Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 4

= February 4 =

Why should people need to save their life before others scrupulously?
In all courses of first aid the instructors say that the safety is very important and that's why if you see someone and you want to help him then be safety firstly because your life is better. What is the basis for that, scrupulously? [For me it sounds like ego-centrism. Should a father or mother -for example- to think that way (that their life is before their children life)? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the idea is that of you die, or are disabled, then the person you are trying to help will die anyway. For example, if somebody is being electrocuted, just grabbing them may kill you both, but if you find a way to cut the power, you may possibly save both your lives, but definitely will save yours. For another example, they tell parents on airplanes to put their oxygen mask on first.  This way, if the child passes out, the mask can still be put on, while, if the parent passes out, they may well die. StuRat (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * An additional reason is to avoid cascading accidents. In most cases in modern society, professional aid will be on the way very quickly. But if there is one original injured person, but person two tries to help and is also injured, person three trying to help person two is injured or in danger, and so on, it's easy to overwhelm the system, at least locally and for a time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am all for IP 93 sacrificing himself to save my life. I fail to understand any argument to the contrary. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP may be interested into deepening their understanding of the philosophical school known as utilitarianism. It may not provide a neat answer for their question, but it will provide a context to understand their own thinking on this conundrum.  -- Jayron 32 04:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is also a case of . While I haven't really attended a first aide course, whenever I've seen parts of them on video, or seen written instructions etc, they don't generally say "because your life is better". At the most extreme, what they may stuff is stuff like "your own personal safety is above all else" (Wikibooks:First Aid/Emergency First Aid & Initial Action Steps) or more likely stuff like "Do not put your own safety at risk" or simply "Ensure your own safety" . Note there are key difference between all of these examples and your claim. They aren't commenting on who's life is "better" or more important, instead at most saying your own safety is more important than trying to save the person.
 * As StS and StuRat have indicated, in most situations the most likely alternative is not you save the person but die doing so, but you both die. So from a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, if both lives are valued equally (which doesn't seem to be egotistical) if you have over 50% chance of this happening it's automatically a worse outcome no matter the other statistics. Practically, while there is a small chance of you dying and the person you're trying to save surviving (and neither would have happened without your intervention) and some chance of you succcessfuly saving the person and surviving yourself; in many such situations the most likely alternative (other than both dying) is person still dies. So even if the chance is lower than 50% that both will die, you'll still end up with a worse average outcome. (If you have 30% chance of both dying, 45% chance of either dying and 25% of neither dying the average outcome with equal life value is worse even assuming there's 100% chance of the person dying without your intervention.) But it's difficult for anyone to be able to reliably calculate such statistics in the spur of the moment anyway, so realisticly the best thing would often be to simply consider your own personal safety. Practically, as StS has indicated calculating such statistics is complicated since in many cases it's likely additional assistance may arrive soon. Even without overwhelming local assistance, in such a scenario there's still a greater risk of a worse outcome if they have to aide both the first person drowning and the person who thought it was a good idea to try and save them despite barely knowing how to swim. In addition, encouraging people to think about what they're doing is likely to increase the chance they'll come up with an option with minimal risk to themselves, and so probably much high chance of success for the person they're trying to save. (Although in some cases there may really be no such option.) As μηδείς has sort of indicated, many people aren't going to consider this from a strictly unbiased utilitarian viewpoint anyway. I question if it's really egotistical to think your own life is more important to you then some random strangers life. (The case of your kids or family members may be different.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * From a purely practical point of view, the emergency services need one live person to talk to, so that they can understand more about what happened and make the area safe for others. For instance, two people are lying in a puddle of water just a centimetre deep. What happened? If there is nobody who is able to tell any further rescuers that there was an electrical short which electrocuted one of the casualties, further rescuers may well be electrocuted themselves. This expands on Stephan Schulz's point above. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * OP, please provide a source where you read this. I've taken several first aid course and at no point has anyone ever said anything about my life being 'better'. As a first aider, you are cautioned to not involve yourself in any activity that could harm you for the simple reason that, if you get hurt, there are then TWO casualties in need of help. Matt Deres (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd say trained emergency responders do make "calculated risks" pretty often. Every police pursuit, for example, could end with someone getting killed (either someone in the car being pursued, or an innocent bystander - seldom a police member), which is why many jurisdictions prohibit pursuits except where deemed unavoidable. You don't pursue someone because they zoom off when you try to pull them over for speeding, or driving without a seatbelt, as you can always follow that up later. Pursuing stolen cars (where "chasing the matter up later" is much less of an option) is a very controversial area, and policies vary. But for those of us with only rudimentary training, there's the issue others mentioned of you not managing to accomplish anything except getting yourself hurt too, without helping the victim.
