Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 12

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.

April 12

airline price cap law

" In 1974, it was illegal for an airline to charge less than $1,442 in inflation-adjusted dollars for a flight between New York City and Los Angeles." [1]

What's this all about? Sounds like a price cap law of some sort? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A price floor rather than a cap, and probably a regulation rather than a law sensu stricto, but other than that, yes. By "what's this all about" are you asking what the rationale was? That I wouldn't know. It was a boom era for regulation in general; they didn't always have to make much sense. But they probably had some stated rationale, which I imagine someone will be able to help you with, just not me. --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"what's this all about" as in which law it was, when it was enacted, and by which agency (congress or FAA or some other entity). ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably the Civil Aeronautics Board. That article may help you find the enabling legislation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We have an article Airline deregulation which despite the name only seems to deal with the situation in the US. Although it deals with deregulation, it does mention the suggested reason for the original regulations (not specifically those to do with price but these reasons would seem to apply to price) with 2 refs (I wouldn't be surprised if these deal more with the fare issue). It also links to Civil Aeronautics Board and Airline Deregulation Act. The later potentially has more details (at the very least it has a quote from a US Supreme Court justice about the old price regulation. We also have United States government role in civil aviation although I'm not sure it includes much more useful info and only seems to have 3 refs. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the economic situation of that era (it's before my time), but was there possibly a fear of deflation at the time? Given that deflation can "spiral", governments have, at times, put "price floors" on things. Can anyone clarify if there was any deflation going on in the U.S. 1974? Nixon shock (1971) would have been inflationary. So was there some sort of "correction" in the aftermath of the inflation three years later, once the "shock" had subsided, and the U.S. dollar now stable on its new, post-Bretton Woods system footing? Eliyohub (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Would the 1973–75 recession have been a factor here? Eliyohub (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• As I recall, the idea of air ticket price floors was to keep the airlines solvent and profitable by protecting them from price competition. Loraof (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Haven't had time to watch it, but This video seems relevant to the discussion at hand. --Jayron32 14:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a blog, and definitely not a university. It's also very committed to a certain POV (that of libertarianism). Guy (Help!) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is being a bit insincere by using a 1974 price. It would use a 1980 price if deregulation didn't kick in before that. In 1973, there was a major gas shortage. Fuel prices were very high. The government regulators responded by increasing the minimum airline ticket price to cover the cost of fuel. By 1974, airline tickets were very expensive. Then, the crisis was over and ticket prices fell again. After deregulation, ticket prices climbed from 1979 to 1980 during the second fuel crisis. It was the airlines doing the price increase, not the government, but for the same reason. The US Bureau of Transportation Statistics has a 5-year chart which skips over the spike in 1974, but shows the spike in 1980 and also shows that it never went down after that. https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_03_18.html 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The chart gives prices in then-current dollars (i.e., unadjusted for general inflation). So we can't tell from the chart whether ticket prices went down after 1980 in real terms or not. Loraof (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Secular perspective on the origin of the Quran?

I was looking for some information about the secular historical consensus about how the Quran originated. The article at Quran mainly deals with the traditional Islamic view, and doesn't seem to have many secular academic sources. Is there a good source where the well supported historical evidence is clearly seperate from the religious dogma? 50.96.223.254 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

History of the Quran#Origin according to academic historians would be a good place for you to start your research. Also useful is the Sana'a manuscript, which has been radiocarbon dated to within a few decades of the death of Muhammad, and the Birmingham Quran manuscript which has been radiocarbon dated to be contemporaneous with Muhammad. --Jayron32 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The rich and powerful

I don't understand how the rich is powerful. While it is true that the rich have a lot of resources to get whatever they want as individuals, the poor seem to have greater power as a whole. If a farm owner grows acres of plants, then he may need some farmhands to help with the sowing, weeding, and harvesting. If he pays the farmhands extremely low wages, then the farmhands can refuse to provide service on a massive scale, forcing the owner to go out of business or give enough to satisfy the workers. The employer may also seek cheaper labor in the form of work slaves, where individual lives don't matter, and people are forced to work, and if they don't work, then the employer may seek another batch elsewhere. But getting another batch of slaves may be expensive, so the employer needs to care for the slaves enough so they won't die. On the slave side, how do they get themselves enslaved in the first place? Can the workers or slaves form a huge network and rebel against the employer? Now, I'm not sure who is more powerful - the rich or the poor. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking in generalities, would the poor like to be rich? (Yes) Have the poor become rich? (No) Therefore, do the poor have as much power as the rich? (No)

Much of what you're asking with respect to farm wages, etc, is covered by concepts related to organized labor -- if the poor can collect and coordinate their resources, they do in fact wield power comparable to the rich. However, this power is more fragile than that of the rich. In addition to the general requirements for collective action, the poor must also consider the limits of their own individual resources, which are less than those of the rich. During a strike, for example, the rich are considering at what point they're no longer willing to lose money at the current rate; the poor are considering at what point they're no longer willing to lack the money for basic necessities.

