances of reproducing. In evolutionary terms, this may or may not be worth it but the fact remains it's not helping you reproduce. While in eusocial organisms you may argue considering the individual organism is pointless, we can still distinguish between individuals and if you want to talk about the colony as a collective then you should do so as a collective. In any case, while human behaviour may share some few similarities with eusociality it's clear quite different and that isn't a great model system except perhaps in helping people get a basic understanding of a limited set of concepts Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you (the OP) want to read a good book on the subject, I recommend Anne Carson's Eros the Bittersweet. Deor (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]