 * Sometimes even the experts "get it wrong", or feel driven to push on, such as the 343 firefighters killed on September 11, even though they were at one point told to get the hell out of the building, regardless of the fate of those still trapped inside. It's not clear if the message came through, or if some sense of "devotion to duty" pushed them on. Eliyohub (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of putting the oxygen mask on in an aircraft emergency, parents are advised to put their own on first before helping their child put their's on, because if the parent passes out from lack of oxgyen, noone will be able to help them or the child. And as others have mentioned, if you try to rescue someone without taking care of your own safety, you can easily end up a casulty yourself while failing to save the other.  This can easily happen when trying to rescue someone from e.g. electricution (as already mentioned), drowning, confined spaces, etc. Iapetus (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A teenager slipped into a water tank over a weekend and began to drown.  Without hesitation a woman dived in and kept the teenager afloat until workers arrived at the start of the working week and saved them. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is saying not to rescue people, just to make sure that you can do so without dying yourself. Iapetus (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I assume the woman could swim. Since I can't, even I were to try that there's a very good chance we'd both die. In fact there's a risk I may pull the teenager down with me. Even if we both survive, there's a good chance I made things worse no better. By comparison, if I gave a little thought and considered that I was just likely to die if I jumped in, maybe I will find a floatation device or someone else who can swim, or something else to help. Maybe I'd fail and the teenager will still die which is unfortunate, but still better then us both dying. And obviously not because my life is worth more than the teenagers (although it is to me). Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Legalizing marijuana in Canada
What problems could legalizing marijuana in Canada create with the United States?


 * I feel this question can be empirically answered - please do not hat things without consensus. I will note it directly relevant to the OP's question that several U.S. states have already introduced legal cannabis. Any change in the feds' approach to such states (and, along with them, possibly a Canada that went down the legalization path) such as a Trump administration might hypothetically take would be speculation. But assuming the current status quo remains, I can pretty safely say "none".
 * Mexico also decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of drugs, I believe. They DO have bigger fish to fry. U.S. objected, Mexico did it anyways, but I can see no lasting damage to the relationship between the two countries. Eliyohub (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Am unhating this. The OP asks  a good and valid question! Not simply crystal ball gazing.  Everybody knows that drugs used unwisely are detrimental. Yet mankind, and other primates have always used psychotropics through out history.  Currently, dugs that are considered 'controlled drugs' can be bought on many a street corner without the pusher asking the age of '"our"' sons, daughters, nieces, cousins etc.   And for anybody that hasn’t stood on those corners, the pushers also push the hard stuff (catch-them-while-their-young). So there is no 'control'  whilst it is in hands of criminals.  The US & Canada may not yet see eye -to-eye on everything. Common ground is nevertheless less is being discovered now, from empirical evidence rather than blind dogma.   How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide--Aspro (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am all for legalization, but neither of the responses above have anything to do with US-Canadian relations in the future. Maybe Trump will tweet a threat to blow up Canada's Cannabis plantations.  Until then, this is not the place for opinion or advocacy. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am unhating this again. The OP is not asking for crystal ball gazing . Rather he is wanting to know of the problems that 'are already known to exist' concerning  legal unification. If the hating editor has an issue with this, then let him bring it up on the appropriate community portal.--Aspro (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * [I think you mean "hatting" rather than "hating", Aspro, but I concur with your point. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)]
 * "unification" of what? —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP can ask what he likes, but no one has provided a reference that says what will happen if Canada should legalize marijuana. And at the top of this page it says we don't make predictions. Still waiting on Trump to tweet "WEED WAR!" v Canadian Cannabis! μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Unhatting, as the OP didn't ask what "will" happen, so it's not a prediction. As for what could happen, note that during US prohibition of alcohol, it was legal in Canada.  There was quite a bit of smuggling from Canada to the US, however.  And current anti-marijuana laws in the US are enforced about as haphazardly as anti-alcohol laws were then. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have legal marijuana in some states within the US, as opposed to a hypothetical across international borders; so an appropriate question could be, what problems has that situation caused, if any? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Didn't the governor of Oklahoma try to sue Colorado for negligently exporting trouble? —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Japan, Korea and Singapore school systems
In many world ranks of school systems like TIMSS, Japan, Korea and Singapore are best. How Japan, Korea and Singapore make the school system so good? Is the culture and management? Then why university ranks, Japan, Korea and Singapore not so good compared to American and British university? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The teaching methods used in schools to teach children are very different from those used in universities to enable young and older adults to gain knowledge.