As for the history of slavery, you'll find that generally people "get themselves enslaved in the first place" via compulsion by threat of lethal force. — Lomn 20:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, I wonder if everything boils down to dominance and submission. Those who threaten others into submission are taking advantage of the poor and weak. The poor and weak lack the resources to fight back, so they submit or die. For those unwilling to die, they submit and live with excruciating pain. For those who would rather die than submit, they may kill themselves and also remove themselves from the gene pool. If more people choose to die than to live in servitude, then the rich may remain and have to work for themselves and fight amongst themselves, until society collapses, and people return to the caveman way of life. Maybe, helping the poor people of the world will benefit the rich, because happy poor people sustain the rich and help create civilization. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Hobbes wrote that the natural state of affairs was that life was "poor, nasty, brutish, and short", and that some form of social contract is necessary to effect civil society; such a contract, in some or another fashion, involves the redistribution of wealth or power from the rich to the poor with the general idea that both see a net benefit in the exchange. — Lomn 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The poor theoretically may be more powerful, be this assumes that they all work together, which is virtually impossible. The poor are easily misled to support somebody who doesn't have their interests in mind (politicians, corrupt union leaders, etc.). Also, the rich often buy off the law and some of the poor people to act as "goons", so that any opposition can be arrested. When this happens, only a violent revolution can put them back on top. I suggest you read Animal Farm, which shows the difficulty in maintaining a democracy run by commoners.

Slaves were often prisoners of war, who may then be sold on to other parties. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I take it you have never been hungry or cold or you would not say such silly things about people refusing to work. Dmcq (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• While Animal Farm (noted above) is particularly cogent on the subject, it is a work of fiction. I also recommend Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States which uses class structure in the United States to examine how the upper classes maintain power despite the fact that the poor could overthrow them in violent revolution. Zinn's most insightful chapter, "The Coming Revolt of the Guards", while it gets a little Marxist in its predictions, does at least provide a perspective on how the Elite maintain power, and how they could lose it. The quote from that chapter which directly answer's the OPs question:

"In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbage men and firemen. These people-the employed, the somewhat privileged-are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls."

Explains exactly how the elite use the middle class as unwitting allies against any potential revolt against the elites. An interesting perspective; though I find Zinn's predicted "class consciousness" among those middle classes to be a bit fantastical. 37 years on, not much has changed in that direction, though Zinn's explanation is very cogent to answering the OP's initial query. While it is specific to the U.S., Zinn's interpretation of political stratification applies to just about any liberal democracy. --Jayron32 17:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I once watched the film Animal Farm. I thought it was creepy version of the film, Babe (1995). But Babe had a cute pig and a happy ending. Animal Farm is just creepy. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The book "The Natural History of the Rich: A Field Guide" by Richard Conniff was an interesting read on how rich folks are different from the rest of us. The consolidation of wealth (and therefore power) over time seems to be a natural preferential attachment effect between dollar bills and other dollar bills. Eventually when almost all of them are in just a few places, various instabilities emerge. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I also recommend reading The Grapes of Wrath, or at least watching the movie. This shows how mistreatment of the poor was causing the US to slide towards a communist revolution. Fortunately FDR's "New Deal" and WW2 combined to end the Great Depression, in the US, before widespread violence broke out. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus' "missing years"

I believe that it is traditionally held that the years between when Jesus was age 12 (and engaging the Rabbis in the Temple) and when he began his Ministry at about age 30, are considered "missing years." It is my understanding that there are many theories and speculations as to where he was and what he was doing during that time. Has there been any research to suggest or support that he was simply studying (with a Rabbi or some form of "Seminary")in preparation for his Ministry? 198.72.29.37 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on the unknown years of Jesus that lays out the major theories. The chief issue with theorizing, as the article references, is that there is little historical information to support any particular theory. — Lomn 20:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Some people claim that he went to India during those missing years.Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's covered in the article called unknown years of Jesus referred to immediately above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Parallels between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha have been drawn but the influence is not explained by mainstream Christian scholarship that finds no historical basis for travels by Jesus to India or Tibet. However unless the young Jesus who disputed with clerics was illiterate (like some popes that followed), it seems implausible for Him not to be aware of, and possibly even visited, the Library of Alexandria that was the intellectual center of the time. Blooteuth (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus was certainly literate by the time he was reading an Isaiah scroll in Luke 4:16-19 (something which would have required knowledge of Hebrew as well as Aramaic). The library of Alexandria was the center of Mediterranean scholarship, but that type of Greek-language learning had very little appeal for religiously-devout non-Hellenizing Aramaic-speaking Jews in Judea and Galilee at that time (there's no real evidence that Jesus spoke or read Greek). AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Language of Jesus notes that (according to Josephus) it was very rare for Judeans to know Greek. I remember seeing an argument that Jesus Healing the centurion's servant was evidence that Jesus knew Greek, but Rome also recruited from the local population. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's possible; after all Herod Agrippa was educated in Rome and raised among the Imperial family (though, the Herodians were not Jews but Edomites). We have no way to know one way or the other how the conversation between Jesus and the Centurion went down (did Jesus speak Greek? Did the Centurion speak Aramaic? Did they converse through an un-noted translator?) it is certainly more plausible that there was an Aramaic-speaking Roman Army officer than that a backwoods carpenter would have had reason to learn Greek. --Jayron32 17:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who has visited the Middle East and/or Far East would be amused at the Rich Western World's assumptions that people generally speak only one language. For anyone engaged in commerce in a multicultural milieu, having working fluencies in half-a-dozen languages is, in my experience (yes, OP) commonplace. From our article Galilee:

