Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 August 27

= August 27 =

Is public transport less safe on Christmas or the Super Bowl or the shift when a year or millennium ends?
Are there more plane or train or bus or subway accidents per mile then? Especially in places like extroverted and very Christian Utah on Christmas? Or a big football city during the Super Bowl game when the home team is playing? Maybe the average operator is less experienced or lower quality then? I know that the New York subway drivers have to cover for others until someone retires. They have a different route and time each day are forced to do the runs no one else wants to do like late night in the ghetto. Even if it's not like that everywhere the younger they are the less likely they'll have a spouse and kids to be away from, the more likely they are to find the extra pay for working a holiday worth it (cause they're less wealthy) and maybe they won't have their full attention on what they're doing. On the other hand, there's less traffic to collide with then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to only risks coming from accidents involving the train or bus? I suspect in a number of places the biggest risk actually comes from being attacked or injured in an accident while on the train (or perhaps bus), not from the train (and perhaps bus) being involved in an accidents. Even more so if you include attacks while waiting for the train, let alone attacks or simply being involved in an accident while getting to the train station or bus stop or getting on the train etc. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (The Super Bowl location is predetermined and rarely hosts a home team.)Hayttom (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But there's two cities every year where a team playing is the home team and they are not determined until 2 weeks before. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Environmental Impact of Christian Countries
Why are most countries with large environmental impact, high per capita carbon dioxide emissions and high per capita energy use Christian countries? Why are most Christian countries countries with large environmental impact, high per capita carbon dioxide emissions and high per capita energy use?

125.255.167.126 (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like China and India? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * He did say per capita. India's emissions are tiny on a per capita basis and even China's are less than half of the US emissions when adjusted by population.


 * That's twisting numbers to suit a hypothesis. Whose air would you rather be breathing - New York City's or Beijing's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm no, not at all. Total emissions and per capita emissions are two completely different things. The OP asked for per capita, so giving answers based on total is pointless. Fgf10 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You would prefer Beijing's air quality? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are completely missing the point. Our OP is concerned with CO2 emissions and the bigger picture - not about smog levels in specific cities.  Sure, Beijing has a horrendous pollution problem - but that's largely their own, local, problem.  The air there is indeed so bad that breathing the stuff is like smoking 40 cigarettes a day(!) - but that doesn't affect people outside of China very much at all because the ozone, oxides of nitrogen and small particulates that make up the Beijing pollution is relatively short-lived stuff.  As far as individual responsibility for wrecking the global environment - CO2 and methane are the biggest culprits - and Chinese people are half as bad as individuals in the USA at causing those things to be emitted...and that's what matters globally.  It's also worth mentioning that the worst polluted Chinese cities are also the ones making the most product for the US market - which makes people in the USA equally culpable for the problems in Beijing.  The US has effectively exported those polluting industries to China - which makes US numbers look better than they really are.  If (as many people wish) all of those imports from China were made locally in the USA, we wouldn't be producing twice the per-capita CO2 of the chinese but more like five times as much.


 * Your argument that per-capita amounts don't matter is stupid. Are you saying that if China underwent some internal political change and split into two countries (each with half the population and half the pollution) then they wouldn't be causing a problem anymore?  That's ridiculous...but that's what you're claiming here!


 * Moreover, the problems the world has don't start and end at the arbitrary lines we've drawn on the map and called "countries" - what matters is whether each individual human is doing the best they can to save the planet - and statistically, Americans aren't shouldering their share. The worst CO2 emitters (per capita) are the growing Arab nations, between 20 and 45 tonnes per person per year.  But the US is at 17 and Australia is only a little better.  But, look at other western-style countries.  Japan, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Austria...all produce about 8 to 9 tonnes per person per year...the UK and the French are each only putting out 6 tonnes...about the same as the Chinese.  Brazilians only produce 2 tonnes per year and Brasilia (their capital city) has an air quality index better than almost any large US city, despite having a population of 2 million people (bigger than any US city except New York and LA).


 * You can't even claim it's something like lifestyle - the Brits, French and Germans all have roughly the same level of industrial and social development as the US - and they all have comparable per-person numbers to China. Furthermore, emissions from those three european countries are all DECREASING - where as the US numbers are still climbing steeply. There are only seven countries in the world who produce comparable per-capita CO2 than the US: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg(?!?), Oman, Aruba and Brunei...and only three who are significantly worse: Kuwait, Trinidad and Tobago - and worst of all, Qatar. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)