 * Schools aim to teach children, as far as possible, certain things (which may differ between school systems and teaching philosophies) and then measure how well the children have learned them. Universities "teach" (or facilitate the learning of) different things from schools, using different methods, and measure their success in different ways. A given country may be better at one than the other, relative to their "competitors". {The poster formerly known as 98.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of commentary on this topic online, with experts cautioning against reading too much into the international student assessments. For instance, the East Asian school systems can have a heavy emphasis on spending long periods ot time "cramming" which doesn't necessarily lead to good outcomes after students graduate. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The best Japanese university serves 130 million Japanese speakers, the best American and British university serve almost a billion English speakers. A Harvard-strength endowment would be a large percent of Singapore's GDP. They only have a population of about 0.15 Tokyo. In 2003 they had 7/10ths that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question: "the pressure coming from family and teachers", "the competitive nature of the society", and students in Asia-Pacific countries spending "almost twice as much time studying as children in other countries." (From here, although somewhat of an opinion piece)Alcherin (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. So Asian children use more time to study cause culture and parent pressure. Sagittarian Milky Way, I cannot understand this part: A Harvard-strength endowment would be a large percent of Singapore's GDP. They only have a population of about 0.15 Tokyo. In 2003 they had 7/10ths that. I know GDP is country economy and Tokyo population is 13.6 million. But they is what? Why the population change so much from 0.7 Tokyo in 2003 to 0.15 Tokyo now? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Curious Cat on Her Last Life, Harvard owns 37.4 billion USD as of 2015, Singapore's GDP that year was 307.9 billion USD. I counted the metropolitan area of Tokyo which is at least about 38 million or so. Singapore is an independent country with a population about 15% of Tokyo (5.75 million) and in 2003 it was about 70% that or barely 4 million. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Heat set on in the upper 70s
I live in a house where it often set the heat (not AC) on at 78 (usually between 75-78). My mother controls the temperature of my house. I know most homes set the heat on in the upper 60s to low 70s, so setting the heat on in the upper 70s is an outlier. The reason she often sets the heat on that high is that my mother is sensitive to cold arguably because my 61-year old mother is skinny as she weigh 88 pounds and her height 5'1". I'll curiously ask you the opinion on what percentage of homes have their heat set on in the upper 70s often? I can say 10% of the houses set it that high often as the base percentage, do you think it is higher or lower than 10% of homes, or right around there? Planet  Star  23:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You say 10 percent... based on what? And have you searched Google for possible surveys on the subject? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Around 10 percent (more specifically 9 percent) is my estimate, that is a base percentage used as a starting point for other people to think if it's lower or higher than my given base. I searched and found a couple of reports of people setting the heat on at 78, but didn't find the survey statistics on that. I'm inviting users to estimate what percentage of homes set the heat in the upper 70s often. Planet  Star  04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that older people also have slower metabolisms, so generate less heat that way. My mom is the same.  In addition to the obvious advice for her to dress warmer and eat warm foods (like oatmeal instead of cold cereal), zone heating may help.  Some space heaters are dangerous, however, such as a kerosene heater/propane heater or any heater that gets hot enough to ignite paper.  I use the type that looks like a radiator, and only on low, so it never gets hot enough to set anything on fire or cause burns.  While heating the whole house with such devices would be expensive, you might actually save money if only a small portion of the house, where she spends her time, is so heated, and the rest of the house is kept cooler.  If she spends her time in the same room as others, then a radiant heater, pointed at her, may be the only option. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer the question about the range, some data can be found for the UK from this government survey. See the charts on page 13 to 17, for example. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)