Humanities desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 6

is agent orange really being used to clear brazilian rainforest?

I would like to know from the Reference Desk, by means of quality references, whether Agent Orange is being used at this moment to clear Brazilian rainforest. Would this impact my ability go there and enjoy myself and contribute via my labor to the local economy, without being Poisoned by Agent Orange? The latter is also a question I wish answered by means of quality references. Thank you, Wikipedia Reference Desk and its anonymous and pseudonymous and ipnomous volunteer contributors! Your efforts are appreciated. 188.28.193.15 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article here, the Brazilian government approved the use of Agent Orange to clear the Amazon rainforest in order to help build the Tucuruí Dam. The dam helps in the mining efforts. According to another news article, there is around 4 tons of Agent Orange in the rainforest. If it is released, it could potentially destroy 7,500 acres of the rainforest. However, the Amazon rainforest is around 2,123,562 square miles in size. You can ask where the potentially affected areas are so you can avoid it.[1] Hope I answered your question. - Lukep913 14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you did answer most of my question. But, do I have to avoid Brazil to really be safe? 188.29.111.138 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tucurui Dam was (mostly) built about thirty years ago. What makes you think agent orange is being used today?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THAT WAS MY QUESTION! How could I suspect that the answer was about thirty years ago? (I didn't click through). My question read "I would like to know..whether Agent Orange is being used at this moment to clear Brazilian rainforest." I could only assume the answer would address my question. Do you know the answer, Shantavira? 188.29.111.138 (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Agent Orange is now illegal in most countries. Specifically, the intentional production of its key component, a polychlorinated dibenzodioxin, is internationally prohibited by the Stockholm Convention. However, according to this blog, whose accuracy I cannot confirm, an herbicide and pesticide containing 2,4-D, one of the other key ingredients of Agent Orange, is now in use agriculturally in some parts of Brazil. This source confirms that this chemical has been used in the Amazon for defoliation to aid in deforestation, though its use for this purpose is illegal. Apparently, despite evidence of its toxicity, 2,4-D is in widespread use in many parts of the world. Marco polo (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still using a weedkiller containing 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid here in the UK, though I hope the 2,4,5-T is not contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin as some Agent Orange was. I expect that Brazil now checks for contaminants in the weedkiller that it allows, but I suppose there could be some of the old contaminated weedkiller still around. I think your chance of being poisoned by the contaminant is extremely small and that you should be more worried about other risks, but I haven't found references to support my claim. Dbfirs 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regents of England

Where can I find a list of all people who, at some point, served as regents of England in the name of minor, insane or absent monarchs (such as Isabella of France, Margaret of Anjou, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Parr, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, etc)? If no such list exists on the internet, could someone list them here? Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Category may or may not be comprehensive. Regents of England is currently a redirect. I think it could make an excellent list article - potentially a featured one. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category is certainly not complete. It excludes Lady Margaret Beaufort, Isabella of France and many others. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also probably be renamed Regents of England and the United Kingdom, e.g. for George IV. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to put English and British regents together while leaving out the Scottish regents. It's best when they're all on their own. Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia- Best sports nation in the world?

Could it be said that compared to its population, Serbia is the greatest sporting nation in the world? There was an article in one of our newspaper that claimed that and honestly, when you look at all the sports that matter (football- Red Star is former European and World Champion, Serbian players players are currently capitan of Man Utd, vice-captain of Inter, others play in Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, basketball-superpower: many times champions of the world plus Serbian players won NBA title few times, waterpolo-superpower, volleyball-superpower, Tennis-Đoković probably the best tennis player of all times, Ana Ivanović, Jelena Janković, Nenad Zimonjić, all former number ones, Serbia is also currently Fed Cup champion), it seems like that article was truth, of course bigger countries like Russia might have more medals, but compared to the size of the country and number of citizens is there another country that is so good at sports?

For example, America has 30 times more citizens, but it is not even close to Serbia in any important sports (except for basketball), same goes for most other big countries.