 * Per capita energy use is higher in industrialized countries than developing countries. For historical reasons, many of these (but not all) have a Christian background.  However, we also see high per capita energy use in countries in the Middle East and North Africa which have largely Muslim populations, and despite being largely Christian dominated the countries in South America tend to be less developed and consequently use less energy.  Though there may be some correlation between religion and energy use, correlation does not imply causation.  The better thing to think about is the history of industrialization around the world.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also that most countries in sub-Saharan Africa are overwhelmingly Christian, and most of these have extremely low per capita energy use. Latin America is also overwhelmingly Christian, and most Latin American countries have moderate per capita energy use.  It is only a subset of Christian countries that use energy at high per capita rates.  As others have pointed out, some of the highest rates occur in Muslim countries.  There is really no causal link, beyond the historical accident that the countries that industrialized first and most thoroughly happen to have a Christian background (though this is not true of all Christian countries).  Marco polo (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also see cum hoc ergo propter hoc, latin for "with therefor because of", a type of informal fallacy or bias, whereby people incorrectly assume that because two facts coexist in a situation, one fact must have caused the other. In this case, since the "christianity" predates the "environmental impact" by some time, perhaps post hoc ergo propter hoc is a better fallacy for this error being made (after therefore because of).  That is, merely because multiple nations were majority Christian and then they also have a large carbon footprint (or whatever objective measure of environmental impact you choose) doesn't mean the one has any effect or cause on the other.  -- Jayron 32 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question. Some thoughts:


 * 1) There is a correlation between capitalism and environmental degradation, because capitalism leads to more efficient exploitation of the environment to make money for the individual. Here you encounter the tragedy of the commons.  That is, if the individual gets rich by destroying the environment, but the whole of society suffers, then that's a gain for the individual, so he goes ahead.


 * 2) Democracy, on the other hand, tends to protect the environment, as people can then vote to do so, whereas a non-democratic nation may just tend to hide environmental degradation.


 * 3) So, the worst combo wold be a non-democratic, capitalist nation, such as China and soon Cuba. Of course, China hasn't been capitalist for long, so their economy has not yet grown to the point it one day will, and yet their environment is already seriously degraded.


 * 4) Now, as to the question of Christianity, there seems to be a correlation between Christianity and both capitalism and democracy, so the environmental impact of Christianity is a mixed bag.


 * 5) As for why there is a correlation, in the case of democracy, the early Christian Church was quite democratic, but then the papacy wiped that out and replaced it with a highly authoritarian and hierarchical structure, and then the Protestant Reformation restored much of the democracy. Based on that, you might expect Protestant nations to be more democratic than Catholic nations.


 * 6) The correlation of Christianity and capitalism somewhat makes sense when compared with Buddhism, where the desires of the individual for material gain are expected to be suppressed. However, all the Abrahamic religions seem to share a respect for individual achievements.  So, explaining why Christian nations are more capitalist than Muslims is tricky.  (Israel is plenty capitalist, too, as the only Jewish nation.) StuRat (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The user is an IP geolocating to NSW, asking another randomly concocted "why are (geopolitical group) per capita associated with (geopolitical phenomenon) question. See talk. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Women beating men
Are there any athletic events / sports competition where the women's world record is superior to the men's world record? Dragons flight (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See Discus throw. Widneymanor (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Though, to be fair, women's discus is of a different weight than men's, men throw a 2kg discus, women a 1kg discus. In ultra-Long-distance swimming, however, there are women's records that beat men's records under equal conditions. This article explains some of it, and notes several ultra-long distance swimming events where, both record and average times, women beat men.  In fact, those are among the only sports I know of where, when placed on exactly equal footing, women outperform men.  Oh, and childbirth.  Still undefeated there.  -- Jayron 32 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Next time I'm sharing a post- coital jentacular cigarette with your dear wife, I'll tell her you think childbirth is a sport. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't smoke. The way I do conception is a sport, and I have to keep my body in tip-top shape.  I'm almost down to world class speed, about to beat Usain Bolt's 100m dash record... -- Jayron 32 02:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the one having a hypothetical cigarette with her, so your smoker status is irrelevant here. But I'm pleased you've spilled your guts to the entire online world about your chronic premature jentaculation ejaculation.  It must be so awfully embarrassing for you.  Haven't the pills helped at all?  I feel your pain.  Naturally, I'm more of a marathon man myself.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Mick Jagger sense? They're called Snickers over here these days. Tevildo (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In 2002, Tanya Streeter held the "men or women" world record in No Limits free diving, during more than two months before Loïc Leferme beat her by 2 metres. Another woman, Audrey Mestre, was also diving deeper than most men in 2002 at the time she died, especially she was diving deeper than her teacher and coach Pipin Ferreras, although her records are not officially validated. Akseli9 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a world record, still a case of a woman beatin men, in the 90s in Finland, competition parachuting did not distinguish men and women. Both men and women were jumping at the same time from the same plane, under the same rules etc. In 1993, it's a woman, Raija Syyrakki, who won the Finnish championship. Akseli9 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Equestrian events are mixed sexes so yeah,women have often beaten men in them. Hotclaws (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of Beryl Burton's records still stand 45+ years after she set them. --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)