Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 October 24

= October 24 =

Early people and EXTREMELY LONG lifespans
I have read about several people who lived for nearly 200 years and more back in the earliest times. Well, so far, they were all men. Did husbands usually outlive their wives back then? For example, Abraham was said to have outlived Sarah, and his age was given as almost 200 years (175, to be exact). Sarah was said to have only lived to 127 years (though still a remarkable age), not even half of 200 years. Did early people really live for nearly 200 years and more back in the earliest times? NPham2005 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My personal view of ancient scriptures such as the Bible, Koran and others, is that after a couple of thousand years or more they are highly unreliable sources of information. These stories were told, re-told and embellished long before they were committed to writing. Since existing in written form they have been translated and interpreted in many different ways. They must be regarded as a collection of folk tales rather than rigorously recorded factual information of the kind we expect from modern writers and historians. I suggest you focus on the science and disregard these ancient writings. Just because something purports to have been written a few thousand years ago doesn't make it a reliable source of objective information. Dolphin  ( t ) 04:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference desk isn't the place for opinions, predictions or debate. Also, the Quran is not yet two thousand years old.  You are correct, however, that the ancient religious texts are not used at face value by mainstream historians.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See Life_expectancy. Mainstream and/or credible historians no longer use the Book of Genesis as a starting point, and most mainline seminaries recommend or at least teach allegorical or otherwise nuanced interpretations. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Such lifespans do not have credible evidence to back them up. And neither do the 30-40 year lifespans that the cavemen were said to have. And no, husbands did not usually outlive their wives in the past. For the earliest available mortality data, you should check out Sweden's mortality data of the 1750s. In Sweden's 1750s mortality data, the modal age at death was 72 years, and women usually outlived men. This has traditionally been the case throughout time and all around the world. So no, people did not live for more than 200 years back then. Nor did they die young, like at 35 years. They usually lived to 72. And wives usually outlived their husbands, even back then. Fanddlovernamedjason (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that. Yes, people lived to their biblical three score and ten years when they reached adulthood or, for women, menopause. But infant mortality and child mortality was so high that the averages went down quite a lot. And, for women, maternal mortality also decreased life expectancy. There may be exceptions. In the 1700th, Sweden was a major power with plenty of overseas wars, which may skew the distribution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are disagreeing with, . I took Fanddlover to mean that if you reached adulthood your life expectancy was ~70, a point that often needs making. The much lower life expectancy that is usually quoted is principally because of infant mortality, but people often assume that this means that most people died in their 20s or 30s. --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case we violently agree on that aspect. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Fanddlovernamedjason is wrong about women outliving men, wives outliving husbands, "throughout time and all around the world" because of the much greater maternal mortality before the 20th century.John Z (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe this will change your mind: https://books.google.com/books?id=JAOtEMdjzJQC&pg=PA128&dq=did+men+outlive+women+childbirth+death&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI58CCnJvdyAIVCy2ICh2LvA6b#v=onepage&q=did%20men%20outlive%20women%20childbirth%20death&f=false Fanddlovernamedjason (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That reference agrees more with my statement than yours, which was too strong.John Z (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It states that in spite of deaths in childbirth, men did not outlive women in the past. How does that agree more with your statement than mine? Fanddlovernamedjason (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 127 is more than half of 200 -- Aryan fromहि है (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. When I wrote that, I was only thinking of the numbers 100 through 200 (which led to me thinking 150 was exactly half of 200), instead of the numbers 1 through 200. I don't know why. My mistake. NPham2005 (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't actually any law of nature that says that a person couldn't live a thousand years. We don't really understand aging well enough to know.  However, the odds of avoiding cancer, heart disease, runaway oxen, smallpox, French pox, and ill-advised ancient medical practices?  Not so great.  It's hard to picture one or two mutations leaving someone with "+20 Constitution" who can just laugh off the centuries.  Note, however, that this is guesswork and not scientific evidence.  In a sense, an ancient world origin story is the most plausible place to find such individuals, since it is easier to postulate that, oh, some isolated population of Denisovans evolved longer life-span over the course of half a million years, fine-tuning dozens of genes for longevity to work together, and then some of them migrating into an area might be considered as the 'first men' by someone telling the story, until their legacy would be diluted out. