Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 November 8

= November 8 =

Non-religious arguments for keeping old and sick people alive
I'm not trying to start a controversy or make a joke, but I've always wondered why (especially in the US, but other places as well) we try so hard to keep people alive who are past their prime and no longer productive members of society. There is the familiar question of euthanasia for people in a vegetative state or people who are in severe and long-term pain (and I read the euthanasia article and its brief section on arguments agains it), but I am interested in the broader question of why dying isn't encouraged once a person reaches a certain stage in their life or their illness.

The reasons I can come up with mainly have to do with religious commandments ("Thou shalt not kill"; "Honor thy mother and thy father", etc.), and I get that. But what are the non-religious arguments? Those would seem to be like "it's just the decent thing to do." Or that letting/helping/encouraging to people die is "cruel" or "barbaric". But why isn't the idea of keeping old people alive who are frail and demented and a burden on their family considered equally "cruel" or ghoulish? Is it purely irrational sentimentality (i.e., that we don't have the stomach/heart to tell grandma to go die)?

I have heard that the reason that humans have evolved to live long past their years of peak fertility is that in prehistoric days old people cared for the young ones while the people in the prime of their life went out hunting/gathering. To a certain extent, old people do still help us take care of our children. But for those who do not help with the kids or who do not work and pay taxes or are too sick or senile to take care of themselves, what are the specific moral arguments for encouraging them to go on living?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One could make the argument that by them living, we can learn about how the body deals with aging and figure out how to prolong an active and (more) productive life. The elderly are in this rather de-humanized way, test subjects for the betterment of the next generation.  Dismas |(talk) 07:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard the expression "reverence for all life"? Humans are much, much, much, more than their apparent "usefulness" as viewed through a faulty and narrow prism.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As a response to my question, that's kind of a circular argument. Short of religious reasons, what are the reasons we should a reverence for all life, even if that quality of that life is irredeemably low and the burden it imposes on society is high.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not circular. Reverence is the reason "we try so hard to keep people alive who are past their prime and no longer productive members of society".  It's also called compassion, caring, love etc.  But who gets to decide when someone is "no longer a productive member of society"?  How is this measured - by how many Big Macs they purchase in a month?  By how many marathons they run in a year?  Maybe the purpose of such people is to give others opportunities to demonstrate that compassion, caring etc stuff I mentioned above.  That's priceless and invaluable.  You could take your position to extremes and have all newborn children exterminated, on the basis that it's gonna be a long time before they ever get to become "productive members of society".  In some cases, this time never arrives, so why take the risk?  In other cases, the result is hardly worth all the time and money and effort and tears and love expended on them.  So, again, why take the risk?  Kill 'em all and we solve a number of problems all at once.  Neato.   Bottom line: People are not problems to be solved.  They are precious resources all by themselves, without ever having to do anything to achieve this or demonstrate this.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is quite debate-ish, but I don't follow why something being a religious commandment means it is a religious argument. People who reject religion aren't generally opposed to not killing, nor are they against honouring their parents. To address your question, though, I think many would argue that we have a prima facie obligation to not destroy life- in other words, unless there is some overriding reason, we shouldn't act in a way that results in death. I don't believe that "out lived their usefulness" overrides this. Of course, if the infirm person has left some sort of instruction to euthanize them, this is a different matter, but sans instruction on their part, I don't see how this could be left up to other people (I'm referring to your part about not having the heart to tell grandma to go die; vegetative states are a different matter). Honestly, though, any argument that involves discussing the usefulness of people by reference to prehistoric roles should probably be reexamined- the onus is on you to justify that that notion has any merit. --You haven't established that there is any rational metric of "useful" that applies to people, nor have you established that people who are not "useful" by this metric should be terminated; you can counter and say that it has not been established that life has intrinsic value, so your rule isn't inconsistent with what you consider shown, but, then, the rule "kill everyone with brown eyes" isn't inconsistent either. In short, if you agree that life, in general, has value, then the burden is on you to show that it loses this value in specific cases (in the vegetative state case and the left instructions case the justification has to do with the will of the person to be destroyed, the ability of others to act on one's behalf, and the legal niceties of such things).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say that "kill everyone with brown eyes"--even if that person can care for himself/herself and is a productive member of society--is extremely harmful from an economic and utilitarian perspective. From a moral perspective, it is not also not "fair" because the reason seems arbitrary and it would mean that the brown-eyed person is denied the opportunity to demonstrate worth to society.  Also, I am imagining an alternate view not where people who are not useful "should be terminated" but merely that they should not be actively encouraged to go on living and using our scarce resources.  