"The archaeological discoveries of synagogues from the Hellenistic and Roman period in the [sic] Galilee show strong Phoenician influences, and a high level of tolerance for other cultures . . . ."

Literacy is another step, but the Greek alphabet (and its Roman sideshoot) derives from the same Phoenician parent as the Hebrew and is therefore not so difficult to grasp for one literate in the latter (even if one lacks divine attributes).

Re the "backwood's carpenter" – the term used in the (Greek) Gospels to refer to Jesus (and Joseph) actually had a wider meaning, more like "constructor", and could equally refer to a builder (in bricks or stone) as a carpenter (or similar craftsman). During Jesus's lifetime, the Romans were rebuilding a major town literally across the other side of the valley from Nazareth, Sepphoris, whose article says in part:

"At the time of Jesus, Sepphoris was a large, Roman-influenced city. Reza Aslan describes it at the time of Jesus's growing into maturity one mile away in the following terms:

'Rich, cosmopolitan, deeply influenced by Greek culture, and surrounded by a panoply of races and religions, the Jews of Sepphoris were the product of the Herodian social revolution - the nouveaux riches who rose to prominence after Herod's massacre of the old priestly aristocracy.'

It has been suggested that Jesus, while living in Nazareth, may have worked as a craftsman at Sepphoris, where, during his youth 'the largest restoration project' of his time took place."

so the area wasn't such a "backwood" and would have offered significant employment opportunities with Roman and/or Greek speaking employers for anyone with such skills. "Jesus the brickie" however sounds somewhat unromantic, even if a band of itinerant, disruptive manual workers with northern accents bears interesting parallels with the Boys from the Blackstuff. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, Reza Aslan is not an archaeologist or expert in ancient cultures, and I'm not sure how seriously to take a book which has a pathetically absurd and nonsensical title like "Jesus the Zealot". Second, whether a Jewish inhabitant of 1st. A.D. Judea or Galilee spoke Greek probably had more to do with how socially connected that person was to manifestations of Hellenistic civilization, rather than geographic proximity alone. It seems likely that even if religiously-devout Jews who did not admire Hellenism had dealings with merchants and government officials, then they might acquire a practical command of spoken Greek (like Josephus), but would remain perfectly uninterested in Greek literature and philosophy. AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I presume, then, that you will be amending the text of Wikipedia's Sepphoris article, from which my extract was a direct cut and paste?

I am unconcerned with the status of Reza Aslan (about whom I knew nothing other than his mention in 'Sepphoris'), but presumably his being quoted in the article suggests that a Wikipedia editor thought that he was a reliable secondary source for the matters quoted, and presumably Aslan's own sources can be checked: do you have competing sources that contradict the contents of the quote? – they seem consistent with what I've previously read elsewhere (books not currently to hand).

"Jesus the Zealot" appears to be your own invention rather than a title of Aslan's – the nearest I can see is Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, which does not in itself carry the implication you attribute (and in any case, titles are often chosen by publishers for maximum impact, rather than authors), but given that Jesus is widely speculatedto have associated with Zealots (Simon Zealotes and Judas Iscariot, for example), who were part of the same general anti-Roman movement, calling such an imputation "pathetically absurd and nonsensical" seems a little over-the-top, not to mention over-emotionally invested. I myself have nothing more than dispassionate interest in the history involved, as I do not practice any religion relevant to the context, and am technically agnostic (though fairly sceptical) about objectively-existing supernatural forces. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you don't care about Reza Aslan, then you shouldn't have quoted from his book with a bizarre title. "Jesus the Zealot" is my informal condensation of the whole unwieldy (and pointless) long title down to three words. In Jesus' day, Zealot was the name of one specific faction or alignment to which Jesus himself didn't belong (though at least one of his disciples had a Zealot background). It's like writing a book titled "Tony Benn the Tory" or "Abraham Lincoln, Member of the Democratic Party". I don't know too much about Sepphoris, but it doesn't affect my main point -- that during Jesus' lifetime there was a solid core of religiously-devout Aramaic-speaking Jews in Judea and Galilee who did not admire Hellenistic civilization, who did not learn Greek unless motivated by some practical concrete advantage this would give them in their everyday lives, and who (even if they acquired some command of practical spoken Greek) were unlikely in the extreme to travel to Alexandria to consult the library there... AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't quote Aslan, the Wikipedia article on Sepphoris quotes him, and does so (only) within the OP-relevant passage concerning the demographics and economy of Galilee and Nazareth, not any supposed links of Jesus to Zealotry, which is a complete red herring. Few astronomers give much credence to Fred Hoyle's ideas about faked Archeopteryx fossils or flu germs dropping from comets, but that doesn't invalidate his work on stellar nucleosynthesis.

