Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 May 1

= May 1 =

pooverty
why india cannot decrease pooverty.....? In my stste kerala.lots and lots of people are beging for getting even" food at one time.wy is it cannot be reduced??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.23.50 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If it were that easy, someone would have done it by now. -- Jayron  32  17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless it were inconvenient to those with political influence. —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out the article Poverty in India for more info. Basically it's improving...According to some India is on track to cut it's poverty levels in half by 2015 (half what it was at 1990 if I'm reading things right...which is pretty quick decreasing of poverty). ny156uk (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Population control is typically critical to improving per capita income, as that would mean fewer people per land area, etc. And government imposed population control is rather unpopular, but China did it anyway. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is unclear if population control precedes or occurs naturally as a consequence of economic devlopment.  In other words, it is much more likely that you bring down the birthrate comes as a result of improving economic conditions, but you cannot necessarily create positive economic development merely by bringing down the birthrate.  Lots of highly developed countries have China-like birthrates without any government mandates at all.  See Demographic-economic paradox.  -- Jayron  32  23:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no reason why it can't work in both directions. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but as many highly-developed countries have a birthrate below replacement (and only maintain their population via immigration) and achieved it without a single law or ban, it seems that one can have both development and low birthrate without oppressive laws or heavy-handed regulation of personal choices by a monolithic government. To put it another way, having a low birthrate is achievable purely through having a free society and a robust economy, though I suppose you could also achieve it like China has.  The question is why one would want to?  -- Jayron  32  05:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you reject the economic argument, there's always the environmental impact of overpopulation, and the increased likelihood of war as more and more people fight over scarce resources, like fossil fuels and fresh water. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there are two paths to zero population growth, and one is morally repugnant. China chose that path.  There isn't any need, as it appears that western liberal democracies have been able to achieve it (discounting immigration) via economic and social freedoms.  If you can get there in that method, why not?  -- Jayron  32  02:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the Western path is truly less repugnant, just much quieter. Bear in mind that sperm count has dropped by 50% in Western countries over the past 50 years.  The article on semen quality gives some reasons; another might be that bisphenol A, invented as a synthetic estrogen, was for many decades a standard component of the plastics in baby bottles and other such fine products.  The effect of these estrogen disruptors is actually epigenetic, passed from one generation to the next (inheritance of acquired characteristics).  Interestingly, it is suspected in certain other side-effects like a general increase in obesity.  It may be that history will recall the Chinese approach as the more ethically sound of the two - though of course, history might determine this to be purely an accident, an unforeseeable consequence of the unaccountable Invisible Hand at work, with no planning behind it at all. Wnt (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this could take centuries, by which time the environmental damage caused by all those people will have taken us well past a tipping point, resulting in runaway global warming, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Pro wrestling.
When answering a homework or an exam question about films/drama/books specifically in leaving cert is it safe to mention pro wrestling since it is mainly scripted and the outcome is predetermined and  it has the elements of drama or is it not counted. Mainly for questions like "What elements of drama do you most enjoy". --86.45.130.98 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll need to ask your instructor what is acceptable for the exam or homework. RudolfRed (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In general I would say pro wrestling is not a suitable subject for discussion in a homework or exam question about drama. It's popular TV entertainment, not a scholarly discipline.  If I were faced with a question like "What elements of drama do you most enjoy" I would confine myself to plays in the theatre. --Viennese Waltz 07:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pokemon Gold and Silver
Are Pokemon Gold and Silver two separate games? Or is it one game? (I have the same question about Pokemon Red and Blue.) If they're separate games, why is there just one article called "Pokemon Gold and Silver"? If they're not separate games, why are they talked about in the article as if they are separate games? I don't get it. 128.189.202.144 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They are almost identical games (very similar/identical plots, for example), but with a handful of very slight differences - most notably a slightly different selection of capturable Pokemon in each. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, if I play Pokemon Silver, there is little replay value in playing Pokemon Gold (other than for the joy of completeness that a die-hard fan would feel)? Why are such similar games released? I don't know of any other series that does this. 128.189.202.144 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's for the sense of completeness - especially with regard to filling up the Pokedex. (Beyond that, I'm not sure why anyone would want to buy both--perhaps someone else could help?) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would they put little effort into releasing a slightly revised product that idiots will buy for lots of money just so they can say they have the latest version ?  Perhaps we should ask Bill Gates (at least Pokemon versions don't each have new and improved bugs). StuRat (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * At least there's Pokémon Black and White now. While the two have similar gameplay, those games have more differences than previous games had ever had. Aside from version-exclusive Pokémon, there are version-exclusive places (in one game, one place is a forest, in another it's a city), and the last Gym Leader is different for both games. So really there's more motivation to have both games than before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is you typically wouldn't want to buy both versions of the game yourself, but you would want to make friends with people who have the other version of the game, then trade Pokémon with them to complete your collection. (To collect all of the Pokémon strictly on your own, you'd not only need the different versions of the game, but also two Game Boys and a link cable.) --Bavi H (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone here is pretty much correct, but I'll just say this: They are the same game, with minor changes between editions.  These changes are not substantial, so unless you are a completist and "gotta catch 'em all", there is no other reason to play both.  I will recommend you try the "HeartGold" or "SoulSilver" version, the remakes for the DS.  This way you can more easily transfer Pokemon to and from other editions via wireless and wifi. Mingmingla (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)