I don't subscribe to this view, but I'm interested in why such a view is not more prevalent.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you've missed the point I've what I'm saying. If you reject that life has intrinsic value, there is nothing wrong with killing brown eyed people- if you think life does have value at some point, then you're the one positing that something changes at some later point. In other words, you need to provide your definitions and arguments for the idea that people should be so encouraged. I don't need an argument to not encourage my grandma to get euthanized, there is nothing that compels me to do so. Saying that it would be better for me economically doesn't mean much, it would be better for me economically if I did lots of things that I don't want to, economic utility isn't "the" utility, it is a utility. In short, what justifies "economic utility overrides life being valuable"? (Again, you can claim that life isn't valuable, but that opens up other issues) It seems like you have a specific definition/moral perspective about life, but are framing the issue as if it were already established. So, are you claiming that life is not valuable or are you claiming that economic utility can override the value of life?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's quicker clearer version (it's not the same argument, but the same idea). Morally speaking, nobody has to do anything unless they have some duty to do it. It's not immoral to eat Doritos, but I don't require a reason to not eat Doritos, that it isn't immoral doesn't imply I need to do it, or that I should. If all you are saying is that you don't see why it would be wrong, nobody needs to justify not doing it- but it sounds like you're saying people ought to encourage grandma to get destroyed. In which case, you are asserting something and, thus, you need to justify it.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Killing the elderly and sick would make all their friends and relatives very angry. Of course, I suppose you could then ask why their friends and relatives would be angry.  The old and sick can still provide wisdom, such as knowledge of some infrequent event, like a volcanic eruption, and how it was survived previously.  So, even in a totally selfish way, you could still see value in them. StuRat (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * From an economical perspective, after retirement the elderly would be best used as compost: Rounded up, chucked in the chipper, and spread over farms. This is unlikely to happen since badger culls attract widespread controversy. A grandparent hunt would also likely attract some angry letters.
 * From a pro-choice perspective (does that word work for non-abortion arguments?) they should be able to choose when they die if they want since it's their life and since terminally ill people being kept alive against their will is not fair or morally right.
 * From a common heard religious perspective (from Christians in the UK at least) people should not have the choice to take a life, since this would upset the beardy shiny cloud man who has the sole right to create and destroy life.
 * Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 10:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You can argue from an economic perspective. If I am getting up there in years, and I know that my younger countrymen would have me turned into mulch, I will move to a more elderly-friendly country with all of my easily movable assets. If my countrymen start going after less-old people to prevent this sort of departure, then I would simply depart that much earlier. A mass exodus of citizens with all of their money would not be good for the economy, unless they are actually a net drain upon it. Then the country might actually be happy to see them go. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If they're retired then they're likely a drain on the economy, especially if they don't have private pensions. Which country would accept millions of pensioners, most of which will not want to work after already retiring? Frankly, if this was done in the UK, we'd have a special bin outside of every house to dispose of our elderly, ready for bin collection day. We'd probably be fined too for putting them in the wrong bins... Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 11:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Best case scenario - anyone over 75 is rounded up and experimented on to find cures for the sick people. That kills two birds with one stone and ends animal testing. The downsides are a lack of elderly (that's arguably a downside for most), sales of corduroy trousers will collapse, the roads will be a bit safer, and with less traffic on the roads and in shop cues (no elderly paying for prunes in small change). Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to die, myself, any earlier than I have to. I'm hoping for a long relaxed retirement (assuming no debilitating and/or painful conditions develop).  I am therefore not going to set a precedent of killing off people as soon as they've stopped being productive.  Rojomoke (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One serious issue with this is when the decision to end life falls to a family member and there are (possibly) inheritances involved. Imagine you have a sick old granny who is going to leave her adult grandchild $1,000,000 in her will.  If the decision to turn off the ventilator and let the old lady die falls into the hands of the grandchild then there is a clear conflict of interest.  You might find that the old lady has a 1% chance of recovery and a badly reduced quality of life if she does - but the ethical issues of taking that away from her are serious!  Even if she's conscious and able to make a decision, how can we tell that the grandchild isn't putting pressure on her to opt to end her life.


 * Putting laws in place to prevent these kinds of thing from happening are what makes this a difficult area - even when religion is not involved. Some cases are pretty clear-cut, where there is absolutely zero chance of recovery or the person has such an incredibly poor quality of life - then it may not matter.  But writing law and medical ethics guidelines is difficult because there are no "bright line" determinations here - it's always a grey area.  The definition of the moment of death is a classic example of how hard this is.