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We have literally billions of experiments (people who have died at a documented age) that give us a pretty good idea of what the maximum life expectancy is. Thus we don't actually need to know the mechanisms of aging to know the max life span.  To propose that this was significantly more in the past would require a drastic change in the environment, like a lower rate of gamma rays hitting the Earth.  Still, you would then need to explain why this longevity affect was apparently localized to certain communities (if it wasn't, it would lead to a massive population growth which would have also been detected).  StuRat (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You could make the same argument about girls who turn into boys. The great thing about biology is that however you think the world works, sooner or later it is going to come along and say piss on your theory. :)  Physics may work by determining what's impossible, but in biology you can only determine what's possible. Wnt (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find a source, but I once read that if we eventually managed to abolish aging, the typical rate of accidents, murders, etc, would limit life expectancy to about 300 years. It the past, this would have been even lower.  So while there is no hard law of nature that prevents 1000+ year lifespans, they would be very unlikely to actually live that long.  Furthermore, there is little evolutionary benefit to extreme lifespans, especially when risk of early death through accident is high, and it would be a negative if it came at the expense of fertility (source: The Selfish Gene).  So if there was once a population of ancient humans with extreme or unlimited lifespan, and some mutants were born with a hard-coded limit of 120ish, then there would be little or no selective pressure to eliminate the mutants. Iapetus (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If we had longer lifespans, then we wouldn't be willing to take the risks we do. Transportation is a particular problem, as there's just no way to make travelling at high speeds (on Earth) absolutely safe.  So, that would leave slow speed transportation and telecommuting. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article about human lifespans at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002740.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Think these biblical references refer to such things as the House of Abraham. The eldest son, begot an eldest son that also begot an eldest son etc. - with no doubt about the parentage, because the wives where virgins upon marriage (afterwards is was anybody's guess because  that was the way it was  in those days. These people written  about had households  of servants and -when the husband's away the mice will play). So  it was the custom of these times to practice Primogeniture.  So  when  it is recorded, that someone lived for 400 years, it only means there was a four-hundred  year linage of direct inheritance of first-born sons of certain parentage.  To-day (or yesterday) we have modern day examples of George Hamilton IV. So, it was not the flesh and blood individual that had these very long life spans but his flesh and blood direct first-born descendants.--Aspro (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you any evidence at all for that interpretation, ? --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been written. If you think your  interpretation is different from both recorded history, myth &  legend, then it is up-to  you to question the basis of your  interpretation. So, back to you on that one.  Remember: although man's desire, greed and lusts for power, etc.,  was the same back then as it is now,  the culture  which in they lived in, was different from what it is today. Take that out of the equation and then read the word -it becomes as clear as day. --Aspro (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Aspro, that adds up to a heck of a long time, when you put together all the begats. (the actual total is left as an exercise for the student).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you Google the subject, various hypotheses turn up. One is that age given for these guys is a function of the "numerical value" of the letters in their names. But no one knows for sure. It's all guesswork. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I remember a theory taught in my religion class that they used to reckon their ages by the moon, so the high numbers referred to the number of months rather than years that they lived. Snorgle (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Occam's razor is you friend here.--Aspro (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really, since the assumption that those ages are for real doesn't square with any known reality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We are really dealing with two questions here... 1) "Did people really live for nearly 200 years and more back in the earliest times?"... the answer to that is simple... "nope".  The second question is: "So what accounts for the extremely long ages given in texts such as the Bible?"  That too is simple...  Numbers in sacred texts are usually symbolic and allegorical ... they are not meant to be taken literally.
 * By saying that the Patriarchs lived extraordinarily long lives, the Bible highlights that they were "special"... blessed by their God ... and by implication, that their descendants are blessed. However, it also highlights for the reader (the descendants) the fact that they don't live as long... which leads them to ask "Why not?"...  which in turn leads to the obvious conclusion: "Because we are sinners who don't keep the Covenant as well as the Patriarchs did"... wicked, wicked descendants!... (perhaps if they go sacrifice at the Temple, and do whatever the Priests tell them to do, God will forgive them). Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's too much dogma from those who advocate a religious viewpoint and those who deny it.