So this article seems to be right, but what better place to verify it then Wikipedia! 77.243.20.209 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen similar claims made for Australia. I'm not sure how to compare the two countries when there are so many variables to consider. Marco polo (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Performance at the Summer Olympics is a good way to measure this. There are a great many sports, countries without snow/ice can participate equally. The 2008 event was competed in by a huge number of participants, including Serbia. In the 2008 Olympics, Serbia came 47th in the list of medals per capita. As it did not earn a gold medal, it fails to come in the top 55 list for gold medals per capita. Perhaps the best measure, weighted medals per capita, shows Serbia lying 56th. But then your own POV is shown in the question - "sports that matter". How well does Serbia do in kabbadi, American football or gurning? One could challenge some of your assertions: Djokovic is a good player, but he's won two grand slams so far, your football team has yet to win a major competition etc. But the country is small and is good at sport. More than that is speculation, which is not for this reference desk. You might also want to ponder on the other side of this story - money. Serbia is, globally speaking, relatively wealthy, regardless of its population size. That Olympic site also has a medals per GDP table, which has Serbia overperforming compared to how it does for population - it's 31st in the world. And well done to North Korea - something for the bureaucrats to smile about during the next disastrous famine? --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Djokovic has won 3 Grand Slam singles titles, but no matter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serbians are generally regarded as among the tallest people in the world so it is hardly surprising that they do well in sports that are dominated by exceptionally tall people like basketball, volleyball and water polo. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the close connection of sports and warfare, you might want to look at articles like Sarajevo Assassination, Sarajevo Olympics, and Sarajevo siege to see what sorts of records such a small nation holds. You can't beat 37.5 Million runs batted in in 1914 (not to mention the rematch) followed up by the scores in the Yugoslav games. Not sure if those ultimately count as wins though, the record scores not withstanding. μηδείς (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm biased, but if you're talking sporting achievements per capita, us New Zealanders probably run Serbia pretty close. Jamaica would also be a contender. And of course if you get down to tiny countries, you'll run into off "per capita" rankings (IIRC Liechtenstein has several Winter Olympics medals, for instance). But it's all relative anyway, so a clear cut answer simply isn't possible. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sense of justice: judging people by outcome or by intention