 * So the law tends to err on the side of keeping someone alive - and although religious issues might get entangled in this, I don't think they are the biggest part of the problem.


 * People's ideas of what they are prepared to tolerate vary widely. I know someone who used to work in nursing homes who says that she wants her life terminated "if I can no longer wipe my own arse"...which seems like a very low bar to me - two broken arms and she's outta here!  My level of tolerance is that I need for my higher brain functions to be active and to have at least some means to communicate with the outside world.  I'm sure other people have their own criteria - which makes the decisionmaking process yet harder.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think most ideas relating to this seem radical to those with another opinion. Just like we have donor cards, it could be as simple as signing up to something like that, which gives instructions on what to do with the person if they fall critically ill, terminally ill, or just end up in a coma. The problem with that is i imagine most people will change their opinion a couple times and probably never update the card... How much time could we buy if we harvested the organs of the poor? Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 16:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The "card" is apparently called Advance health care directive, and the legal requirements and effects are varying widely with jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It could be that some people become attached emotionally to others. The phrase "loved ones" is often encountered in the human sphere. Though objectively indefensible it could be that people want to keep these so-called "loved ones" alive for what could be called "sentimental reasons". Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So the idea exists, but the law hasn't caught up with it. Interesting. Nice research Bus stop ツ Jenova   20  (email) 16:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Jerk of Thrones, here are some references that may provide useful discussion on the topic: Wikipedia's article on senicide would also be relevant, although it is in pretty poor shape. I am hoping that other contributors to the reference desk will be able to provide more, and better, references, since I very much doubt that we here are the first (or, frankly the best qualified) persons to address the question you pose. I expect there to be a rich literature on the topic, in the fields of philosophy, medical ethics and law, and the above references should at least provide a useful entry point. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First, some might reason that if they maintain the tradition of providing food, shelter medical care and amusements for the elderly, they stand a better chance of having a pleasant life themselves when they are in their 70's 80's or even 90's. I know a great many people in those age ranges and none seem eager to die, and in fact clearly take pleasure in social activities. Second, some are fond of their Mom and Dad, or their grandparents, and remember the love and care they received from them in years past, and are happy to return the favor. They enjoy talking to them on the phone, visiting them, or having them in their home. When they are gone I miss them. A  very minor third reason which occurs to me is that in my hobby of genealogy, it would be of extreme convenience to have a grandparent or great-grandparent alive who could identify people in old pictures, or could explain how someone was related. I did take down family histories from those of previous generations when possible, but new questions come up after it is too late to ask.  My great grandmother was recorded in the obituary  without a first name as "Mrs husband's name" but my father was able instantly to tell me her given name, which made it easy to find her parents and grandparents etc in old documents such as censuses. Edison (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The question reminds me of a story I heard long ago: A father and his son are carrying their frail, demented grandfather in a basket. The son asks the father what they're doing, and the father says the grandfather is nothing but a burden anymore, and they are going to drown him in the river. The son tells his father to keep the basket, because he'll need to use it when his father gets to that same stage himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

One reason younger relatives keep older, frail and seemingly unproductive folk alive is love. Don't look for a rational explanation for that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * They've paid their way, they're not worth eating, you don't want to be killed off yourself, and Logan's Run. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

oppiliyappan temple
why dont they use salt in making oppiliyappans temple prasadh ??is there any specific reason behind it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.177.4 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See Uppiliappan Temple. According to the article, the tradition is derived from the legend of Vishnu and Markandeya. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

