Humanities desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

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.

February 3

What is the minimum viable population to maintain modern technology?

NOT GENETICS! What I'm asking is how many people are needed to cultivate the all the resources we use, to make the base-level parts we use to make higher-levels parts, how many people re needed to assemble the higher-level parts, and everyone else needed on the periphery in support roles? I've found one article by author Charlie Stoss where he gives an educated estimate, but it is apparently a layman estimate, not based on an in-depth study. Anyone aware of more authoritative references? KhyranLeander 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyranleander (talk • contribs)

That would be Charlie Stross, by the way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that population density may be key. That is, if a million people were left, they could maintain a technological society, but only if they were all together. If evenly dispersed around the planet, it wouldn't work. Think of all the roads, railroads, communications lines, shipping routes, etc., that would need to be kept open in the latter case, but could no longer be maintained. We have a preview of this in Fraser, Michigan (Fraser sewer system collapse), and Flint, Michigan (Flint water crisis), where the tax base no longer exists to maintain the infrastructure. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something relevant in the book Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, but I'm not gonna go to the garage and get it right now (it's cold!). —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was the weapon(s) used in the Quebec City mosque shooting?

What was the weapon(s) used in the Quebec City mosque shooting? I read through the article and a few news stories but couldn't find any mentions. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you can't find any information is that no one was told what gun it was. this story says explicitly "Police have not commented on the type of gun used." So there you go. --Jayron 32 01:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beckett and bikes

Our article on Waiting for Godot says "Unlike elsewhere in Beckett's work, no bicycle appears in this play...". My question is - do bikes appear in all of Samuel Beckett's other plays, or if not, in which of them do they appear? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is way off. I know Beckett's plays well and I can only think of one in which a bicycle appears, namely All That Fall. --Viennese Waltz 08:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they're pretty ubiquitous in his earlier nondramatic works. Deor (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, having read them all. But I didn't feel the need to mention it because the OP specified plays. --Viennese Waltz 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did specify plays, but that is because I am an ignorant so-and-so and had of course forgot that Beckett also wrote novels, short stories, and poems. I would be interested in the appearance or otherwise of bikes in all his works - and in someone more knowledgeable than me having a bash at our article on Godot in so far as it mentions them. DuncanHill (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beckett sued for libel by his uncle

Our article Waiting for Godot says "In answer to a defence counsel question in 1937 (during a libel action brought by his uncle) as to whether he was a Christian, Jew or atheist, Beckett replied, 'None of the three.'" Our article Samuel Beckett does not mention this, nor does it mention an uncle. What were the circumstances of this case? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of Damned to Fame, the authorized biography of Beckett, is not with me at the moment, but I'll have a look at it in the next few days and get back to you. --Viennese Waltz 08:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's something on the case at As I Was Going Down Sackville Street#Libel lawsuit. But the libel action was not brought by Beckett's uncle, nor was it brought against Beckett. It was brought by Harry Sinclair, whose late brother had been Beckett's uncle, against the author Oliver St. John Gogarty. --Viennese Waltz 10:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have an objection to an uncle's brother being called an uncle myself, but it would be good if someone with more knowledge and access to reliable sources than me could clarify the passage in the article, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is as I understand it. Samuel Beckett’s father William had three brothers and one sister. The sister was christened “Frances” but went by “Cissie”. She married William Abraham “Boss” Sinclair, the twin brother of Henry Morris “Harry” Sinclair.

Oliver St John Gogarty published a 1935 autobiography called As I Was Going Down Sackville Street which contained the following verses:

“Two Jews grew in Sackville Street

And not in Piccadilly.

One was gaitered on the feet,

The other one was Willie.”

It also contained a passage about “an old usurer who had eyes like a pair of periwinkles on which somebody had been experimenting with a pin, and a nose like a shrunken tomato, one side of which swung independently of the other. The older he grew the more he pursued the immature, and enticed little girls into his office. This was bad enough, but he had grandsons, and these directed the steps of their youth to follow in grandfather’s footsteps, with more zeal than discrimination.”

Another passage mentioned the “twin grandchildren of the ancient Chicken Butcher.”

Willie Sinclair read the book and was highly offended, but died in 1937. On his deathbed, he made his brother Harry swear to take Gogarty to court, and Willie further asked Beckett to appear as a witness.

In fact, Harry & William’s grandfather Morris Harris had indeed been a child molester, but Boss & Harry objected to Gogarty’s claim that they had “followed in his footsteps”. They believed they were clearly identifiable from the passages (Willie by name, and Harry from his habit of always wearing gaiters) and therefore libeled.

Harry was granted an initial injunction restraining further publication of the book pending a trial for libel.

Beckett testified against his mother’s wishes, returning to Ireland from a stay in Paris to do so. He said he could recognize Willie & Harry as being alluded to in the book. The opposing lawyer made him out to be a “bawd and blasphemer from Paris”.