There's no particular reason why those people shouldn't/couldn't have lived that long, but you may choose to be sceptical.

Sceptics will wish to consider why it is that many of those who apparently lived longest are minor players, not those who the text might 'want' to highlight as "blessed by their God" (compare the lives of minor character Terach, and his son and major character Abraham: 205 v 175). An even stronger issue, when you consider that Terach is regarded as wicked in Jewish sources.

Believers have to deal with the fact that there's no evidence that these people even existed ... other than the Bible.

As usual this will always come down to the simple issue: believe it or don't believe it, but you won't convince someone who's firmly in the opposite camp to you, and if you're a fence-dweller, you're best off discussing it with fence-dwellers.

Finally, going back to the OP's first question, traditionally, Sarah is believed to have died before her time. The text doesn't mention the lifespan of any other woman at all, so it's a bit of a stretch to make assumptions based on one case. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What was the 1941 "Save the doctors" order in Nazi Germany?
In this article on Dering v Uris the author writes "After the “Save the Doctors” order issued by the German government in 1941, doctors might be punished but very few were killed." I can't seem to figure out what order this statement refers to. I've looked extensively in Google and Wikipedia, but it's hard to find because "Save the doctors" is probably the author's interpretation, rather than the name of the order or text that appears in it. None of Hitler's orders from 1941 which have the text linked from Wikipedia (or that I could otherwise find) fit the bill, although it was not necessarily an order issued by Hitler himself.

Does anyone know what the author is talking about? I might add some more detail to the Dering v Uris article, and this might be good to refer to there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingsuntil (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