29th February
If someone is born on 29th Feb, when it is celebrated their birthday?  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  19:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On February 29th every fourth year, and the others either on February 28th or March 1st. And after a certain age, they're probably satisfied with celebrating only once every four years. --Xuxl (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And accroding to our article February 29: "In non-leap years, some leaplings celebrate their birthday on either February 28 or March 1, while others only observe birthdays on the authentic intercalary dates, such as February 29 leap days." By the way, this seems to be a popular question, for some reason; there's a lot written on this, which all comes to similar conclusions:, , , etc. --Xuxl (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It qualifies as a "happy problem", mostly, although G&S made fun of it in The Pirates of Penzance. It depends on whether the celebrant is more interested in February or in the 29th. Because one can argue that the 29th is "hidden" inside March 1st during non-leap years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  20:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a classmate with this issue. She celebrated on March 1st, as apparently do my local officials when it comes to age-related laws.  February 28th is always before the 29th, so drinking/driving/smoking/voting on that date is illegal in their respective years, and legal on the 1st of March, which always comes after.  This is apparently true for many, but not all jurisdictions, but don't quote me on that.  Mingmingla (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I once interviewed a woman born on Feb. 29, 1896. She did not have a birthday to celebrate until 1904, at age 8.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My dog is a leap year dog. She's happy; we compensate by giving her extra special attention on Feb 28 and Mar 1. (And every other day, come to think of it.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So how does that work with the whole "1 dog year = 7 human years" thing? Does it mean she ages the equivalent of 28 years on each actual birthday?  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That might account for the moondog look (a day for a year and all that). --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Passport photos
Which are the exact measurement for passports pictures. Someone asked me that last week but I didn't know.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  20:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The exact requirements will depend on the state issuing the passport. For the USA, it's 2" x 2" - see United States passport.  For the UK, it's 45 x 35 mm - see this site.  The official Cuban website rather unhelpfully says "passport size", without giving any numbers.  Tevildo (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  21:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Passport photo booths usually produce photos of about the right size. Note that some countries can be very picky about what qualifies as a passport photo - the UK for example goes on to specify that in the photo your head must be between 29 and 34 mm tall, you can't wear hats or glasses, you can't smile, and a whole load of other rules as well.  Astronaut (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's best to go to a store which is authorized to make passport photos. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Authorized"? By whom, where? In the US, there are no "official passport photographers"; many post offices offer the service (for a fee) but they are as official as the local drugstore photographer, or, for that matter, anyone with a camera. All they do at the passport agency (again, it's the post office in most cases in the US) is put a little cardboard template over the photo you provide them and make sure it follows the remarkably picky rules. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, "authorized" is not quite the right term, it's more like "providing as a standard service". If a photo store or a post office has a sign saying "passport photos here", there's a pretty good chance they already know the answer to the OP's question, and can produce exactly what the government is looking for. It depends on how much time you want to spend on it vs. just paying a specialist to do it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Granted, the gov't is picky but it's not rocket science. My wife took our photos for our passports. Though she's a photographer by trade, it didn't take that much effort and only about a half hour of research on the sizing and such.  Dismas |(talk) 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Recipe website
Is there a website available somewhere where I can enter the ingredients I have available and then they return with recipes I could make with what I have? For example, if I had flour, sugar, eggs, and baking powder on hand it could give me a list of cakes or something I could make with those ingredients and those only? If not, someone should get on that (and pay me for the idea! ;) ) 63.95.64.254 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm about to leave for work, otherwise I'd research this a bit for you. But there are smartphone apps that I've seen do this.  So, the idea isn't completely original.  Dismas |(talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that it is haha. I'll take a look when I get out of work, I'm just really not sure what to search exactly. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are lots. Search "Recipe by ingredient" to get started.  BBC Good Food is one I have used quite a bit. -  Ka renjc (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A pound each of sifted flour, sugar, eggs and butter, baked at 325F till a knife comes out clean, makes excellent pound cake if you add the juice of a lemon to the batter to make it palatable. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The key to the question is those ingredients and those ingredients only. Otherwise it's simple, you just enter your ingredients into Google or something and up pop a zillion recipes. We do that regularly. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OP here. Right that's exactly it. For example I have vanilla extract, sugar (brown, white, and confectioners), eggs, milk, butter, and flour in my house. I know that the possibilities are pretty wide with these ingredients but didn't know where to start and didn't want to find a receipe that included stuff I didn't have available. The suggestions below are perfect and are exactly what I was looking for :D 70.124.93.247 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have you know, young man, I've been baking pound cake on that recipe given to me by an old Gypsy woman from Georgia (the original one, not the Soviet one) before anyone ever heard of the interweb or got their tweeter googled. Learn from your elders, or on the day the web goes still you'll be left with sacks of flour and no clue what to do with them! μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A google search for 'list ingredients find recipe' has a number of sites that might be of use - supercook, My Fridge food and Recipe Key all seem reasonably close to what you need. They all seem to include recipes that have ingredients you are missing - but helpfully tell you this (and judging by a very quick test they show the fully-stocked listing first). ny156uk (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OP here. These are perfect! Thank you so much (and for telling me what you Googled! I was at a loss!). Now to bake some stuff! :D (If someone wants to mark this as solved for me please do bcos I don't know how) 70.124.93.247 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)