Which option is more common? Is regarding the one or the other dependable on religion/nation or just a question of private choice? Quest09 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governments are judged by intention. (Unless you're Noam Chomsky) --188.29.111.138 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People normally judge government by intention and outcome. If you are N. Chomsky every disastrous outcome equals intention. On a more mundane level, if you want to know what kind of person you are dealing with, judge them by intention; if you want to settle a debt in a civil court, try to get them judged by outcome; if it's a criminal case, try to link intention to outcome. 88.14.198.219 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you're Chomsky, then people are wrong to say that America was "well-intentioned but inept" in Iraq, Afghanistan (and before that, Vietnam, etc). They are saying the only correct way to judge moral actions are by their "likely outcomes". So, going into the Iraq war, it didn't matter (to Chomsky), what America intended, only what was likely to happen. However, Chomsky does accurately report that most people would say that it is enough for America to be well-intentioned (i.e. wanting to overthrow a dictator). To most people, it makes a fundamental difference whether the primary motivation is overthrowing a dictator, with control of oil not playing a primary motivating factor, or if the primary motivating factor is control of oil, with overthrowing a dictator being a means to an end: to Chomsky, what matters more than which of these two cases was the case, is what the outcome was, or would be. Put another way: if America were to prepare for war on Libya, most people would say: "What are we trying to do there" and judge the morality based on that. Chomsky (who is in the minority) would say "What is likely to happen there, based on America's track record in other countries?". Personally, I am of a third (unspecified) opinion, by which both Chomsky and minority he is in, as well as the American public at large, are wrong: only I am right. (neither intention nor result is what makes something just or right). --188.29.111.138 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, even bringing up Chomsky and Iraq was completely unproductive. Second, once you've brought it up, I have to wonder whether you've ever read a single line of Chomsky or whether you are capable of understanding any message that you dislike. Chomsky generally hasn't dismissed as irrelevant the notion that the American government was well-intentioned but inept in Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere: he just flatly denies that this is the case (as would any person who hasn't been brainwashed by US propaganda, IMHO). Chomsky has argued for decades that the US government has had evil intentions and has produced accordingly evil results (even if individual leaders may sometimes manage to convince even themselves of their "humanitarian intentions" to some extent, their real motives remain different). To the extent that the likely outcome can be equated with the intent of the government, it's just because the government is at least as well aware of the likelihood of that result as other observers are. In most cases, however, there is ample evidence to prove the evil intent outside of the actual consequences.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a religious sense, since you asked, outcome usually identifies of intention. See Matthew 7:16-20 from The Bible or other ideas such as Karma. Schyler (one language) 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In an agnostic sense, most determinations will be made by outcome, but intention is the only way to make choices, so both are important on important matters. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to personal responsibility - not to mention corporate and government responsibility - while it's always important to be well-intentioned, the only thing that really matters in the end is the outcome. You do something; someone gets hurt in the process; you say "But it was never my intention to hurt anyone". End of story? Not bloody likely. You remain responsible for addressing all aspects of the actual outcome, no matter how unintended it or parts of it were. But, apart from that hurt, didn't the process work? Well, no, because it's not possible to ignore side effects without abandoning integrity. You can't be well-intentioned about the major outcome while being indifferent about the human or environmental cost. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Attempted murder would be no big thing then... 188.29.111.138 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that's not exactly what I would choose as an example of being "well-intentioned", and is therefore outside the purview of my remarks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for most people guilt requires intention, but as a practical matter intention is often impossible to assess, so punishment is usually a function of outcome. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt and presumption thereof only requires hanging a label on the innocent and accusing them of crimes you would consider or have committed yourself. A benign example: your boss doesn't let people work from home joking that they'd only go to the golf course = when the boss "works from home," he's really at the golf course. Ergo, whenever you need to work from home for perfectly valid reason (and are being more productive, most likely) your boss is giving you demerits for goofing off on the job. Assignment of guilt is a filter which speaks of the accuser, not the accused. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negligence doesn't require intention. Gross negligence such as manslaughter can still be considered criminal, not just a civil matter. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem a minor aspect of this topic, but in Australia, the Australian Football League has undergone a major change in recent years from penalising naughty players for the nature of the offence to penalising them for the severity of the outcome. The fans have certainly noticed. Used to be that if you punched another player, you would be suspended for two games, no matter the impact of the punch. Nowadays, if you punch another player, with no effect, you'll probably still get two weeks, but if you break his jaw or skull, it will be a considerably longer period. It's all about the outcome.

In the eyes of the law (in a common law system) it depends on the crime. Some crimes are "crimes of intent": "Conspiracy to commit X" (where X is murder, fraud, assault, ect.) is judged based on intention, for instance. Other crimes are judged on the basis of results only. If you fail to actually remove any property you cannot be charged with robbery. Likewise if you beat someone severely intending to cripple them, but kill them instead, you have still committed murder. Complicating matters further some crimes are judged on BOTH. The difference between manslaughter, the various degrees of murder, and neglegent homicide are largely a matter of overt acts and the intention behind them combined. Sometimes this can lead to illogical results: for instance the crime of Intimidation is based on what would cause a "reasonable ordinary person" to feel threatened, and is independent of your intention or the actual circumstances. This can lead to some unusual results like charges being brought upon people that, in a state that experiences severe winter weather, wear a ski mask into a bank being charged despite the fact that it was only to keep their face warm. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this reference desk a while ago, I understand that in Britain at least there are some crimes where the result alone is criminal and intention has nothing to do with it. This was originally done to prosecute 18th. or 19th. century factory managers over what would now be called health and safety issues, where proving intent was almost impossible. 2.101.2.194 (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition some crimes are ONLY crimes when there is no intent. Negligent Homicide, for instance, is only negligent homicide when there is no intent. If there were intent it would be murder. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd way of putting it, Hom. Don't you mean that some crimes do not exist in the presence of intent? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your way of saying it is more accurate. What I mean is that some statues specify a certain crime only applies when there is no intent, because they are versions of a crime for which lack of intent is a mitigating factor. For instance: vehicular homicide, negligent homicide, and other such crimes are the "unintentional" versions of murder statues. Vehicular homicide is Murder-2 or Murder-1 without intent. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One judges acts by their outcomes and people by their acts and, if warranted, takes into account a person's knowledge and intentions if the results of the act seem anomalous. For example, crimes of negligence are based on willing disregard, and should not be called purely unintentional. I.e., the choice not to think is still a choice. See reasonable care, first, do no harm, Recklessness (law), unintended consequences. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all negligence requires willing disregard, the standard applied is whether a reasonable person should have known of the danger. The risk here of course is that if the defendant is exceptionally oblivious he might not have realized there was a danger even though he should have. Also, I've thought of another crime that is only a certain version of a crime in the absence of intent. Vehicular manslaughter is the charge when you commit a violation of the rules of the road (normally misdemeanors if even that) that results in a fatality. If you INTENDED to kill someone the charge would instead be murder in the second degree with the aggravating factor of use of a deadly weapon (the car). What defines the crime of vehicular manslaughter is the fact you had no intention to harm anyone when you committed a normally victimless crime (running a red light, crossing the centerline, ect). HominidMachinae (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choice, ethics, and non-Kantian philosophy