The case created a sensation in Dublin. The jury found Gogarty guilty of libel, and assessed 900 pounds in damages plus costs.

Harry Sinclair seems not to have received any of the money, and Gogarty left Ireland to live in the United States. Beckett was humiliated by his treatment at the trial, announced that he was fed up with Ireland, and decided to remain in Paris to live. - Nunh-huh 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is sending one's deceased testicles (as a gift) to someone illegal?

If, say, one gets one's entire epididymis and entire vas deferens surgically removed, those pesky tubes regenerate afterwards (with a hole opening up in one's prostate to once again allow sperm to pass through), and some judge forces this person to pay child support for 18+ years, would it be illegal for this person to send his or her deceased testicles (he got an orchiectomy in response to this judge's ruling) as a gift to this judge afterwards?

Completely serious question, for the record. Also, No, this certainly isn't legal advice since I myself am not in such a situation and hope that I will never actually be put into such a situation. Futurist110 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment typically has a broad enough legal definition that mailing someone like a judge your nuts in response to something they did would generally go badly for one...--Jayron 32 04:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article appears to define harassment as being repetitive, though--as opposed to a one-time thing (which this is). Futurist110 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment issue aside, body parts are considered some type of hazardous material in every state (you say on your userpage you are American), and subject to strict regulations as to how they are transported. You can look up the relevant laws for any state to figure out what the penalty is on paper for just dropping a body part in the mail, though how that will actually work out in court I wouldn't know. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as to why the law is written that way, legislators wisely decided to just assume all severed body parts (and entire dead bodies) are disease hazards that should not be in the vicinity of ordinary mail. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this still be true if they are in a jar, though? Futurist110 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look it up for the state you are in. In some states, the law states it is OK if the body part is sealed within an airtight steel container. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually not simply that it's a "hazardous material", but that there are additional penalties for "improper disposal of human tissue" per se. - Nunh-huh 06:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the more important principle is "Don't fuck with people who have the power to fuck with you worse". It is cold comfort to think that something may or may not be technically not illegal if you're sitting in jail because you pissed off the wrong powerful person. A judge has far more power and ability to make your life absolutely miserable than you do to him or her, so just don't. --Jayron 32 11:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where would it be legal for a judge to order castration? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's less a matter of the judge ordering castration, as the man deciding to make absolutely sure this time. MChesterMC (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Futurist110 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In some jurisdictions, judges can order castration of a convicted sex offender. Only other situation would be a judge authorizing castration of an underage boy, or a man unable to give consent. Many jurisdictions require a judge to approve any sterilisation procedure on a minor or incompetent individual. Parental or guardian consent is not enough. Obviously, the judge will need a good reason. Something like otherwise incurable testicular cancer. Eliyohub (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, your fear of fatherhood again? Check out actual vasectomy failure rates, and quit living in fear. Do you really want insurance against this? I've just completed my diploma of financial planning, and it includes insurance broking, but I'd have to ask for a tailored policy. The insurer will think you're nuts (pardon the pun), but out of my own curiosity, I will inquire, including the legal aspects. There will likely be a significant initial cost in drawing up a specialised policy. We don't usually do them other than for multi million dollar coverage, such as events like the grand prix. And even there, the basic framework of the policy already exists, and is re-used from year to year, and grand prix to grand prix around the world, possibly with minor revisions, such as to account for local laws. BTW, policy in question covers liability up to $80 million. Here, lots of paperwork involved for a one-off. There's the huge overhead of initially drawing up the documents, even if ongoing premiums would be tiny. Not value for money. And I say that with my full authority as a financial planner. Eliyohub (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, castration isn't ordered, it's offered. See Alan Turing. However, the forcible sterilisation of a woman was ordered by the Court of Protection. 81.129.13.203 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Turing affair was 65 years ago. Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lawyer, but wouldn't this be deemed a classical case of Contempt of court? Anyone know? Eliyohub (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logically speaking, though, getting one's testicles surgically removed in response to this is quite logical; after all, if removing both one's entire epididymis and one's entire vas deferens isn't good enough for this, why not chop your balls off? Futurist110 (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sending them to a judge is illogical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably not; after all, this would be a nice way to teach this judge a lesson about the consequences of his or her ruling. Futurist110 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's merely likely to make the judge grossed out and angry, and thus likely to get the judge (who is empowered to do so) to make your life worse rather than better. Again, regardless of whether you feel you should have the right to make a statement like this, people in power can fuck up your life horribly, and so it is best to not commit trite acts of revenge against them, especially ones so baldly gross and offensive as giving them your removed testicles. Your smugness will ultimately be little help in jail. --Jayron 32 04:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Jayron32 said, it depends what you mean by "consequences". If you mean you want to teach judge that it's a shitty life being a judge at times since you have to deal with people with seriously mental issues like the person sending the testicles such that if they made any mistake in any rulings against them it was in not having the person involuntarily committed for mental health review then yes, perhaps you'll teach them that. If you mean that you'll teach them, hey I should have let this nutcase have what they wanted instead of following the law and caring about the well-being of the child then no there's almost no chance you'll teach them that since it's not a logical thought process. So if you the person felt that the judge didn't sufficiently understand their serious mental issues since they didn't have them involuntarily committed then yes, I guess in some ways you could say it's logical. In any other cases, then no it's not logical. Of course logically a person with such serious mental health issues could simply seek help themselves rather than tring to get a judge to commit them involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's my "Like" button? I really miss my "Like" button right now.... - Nunh-huh 07:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See contempt of court. It would be contempt (in the technical sense) if he did it in the courtroom, or in violation of a court order. —Tamfang (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make a difference if one sent living testicles? DuncanHill (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging is legal in many (but not all) jurisdictions depending on local sodomy laws. --Jayron 32 16:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do East Asian governments recommend dairy consumption as part of a balanced diet?