I didn't imply that Jesus was a card-carrying Zealot, and I don't know (or care) whether or not Aslan's book does. We cannot know all the details of Jesus' dealings with the various religio-political factions of 1st-century Palestine (we almost certainly don't even know their full range, our main source Josephus was doubtless not exhaustive), but it is inescapable that he personally associated with at least one and possibly more Zealots or ex-Zealots, and was was somewhat aligned with the Zealots' aims of expelling the Romans (and Greeks) occupying their country, though not necessarily by the same means. Equating this to "Tony Benn the Tory" is absurd.

That there was a "solid core" with the characteristics you detail is not in dispute, but there is no evidence that Jesus was part of it (if I'm wrong, please point to it). Equally we cannot possibly know (given current known texts)) that Jesus did (or did not) visit Alexandria in the 18 (if not more) "missing years" of his life (though I personally doubt it). There is no evidence, even highly circumstancial, for such a visit: there is however tradition linking him to Egypt in that Joseph and Mary are said in the Gospel of Matthew to have taken him there in infancy to avoid Herod. This and the whole account of his birth and childhood in Matthew (and, abbreviated, in Luke) are absent from the almost certainly earlier Mark, and may have been pious fiction invented and added to bolster the growing "God not man" interpretation of the ultimately prevailing Pauline agenda, but the minor "Flight to Egypt" detail might have been inspired by some knowledge of a real connection. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus was very aware of injustices, including those associated with Roman rule, but his main attitude seems to have been that the imminent Day of Judgement would make the Romans irrelevant. He certainly wasn't passing out weapons or inciting people to organize for future rebellion, or supporting people who were, so he wasn't a Zealot. We can't know with 100% certainty Jesus' exact degree of knowledge of Greek, but if you were trying to set yourself up as a knowledgeable Jewish religious authority in Judea/Galilee, then you were pursuing a path of extensive study which for the great majority was incompatible with becoming a connoisseur of Greek literature and philosophy. For Jesus to have gone to the library of Alexandria, he would have to have had not only "missing years", but a whole secret life that was basically incompatible with the public persona of the last three years of his life... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Where is this "connoisseur of Greek literature and philosophy" coming from? As far as I'm aware, the suggestions under discussion are that

(a) Jesus might have spoken, and possibly been able to read (Koine) Greek, which had been the lingua franca of the larger region for a couple of centuries or so (something that seems to me quite likely), and

(b) he might have visited Alexandria, which then had the largest Jewish population in the world outside Jerusalem itself* (which seems to me unlikely but not impossible – after all, Saul of Tarsus got around the Mediterranean world quite a bit).

Neither require or suggest becoming a connoisseur of Hellenic culture, or even approving of it, they merely reflect normal interactions with parts of the multicultural world in which he lived (and wished to change, at least to the extent of ending Graeco-Romanic hegemony over Israel, possibly by fulfilling Messianic prophesies, possibly instead or also by more mundane means).

*From that article, I quote: "Alexandria was not only a center of Hellenism but was also home to the largest Jewish community in the world . . . . The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Tanakh [the Torah and other writings], was produced there. The early Ptolemies kept it in order and fostered the development of its museum into the leading Hellenistic centre of learning (Library of Alexandria) but were careful to maintain the distinction of its population's three largest ethnicities: Greek, Jewish, and Egyptian."

Whatever Jesus' own eschatological beliefs (as opposed to those attributed to him post mortem by various sectarian factions in later generations), he must have formulated them over an extended period requiring thought and study – if they were merely standard for (Pharasaic) Jews of his era (i.e. held from childhood), surely he would not have eventually found himself so at odds with the authorities (beyond the general ongoing Pharisaic–Sadducean antipathies). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