One of the central tenets of Kantian ethics was that in order for behavior to be "ethical" or "unethical" there must be a choice involved (i.e. without free will, behavior is neither ethical nor unethical). Is this consistent with non-Western traditions of ethical thought? Is this consistent with post-Kantian Western ethics? This is coming out of a conversation with a coworker about a magazine article about nature and nurture when applied to crime and punishment. I'm particularly curious about Chinese systems of ethics (presumably Confucius and following). Suggestions on further reading, particularly more accessible works, would be very much welcome. I have a bizarre definition of "light reading" but I do have limits. SDY (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this could get quite complicated. First is the comprehension that there are choices which are "ethical" and "unethical." Second is the action to take the ethical choice—isn't that what we would consider morality? Which then begs the question, can "moral" ends be achieved by "unethical" means? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list may be of some help. Schyler (one language) 12:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic biblioclasm

Who was it that said (paraphrasing), "Check all the books. If they are compatible with the Qur'an, then they can be safely burnt as superfluous, if they are incompatible, then they must be burnt as heretical"? I've checked the list of book burning incidents, and it does not directly list this incident. The most obvious one on the list is the destruction of the University of Nalanda in 1193, is this what I'm thinking of? CS Miller (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Library of Alexandria#Arabic sources for the destruction of the library. Gabbe (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I thought initially thought it was that, but the library was burnt 700 years before the foundation of Islam, so I dismissed Alexandria. CS Miller (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was under Amr ibn al As in 642, but he said 'Muhammad had told Amr "that when you conquer Egypt be kind to its people because they are your protege kith and kin"', and there is no mention of destroying the library in his article. CS Miller (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link does not mention who said this.Curb Chain (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the text following the third bullet here? Gabbe (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I managed to miss it, thanks for pointing out to me. CS Miller (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Qur'an is both compatible and incompatible [2] with everything else, no books should be burnt unless they have been digitized under a creative commons license and are sufficiently protected from accidental loss in relation to the extent that the burning is necessary for heat or no sale or preservation is possible. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be all books, or just book that touch upon religion? For example, I doubt that the Quran has much to say about how to maintain your automobile, so they might want to spare those kinds of "how-to" books. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to make a book without contradictions. There are several such books, but they can contain falsehoods too. There is an isomorphism between falsehoods and contradictions but the latter is a subset of the former. Whether a book without falsehoods is possible is an open question. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have read this quote before. My immediate thought was Al Ghazali, but I would only offer that as a guess if I had to name somebody. You might find his Incoherence of the Philosophers interesting. BUt it has not been my experience that wikipedia is the place to find objective criticisms of this sort of material. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Omar as above? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 6

Contents