F.W De Klerk and Apartheid
What made F.W De Klerk realize that Apartheid was an unworkable system that needed reform, and why was it that De Klerk had released Mandela and P.W Botha did not? --Yonglingtonshire (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He was a better man. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not much of an answer. For a better one, read Apartheid. --Viennese Waltz 20:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Why was Mandela not killed?
So many other good potential African leaders have been killed or corrupted during decades, I've always wondered why Mandela had not been assassinated like so many other African revolutionaries. Why instead, they kept him in prison during decades, as if they were keeping him ready in case something would have changed in the future. Is there a theory, a thesis, that develops this idea of keeping Mandela ready for better days, instead of having him killed very soon? Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I infer from Capital punishment in South Africa that it was typically used for murderers, and I don't think Mandela was ever convicted of murder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I said assassinated or corrupted, not death-sentenced. I was thinking of examples like Patrice Lumumba (Belgium and the US opportunely refusing help and letting/getting him killed by his opponents), or like Mikhail Khodorkovsky who was not killed but who Putin openly declared he was going to break him while emprisoning him. My question was about why Mandela had been able to study and become such a leader in prison, where they could easily have broken him or got him killed? I understand the official version that says the reason is all because Mandela was such a super man so very able to cope with decades in prison without getting broken nor killed, my question was, is there a theory that states he was kept alive and well on purpose, for some new future where (for example) the USSR wouldn't weight anymore and (for example), racism and apartheid would not be accepted anymore in a new world that was going to be much more multicultural with a globalized economy? Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apartheid South Africa may have been morally reprehensible, but they also were extremely conscious that they were utterly dependent on foreign trade, and consequently on public opinion in the US and Europe (particularly in Britain). Since the entire supposed justification for their setup was that they were bringing civilisation, they tended to stick to the rule of law. Outside movies, state sanctioned political assassinations are very rare, which is presumably why you're grasping at Russia for examples. The closest thing to a state political execution in SA I can think of is the case of Steve Biko, and that was much more a case of bad cops than of the authorities specifically ordering it. &#8209; iridescent 21:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Most expensive thing ever bought
What's the most expensive item ever bought/sold? There are a lot of lists of 'most expensive stuff' out there but they're usually by category or jumble up expensive paintings with expensive-by-burger-standards-but-not-compared-to-paintings burgers. I'd guess it was an area of land but obviously I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.237.11 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bought by whom? An individual or government?  And as a single transaction or over a period?  A single item or a collection of items?--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * One could make a case that the answer is "moon rocks". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you include company takeovers, the answer could be the 2000 takeover of Mannesmann by Vodafone for 180 billion US dollars worth of stock: http://money.cnn.com/2000/02/04/europe/vodafone/, though of course many individual shareholders were involved in the deal. - Lindert (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We do have a (very incomplete) article Lists of most expensive items, and the highest-priced thing linked from it is the US Interstate Highway System. However, I'm not sure whether that counts as an "item" from the OP's perspective. Tevildo (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be Alaska, anyway, the US paid $25 million to Denmark for what are now the US Virgin Islands, more than three times what was paid for Alaska.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uggh. Complicated.  The US dollar had the same nominal value in gold in 1867 (at least as far as transactions in gold, rather than greenbacks, are concerned) as in 1917. I read Nugent's book on monetary policy from 1865 to 1880 but I was really interested in researching the background to the Coinage Act of 1873.  But there was an awful lot of deflation going at various times in that half century, first having to do with retirement of greenbacks in the late 1860s and then because the gold standard, that the US was on in all but name until formalized in 1900, didn't allow for a terribly rapid expansion of the money supply.  But I'm not able to give you a definite answer. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How about Bush–Blair selling the argument to invade  Iraq. That cost billions. It's still costing us billions in taxes to try and contain the aftermath. That's real money which has  put a dent in the GDP. They both increased their personal fortunes afterwards by going on lecture tours, but I find no record of them offering to compensating their voters  which  bought their product in good faith.--Aspro (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For really expensive things, see the section on Hungary in the article on Hyperinflation. 😀 Widneymanor (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that an "item" has to be a thing that already exists, so government projects like wars and highway systems are out. It has to be something that was owned by one or more persons and sold to one or more persons as a single transaction, where "person" is used in the legalistic sense that includes corporations and governments as well as actual people. And on that basis, I suspect that the Lindert's suggestion of a corporate takeover is the right place to look for an answer. According to multiple sources that I checked, such as this one and this one, the purchase of Vodaphone at $185.1 billion US held the record only briefly before Time Warner was acquired in AOL for $186.2 billion US. As these transactions were only 2 months apart, even correcting for inflation the second one should be the larger amount. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Whose side is who in Syria?
Can you provide or point me to a good analysis of the major forces taking part in the Syrian conflict? This is not for school, since I have a Ph.D. and don't need another. Thanks, Halcatalyst (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On WP, we have List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War, which is grouped by alliances. BBC has some nice coverage here . Do you need something more in-depth than that? Also not that relevant but I'm curious - what's your Ph.D. in? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references. The Ph.D. is in English, Northwestern 1972. Halcatalyst (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a chart! Wikipedia rocks!
 * I was just curious, as I am in lots of things. Here, of course, the interest is in how Russia complicated things by so abruptly entering the conflict. Thank you, SemanticMantis. And I can only imagine what contributions a theoretical mathematician makes to theoretical ecology. Halcatalyst (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant applied mathematician.


 * Depending on how you define "the Syrian conflict", there are many "in Syria" as part of the various military intervention against ISIL. That spillover is where it starts getting the shadiest, as far as enemies' enemies becoming friends goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nipple specifics
In western countries where female toplessness is illegal, is it legal to have a sticker that only covers your nipples in public? Are there any specifics? I like how u rotate (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See Pasties.  General Ization  Talk   23:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer pasties with melted butter on top. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That page is not specific about the legality of doing it in public in specified western nations. I like how u rotate (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You might actually need to click on some of the links to sources cited there.  General Ization   Talk   16:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In most jurisdictions, the laws don't specify exactly what behaviors are banned, but instead talk about causing offence or disturbing public order. See Indecent exposure.  Rojomoke (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as an example, here's what the Criminal Code of Canada says on the matter: "a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order". This was formerly interpreted to make female toplessness illegal in public, and then a series of court rulings in the other direction made it legal via case law. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)