90.217.249.244 -- User:Blooteuth speculated that Jesus might have visited the Library of Alexandria, which started this whole current sub-thread, in which I've given a number of reasons that (circumstantially) suggest it would be quite unlikely. I'm not going to go through them in detail again, except to say that being a connoisseur of Greek literature and/or philosophy was in most cases probably a minimum requirement to be admitted to the research collections of the ancient Library of Alexandria -- and that such connoisseurship was more or less incompatible (in terms of both attitudes to Hellenistic civilization and the time required) with studying to become a knowledgeable and influential religious leader among the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Judea and Galilee. In ancient times, there were some wandering "seekers", such as probably Apollonius of Tyana and Pyrrho, who visited various lands in order to find the wisdom of each, but the Jews of Judea had lived for a long time in a small land-locked province of the Persian empire and were not generally long-distance merchants -- and so traditionally somewhat lacked a cosmopolitan outlook, and were more likely to seek answers from within their own cultural traditions than to go remotely wandering. (Any few dissatisfied individuals who did go peripatetically seeking probably usually ended up disaffiliating themselves from the Jewish community.) These overall general attitudes were confirmed by the struggles between Hellenizers and traditionalists which led to the rise of the Maccabees... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your criteria for being allowed into 'the' Library (was it so rigorously policed?) are not something I've seen documented (I'm open to references), and we know that some Jews did work there. Moreover, one would not have needed to enter the Library itself in order to interact usefully with the scholars (formal or hobbyist, Jews and others) who must have lived in the district – Socrates did most of his philosophical peer interaction in pubs, but still managed to be influential in contemporary Athenian intellectual life). In any case I agree with you that it's not likely that Jesus visited Alexandria, and less likely that he pre-emulated Karl Marx in the Library, but neither are either of these positively ruled out or rendered completely implausible by any evidence we have.

You keep referring to Judeans – Jesus was a Galilean.

Most people everywhere in the world throughout history tended to stick close to home, but a minority didn't – Jesus himself was clearly more peripatetic than the average Galilean.

Jesus didn't have to leave Galilee to encounter Hellenistic and other cultural influences and actual peoples – they were resident and influential in Galilee itself while he was growing up. I nowhere suggest that Jesus approved the hellenisation/Romanisation of his own country (and domination over his own religion, which was the real point), but it's something he had to deal with. However, his actual attitudes are obscured by the hellenisation (and his posthumous deification) of (what became) Christianity itself under the domination of the hellenistic Paul and his movement over that of Jesus' immediate family and followers.

We're clearly not going to convince each other of anything. I myself don't think it's desirable or possible, because there are too few certainties to work with, so I won't respond further on this thread. I don't think, however, that we should preclude reasonable and sensible speculation untainted by preconceived, unsupported dogmatic beliefs/assumptions, and I hope the OP and others who may have followed us this far have derived some interest and avenues for further investigation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Personally, I believe in the John Prine song. --M@rēino 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Insurance

1. If everyone in the world accepts to pay for things (house, car, life, health) or lives with the consequences if they can't afford the total costs, then will there be a need for insurance companies to exist? 2. If a person's house gets wrecked by another person, and the house wrecker agrees to pay for all the damages, then the deal seems to be sealed. But what if the person's house is wrecked and the house wrecker can't afford the cost of damages but instead agrees to serve the other house owner as a slave or go to debtor's prison? 3. And what if a whole community of houses get wrecked by a hurricane, and everyone in the community decides to re-build themselves, without external help or any kind of insurance company? 4. What is the foundation of having insurance? 5. Why do humans need insurance, while other animals don't seem to have a concept of insurance? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Per our article, insurance is a form of risk management against the possibility of uncertain loss. It is not a fundamental human "need", but has a multi-millennial history in keeping with the general human tendency toward loss aversion. Our article notes, for example, that some religious communities have an aversion to commercial insurance, preferring instead an internal community-based self-insurance practice (as your hurricane example) -- but this is still, broadly speaking, insurance. — Lomn 20:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Some people can afford a house but not be able to afford another one. If their house breaks they don't have enough money to get another one. They need insurance. Some would rather pay insurance than build another house if a hurricane/mollasses accident etc. makes it out of order even if they could afford it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So, if humans do not experience loss aversion and decide to make do without any ownership to anything or emotional connections to anything and just live their lives trying to fulfill their basic needs on a daily basis (which includes eating, sleeping, defecating, urinating), then insurance will not be necessary at all? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I numbered the OP's questions.

Risk aversion is a psychological condition, it has nothing to do with why you need insurance. Losing your home and all of your possessions is a real physical problem. People don't have insurance to feel better. They have insurance to make sure they don't lose everything they own for reasons beyond their control. --Jayron32 15:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Insurance explains its function which is a form of shared Risk management. It is more beneficial to a society that there be funds in reserve for controlled recovery from accidents or disasters than no more help be available than charity provides, or none. Insurance can be provided by a profit-making company, by a contract between a group of insurants or by the state. The overhead cost of insurance from a company is mitigated by the company's large reserve that may be greatly extended by Underwriting, its highly developed and law-enforced contract terms, and exposure to competition with other insurance companies in a Market economy. Here are numbered answers.