In the United States, ChooseMyPlate includes dairy consumption as part of the balanced diet. However, it puts limits on saturated fat, sugar, and salt intake; so, it seems that the best way to meet the dairy needs is to consume unsweetened cow's milk or some kind of fortified plant milk, because many dairy products (ice cream, yogurt, and cheese) contain too much salt, saturated fat, and sugar. What do East Asian governments recommend in regards to a balanced, healthy diet for their own peoples? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, the inclusion of dairy as an important food group seems more due to lobbying by dairy producers than out of concern for the health of the population. That is, while human milk is healthy for babies, cow's milk isn't particularly healthy for adults. It may be possible to make it healthy, by removing the saturated fat, adding vitamin D, removing the lactose (for the lactose-intolerant), etc., but there are other choices that are healthier to begin with. (Of course, drinking milk is a far healthier alternative to drinking soda.) StuRat (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And milk with the saturated fat removed is too watery for cereal and too contaminated for water. I like 1%. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that cow's milk isn't as popular in East Asia as with people of European descent. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is linked to lactose intolerance being more common in Asian peoples? At least in Hong Kong, we do still include it in our food pyramids, but if you have lactose intolerance with significant symptoms there are always alternative sources for necessary nutrients, e.g. calcium-added soy milk and tofu. And there's always other milks like soy milk that many people have instead. Alcherin (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an obsolete food pyramid, particularly where they say the thing people should eat most is grains. I'd put veggies there. Has this info been updated since Hong Kong left the UK ? StuRat (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong has never been part of the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are splitting hairs over a distinction between the UK and Great Britain regarding British Hong Kong. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's splitting hairs over the difference between the UK and the British Empire. Hong Kong was a British posession, but it was never part of either Great Britain (which is the main British island), nor of the UK (which is GB + Northern Ireland). Iapetus (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the hairs being split here, Hong Kong was a crown colony and like other crown dependency is a polity under the direct administration of the House of Windsor (i.e. Queen Elizabeth II) but not part of the United Kingdom. In some ways, this makes it similar to nations like Australia and Canada, but lacking in full sovereignty. --Jayron 32 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on Mr Jayron, a Crown Colony was quite different to a Crown Dependency and different again to a Commonwealth Realm. We Britons never have a simple constitutional arrangement when a fiendishly complicated one will do instead. Crown Colonies are now called British Overseas Territories but that post-dates the Hong Kong handover. Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have knowledge dating that far back, but it definitely hasn't changed in the past 15 years. And change to food pyramids has been slow to come for other countries as well; Ireland only changed theirs a couple months ago. Alcherin (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat is uncharacteristically right on this one (though still lacking references). The dietary recommendations of the USDA are mostly based on demands of industry lobbying groups from various food-production concerns like the dairy and meat industry, and less on the actual science of nutrition. You can read a modern nutritionist's perspective on the problem here. Here is a recent mainstream news source on the sausage-making behind, well, actual sausage-making. Here is an article about the historical context (and financial/political mess) behind the development of dietary guidelines. As someone who eats way too much meat and cheese myself, the gist of all of these articles (which you can read yourself) is that the U.S. nutrition recommendations have always been about what food industries want to be in the recommendations to encourage you to buy their products, and less about what is really healthy for you. --Jayron 32 04:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

line of command in the 3rd reich

I would like to know the line in command of the 3rd Reich. I want to know who were the superiors of Adolf Eichmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.104.166 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Adolf Eichmann names his direct superior officer in the third line of text. If you want to know more about the general command structure of the Schutzstaffel, which is the paramilitary organization he was a member of, List of SS personnel gives a pretty good indication. It's not a formal org chart, but you can get a sense of the ranks and some of the people who would have held them. --Jayron 32 19:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A simplified diagram for the whole Nazi state can be found at 'The Third Reich Power Structure. We also have an article: Government of Nazi Germany. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]