1. Insurance companies don't need to exist but the consequences of everyone relying on alternatives would be dire for the unlucky, with many activities ceasing because they are too risky.
2. Slavery is illegal and Debtors' prisons generally fail to recover owed funds. They have been supplanted by other Bankruptcy proceedings, see the History of bankruptcy law.
3. Wish good luck to the community because they will need it.
4. See introduction.
5. Animals don't convert risk taking into money. But rodents such as hamsters and squirrels, and birds, such as rooks and woodpeckers hoard food in times of plenty as insurance against times when it is scarce. Blooteuth (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least food is tangible. Money is just little symbols on the electronic screen. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

But people will give you food for it so you don't have to grow, pick and shoot everything you eat. Also if they give you too many symbols on the electronic screen by mistake someone with a gun will put you in jail if you spend more than you have without giving it back when they ask and they can't figure out another way to get the symbols back without enslaving you like taking some symbols from your income. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If your hypothetical community in question 3 wanted to live as a commune, and was completely self sufficient, and was big enough to survive a catastrophe without outside help, then you're correct that insurance would have little value for them. But at that point you're basically describing a communist nation. ApLundell (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that some animals do have insurance, in that they will take care of a sick or wounded member (provide food, etc.) until they recover. This is a way for the group to spread the risk around. StuRat (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

At least animals do so directly. Humans pay to insurance companies, and the insurance companies profit from estimating the risks. So, if you are high-risk, then you may have to pay more for insurance, unless you pay out of pocket or get someone else willing to pay the damages (not likely) or live with your own damages. Relying on family members and friends or some kind of support group for insurance seems to be a better option than paying to a health insurance company that assesses your risks and makes a profit. So, if you are high-risk and need healthcare, then you may not afford it. And if you are low-risk and don't need healthcare, then the money will just go wasted to some kind of event that is not likely to happen. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's possible for medical bills to run up into the millions. I don't personally have any relatives who could foot that bill. And I frankly wouldn't want them to. In that situation I would seriously consider dying rather than ruining the hopes and dreams of my extended family. With insurance, I won't have to make that choice.

If you extend "family" to a large enough group beyond immediate family, you're describing a sort of commune. Which has both advantages and disadvantages.

None of what you're suggesting are new ideas, it's always been part of the debate and philosophy of what it means to have a Civilization and how best to set one up. ApLundell (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps you'd be happier in a country with Single-payer healthcare. That's basically what you describe, except the "family" is your entire nation. ApLundell (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

But then, some people with expensive medical costs refuse to die, and if there are more of those people around, then that can bankrupt the entire nation. It would be nice, if some people are willing to die for a better life for their relatives. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So if you get terminally ill do you intend to refuse medical treatment and just let the disease run its course? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There was one time when I was so hot I became temporarily blind. I thought I would lose my eyesight. Then, someone called an ambulance and offered me a cup of water. While waiting, I sat in my car and cooled down. When the ambulance arrived, they asked me whether I wanted to go to the emergency room because I had shock, but I said no. I would rather take a risk. I am more concerned about how other people would emotionally respond to my death than my own death. Anyway, I lived afterwards, and my eyes fully recovered. I wish hospitals would be more honest about their charges instead of just offering unnecessary medical care by default and then charging you high medical bills afterwards. I was fortunate that I didn't go to the emergency room, because a trip to the emergency room could cost thousands of dollars for something that could potentially heal by itself. I believe that death of an individual is more favorable and altruistic than debt of relatives. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's insane. You're basing a personal philosophy on the fact that you happened to get lucky.

That's like deciding that lifeboats serve no purpose because you once road a boat and it didn't sink. Or that traffic lights are a scam because you once ran a red light and didn't get smashed. ApLundell (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's called Confirmation bias, or more specifically Anecdotal evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

50.4, that's not necessarily true at all. If you've only got, let's say, four relatives to fall back on, entirely curable diseases, or economic setbacks will ruin you. However, if those setbacks are uncommon enough, as most of them are, it makes good mathematical sense to spread that risk out. (For example, the overall cost of all the people in the country who need a hand reattached is pretty negligible. But if you're the guy who shows up at the hospital with his hand in a baggy, you'd never be able to pay for that surgery on your own.)

Whether it makes more sense to share the risk through government 'safety nets', or private insurance providers, or something in between is open to debate, but trying to compare such large-scale programs to a casual system of depending on a handful of friends and relatives is hopelessly naive.

I'm noticing that's a pattern with your questions, so I strongly urge you to research topics you're interested in, before deciding that you've thought of new ideas that are smarter than the ideas produced by centuries of mankind's greatest thinkers.

ApLundell (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What "new ideas that are smarter than the ideas produced by centuries of mankind's greatest thinkers"? I never mentioned, said, or implied that my ideas were smarter or better or superior. I just wonder about the basis of doing things a certain way. If it were me, then I would just take a gamble and let nature determine my fate. If I survive, yea! If I die, oh, well. My time's up. In the middle, I'll just do whatever I can to stay alive and not die within my means. It may sound naïve, but I don't think it's any different than living a life in the wilderness. Animals that live in the wilderness are expected to have shorter lifespans than in captivity. But that is offset by the fact that they reproduce. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That attitude is highly irresponsible, because insurances don't just cover unanticipated costs of consequences to yourself, they often also cover the cost for other people.

If, for example, you crash your car and incur (in addition to the car loss) injuries, your insurance will (hopefully) cover not only your (possibly huge) medical bills (and car replacement cost) but those of the people in the other car(s) you hit.

Unless you live as a hermit on an otherwise uninhabited island, your life inevitably interacts with and effects other people. Some of those interactions have the potential for you to cause them loss and/or expense. Where appropriate, insurance whose regular small premium payments you can well afford will if necessary compensate those people for losses you personally cannot possibly have the resources to pay for yourself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

But if one doesn't buy insurance and can't afford the cost of payment, then can one sacrifice one's own life to compensate for the other person's losses? Or is insurance based on the concept that no one wants to sacrifice themselves to pay for another's house or whatever? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your ritual suicide isn't going to fix my car. ApLundell (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could sell tickets. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why was Jesus crucified?

My objective is to see the information from my pastor's last two sermons included on Wikipedia, if it has not been already. I haven't found it. She claimed that raising Lazarus of Bethany from the dead was the event that led to people wanting to get rid of Jesus. I know there were many reasons why people felt this way (Jesus should be dealt with) which eventually led to the crucifixion but I don't seem to find any of these mentioned.

I didn't see a clear answer under Crucifixion of Jesus. Does Wikipedia have this information at all?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but the opinion of your pastor is just that, the opinion of your pastor. Unless your pastor published her claim, Wikipedia cannot include it, since it depends on reliable sources for its content. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought the Romans crucified Jesus, because Jesus represented an enemy of the state. The punishment was to show people that Rome was the leader, not Jesus. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a very common view and a plausible one at that. Kleuske (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, at the time, I believe the Romans were trying to accommodate the Jews, by largely letting them rule themselves. This arrangement later broke down and the Romans went into all-out war and massacre mode. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no shortages of writing on this topic, but I enjoy this well researched summary provided by the Straight Dope : http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2011/who-killed-jesus

ApLundell (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's more about who killed Jesus. The short answer as to "why" is likely that influential men around the Jerusalem Temple high priest considered Jesus to be someone making erratic pretentious claims to unjustified religious authority, and also a general all-round troublemaker who would end up causing problems for them with the Romans. The "native" Jewish authorities didn't have the power to impose the death penalty, so they presented him to the local Roman governor as a political rebel (since the Romans didn't care about offenses against Jewish religion). AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The article I linked covers that, and in more detail than your summary. ApLundell (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Don't forget the obvious religious answer (at least in Christian belief) to the question "Why was Jesus crucified?" Which is: "So he could taketh away the sins of the world" (or similar wording). Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • YES. The Passion of Christ makes very little sense if you're expecting Jesus to act like a "normal" person, willing to stoop to any low just to not be killed. Satan, Judas, Peter, the Roman guards, and Pontius Pilate all try to convince Jesus to commit fairly minor sins in order to save His own life. Jesus's refusal to take the bait is all the answer you really need to the "WHY" question.20:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since we have no accounts outside of the Gospels which give an explanation, we're confined to a) actual biblical text and b) wild-ass speculation. Sticking to a) since it is all we have, the Bible actually explains why Jesus was crucified in some detail. Jesus's last week of life (from the Triumphal entry into Jerusalem to the Crucifixion of Jesus) is the only time period which all four gospels cover, and while there are a few chronological differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels, we actually have accounts which explain why Jesus was killed. If we go to the Gospel of Matthew for example, at Matthew 26, most of the chapter but especially Matthew 26:57-67 where he is accused of blasphemy, which was the specific charge for which he was killed. The Bible is also filled with examples of Jesus embarrassing the political and religious leaders, for which they are stated to hold a grudge against him, as well as provoking a riot (the Cleansing of the Temple). After his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane he is brought to severals (depending on the account, at least 3) trials of which it is clear it is the Sanhedrin that seeks to have him killed for blasphemy and false preaching; both Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate initially refuse to condemn him to death, but Pilate relents as the Sanhedrin has riled up a crowd against Jesus. But really, read any or preferably all of the four Gospels from the Triumphal Entry forward to get a sense of why Jesus was wanted to be killed. --Jayron32 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's the opinion of my pastor but something she found somewhere. If that "somewhere" turns out to be something acceptable to Wikipedia, that's what we could use as a source. Even if it is just the statement of a respected authority on the subject and presented as that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't that long; the Biblical accounts of the Holy Week are about 4-6 chapters from each Gospel. Just read those parts of the four Gospels (start with the Triumphal Entry in each; our article at Wikipedia lists the chapter that starts at.) and read through to his crucifixion. Even if you're a slow reader, it shouldn't take more than an hour of your life. That's the only documentation you're going to find. Take care of commentaries that read too much beyond the text itself, you'll probably find someone who claims ANYTHING, but go back to the source material and decide for yourself before believing it. --Jayron32 15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What is important is what can be included here. I'm starting to understand why it's not here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Where is here? --Jayron32 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If the pastor's source is notable, it might have a place in one of the articles mentioned above. I think the standard of notability for the Crucifixion of Jesus article would be pretty high though, as there's no scarcity of sources on that topic, but there may be someplace else in the project it would go. For instance if there's a bio page about the author of the piece, or a page describing the specific religious doctrine they adhere to.

Tough to say without knowing what the source is. I would recommend caution, and asking on the articles' "talk" pages before making significant changes to them. Such pages will certainly have many editors working on them who are passionate about the subject matter, and suspicious of sudden additions. (I imagine a lot of crazies try to make additions to articles about Jesus, you want to avoid being mistaken for one of them.) ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayron32, "here" is "one of the articles mentioned above" or in another article I didn't know about. ApLundell, you said exactly what I believed would be the case.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I talked to my pastor this morning. She showed me the scripture, but that didn't say what she said. When she explained it, it sounded like what we call WP:OR. She couldn't give me anything further. As far as something being her opinion, she stated she had concluded Jesus was the gardener on Easter morning and Mary Magdalene was not wrong. For reasons stated above, obviously we can't use that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What's the expected value of the number of years before the first big insurance firm is bankrupted by asteroid or comet?

How much can they afford? Dallas area destroyed? New York metro area destroyed? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They normally do not cover such catastrophic events which can result in an extremely large number of claims being filed at the same time.--Hofhof (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to suggest that if a meteor directly impacted your home they'd be on the hook, but if you got hit by indirect damage like the a shock-wave that wipes out a whole neighborhood is "open to interpretation". So good luck collecting on that one.

ApLundell (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Some Acts of God are excluded from insurance contracts.
Sleigh (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are worried, check what your insurance contract says about compensation for Acts of God and ask in writing if it is not clearly stated. The Sentry risk table is the source for actuaries to estimate the likelihood, and premiums for insurance coverage against, strikes by Meteorite i.e. solid debris from a comet, asteroid, or meteoroid. Blooteuth (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Insurance companies are careful to spread their risks, so that a catastrophic event in one area would not take them down. Additionally, they protect themselves with reinsurance and particularly a type called "excess of loss" which cuts in once their total claims for any particular event reach a set value. These reinsurance contacts are spread around the global insurance market (mainly transacted in London) so that the "loss lighteth rather easily upon many, than heavy upon few". I dealt with some of the claims from the September 11 attacks, the largest component of which was not the buildings, the aircraft or even the people but "business interruption". Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So might it be millions or hundreds of thousands of years? (assuming everything continues like it's 2017 which it will not) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be, or it might be ten years, or less. Impacts of asteroids are somewhat random and unpredictable events. If one occurs, it might well wipe out human civilization, or all land life bigger than a cat (as did the one 65.8 million years ago) or all life larger than microbes – in any of those scenarios, claiming insurance will be somewhat moot. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Insurance can get tested by massive disasters. A common real life case would be, of course, the September 11 terrorist attacks. Some countries have made specific legal arrangements for insurance cover for terrorism, due to this. You might want to look at how the insurance system coped with this actual event. Can others fill in the details on this?

In general, most insurers will have Reinsurance, to cover them in the event that a single disaster costs more than x hundred million. A sort of "insurance for insurers". The primary insurer may cover, for example, the first $200 Million of any single disaster, and the reinsurer will cover the rest. If a single home burns down, the primary insurer will cover it, no problem. If a whole town or suburb burns down, you call on your reinsurance to cover part of the claim. See that article.

Also of interest, for a classic case of how insurance laws deal with potential billion-dollar disasters, check out Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which covers dealing with nuclear disasters (of the non-military sort). This is possibly the closest real life example of the question. In sum, should there be a disaster at a nuclear power plant, private insurance covers the first $12.6 billion, the government covers the rest. In a sense, de facto, the government is the "insurer of last resort", when the insurance system gets overwhelmed. Hope you find this helpful. Eliyohub (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Just as an example, I once had dealings with the insurance for an enormous chemical plant. As these things have the possibility of being completely destroyed by a single event, the initial insurance was shared by about 20 insurers taking 5% each (known as co-insurance), and each of those only kept about 10% of their share, the rest being passed on to about 20 reinsurers for each of the 5% shares. So if the whole thing went bang, the loss would be shared by numerous companies and underwriting syndicates, I'll let you do the maths! Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)