Humanities desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

October 23

what view opposes science, technology, innovation, all things "artificial" and supports "natural" lifestyle, aesthetics, food, attire, governence etc

OP curious after seeing people who oppose electric connections, housing, computer, medicine on the ground of being "unnatural" as they claimedMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not science, Plain people practise simple living.
Sleigh (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my house we call this view "stupidity". However, there are a variety of other terms, including Luddism and, more recently, Neo-Luddism. RomanSpa (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking the specific bait above, I should say that there's actually a philosophical issue there - what is "plain", what is "natural"? For most people to dress in "plain clothing" would mean buying a lot of stuff and figuring out how to use it that they would do without - for example, the woman in the illustration is wearing a head covering that most today would do without. The ways of the Amish are actually pretty confusing to the rest of us because you may go in and find one running a very modern, sophisticated furniture shop with every power tool that the casual cave-guy would ever dream about but not really buy. And medicine - well, medicine dates back not just to Neanderthals (the "bat cave" with herbal medicines like Achillea) but is used even by animal species. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleigh, RomanSpa, and Baseball Bugs:OP seek correct, formal unambiguous reply, subjective opinions are "not-allow"Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I merely raised another question, but Sleigh and RomanSpa gave you good answers. What more do you want to know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The response of User:Sleigh seems entirely appropriate. User:RomanSpa provided internal links after starting with an insulting slur in offensive language. The Reference desk doesn't strictly disallow subjective opinions in responses, though some regular respondents avoid these as perhaps misleading and confusing for the OP as well as other readers. An offensive response may be reported to the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk page (accessed by the tab "Talk", above), where I just raised my objections. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The use of the word "stupidity" is intentionally provocative, and can cause the OP to miss what actually is an otherwise solid answer. A common term to describe those against "science, technology, and innovation" is Luddite or Neo-Luddite. Just a good reminder to all to keep it simple, and provide links. Commentary can be given in places called "the rest of the internet" Here it is better to just respond with answers, or if the question is unclear, ask for clarification or explain the misconception in the question. In this case, the question is understandable, and simply answerable with links to Wikipedia articles that describe the concept. --Jayron 32 14:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other terms you may be interested in are Rewilding (anarchism) and Anarcho-primitivism --Jayron 32 14:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed your link) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aghori believe everything is allowed, sacred and perfect. Though when one treats modern luxury, comfort and sanitation with the same reverence as corpses, shit and diseases, groups which hold the former in higher esteem tend to naturally focus on the differences. Their refusal to "pick a side" leads modern society to shun them, not the other way around, but the result is rather the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plumbing?

Do those "plain people" have indoor plumbing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some plain people use indoor plumbing, some do not. It is not a homogeneous group. Old Order Amish often have outhouses, while Beachy usually do have indoor plumbing, drive automobiles, and many even use the internet. The Mennonites themselves have a whole spectrum of how "plain" they choose to live, not to mention the various other sects. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that should be noted about "plain people" is that, while the term usually refers to Anabaptist groups, other groups known for "simple living" and "isolation" in the way the Amish or Mennonites do were not necessarily averse to technology. For example, the Shakers (a now almost extinct religious movement in the Northeastern U.S., in many places living in the same sorts of places as the Amish) were simple living, and lived in communities which resemble Amish or Mennonite communities, but which themselves were actually quite technologically savvy. Shaker communities were known for being early adopters of technology. For example. Canterbury Shaker Village in New Hampshire was one of the earliest fully wired villages in the state, and This article about a Shaker Village in Kentucky notes that they were among the earliest adopters in the state to install electricity and use automobiles. Shakers were also known for inventing various technology, such as an early electric washing machine, among others. So, while Shakers believed in "simple living", they also believed strongly in using technology. This documentary by Ken Burns explains the sect as well. --Jayron 32 16:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Suppressors as standard issue equipment

I was reading about hearing damage in veterans[1] and was wondering is there any nation that issues suppressors to all infantry units (as opposed to just special forces)? Is there any reason why most countries don't issue suppressors as standard equipment? AFAIK suppressors isn't prohibitively expensive, nor does it degrade ballistic performance. The only downside I see would be the extra length on the weapon and extra maintenance required. 731Butai (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite often being referred to as "silencers", suppressors don't make the firearm "silent". Even with an average suppressor, a gunshot would be loud enough to cause hearing damage with repetitive exposure. For our article, see Suppressor#Effectiveness and associated references. In a combat situation, it would be just one more thing that could go wrong with a weapon for little to no benefit. And, especially in close quarters, extra barrel length is no small downside.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would also make it difficult to fit a bayonet. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked starts this list of gun myths with the silencer one. Then there's six more and five about general weapons. And five about militaries, for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in non-combat situations such as practice or target shooting, ear defenders are often used by the British Army: these might or might not be practicable in combat depending on the circumstances, they would not preclude hearing normally spoken/shouted orders, but might be incompatible with other equipment.

One does not necessarily want to make one's actual firing quieter, as its noise may aid its suppressive effect on the enemy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The well-dressed British soldier apparently wears smart earplugs in Afghan combat - pop star plugs let through voice, cut off gunfire. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How we stand ?

Hello , this Is a stupid Question (I'm class 8) but , is Muscular force used to keep standing ?--Aryan^fromHindustan (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but. A human shaped stiff body with a similar weight distribution would be able to stand on level ground if undisturbed. But the human body is kept stiff by muscular contraction. Moreover, in practice humans always actively correct their pose to remain upright. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are contracting muscles almost continuously in one way or another to remain in any position except a heap on the floor. The body's ability to do this is based on a sense known as Proprioception, which is the feedback your nervous system receives about the positioning of every part of the body. This gives the nervous system the ability to perform a sort of "station keeping" which coordinates your muscles through a series of imperceptible micromovements so you remain in the position you want to remain in. --Jayron 32 10:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "stupid question" after all. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Dismas|^(talk) 12:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, without a helpful skeleton, you're down for the count. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks@InedibleHulk, Dismas, Alansplodge, and Jayron32:--Aryan^fromहि है (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did any U.S. Presidents suffer from mental illness?

Did any U.S. Presidents (past or current) ever have any known or documented mental health issues? In other words, is there any common public knowledge that any did? Do we know of any who have had depression, bipolar, whatever? Also, how about autism, Asperger's, etc.? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:F837:BBD:4D6E:680C (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my documents with me, but I'm fairly certain anxiety disorders come with the territory. A career of worrying about popular poll numbers up to the Presidency, and then "remaining vigilant" about "America's enemies" should lead a normal (i.e. non-sociopathic) man to pronoia and paranoia, if only in intermittent bouts. But that's not why anybody's hair turns grey.

Calvin Coolidge and Theodore Roosevelt may have had animal hoarding issues, by today's standards. Not as crazy as Grant naming a horse "Jeff Davis", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A 2012 study seems to confirm what most Americans already suspected: Roosevelt was the grandest sociopath of them all. The least "fearlessly dominant" President was also the fattest; maybe what "they" would call a binge eating disorder enabling a body dysmorphic disorder lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fat man was tripping balls near the end. Not sure if he saw things in any office, but he was the last of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. Not clear what that really says about the later men. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standards were different at that time. Weight was a sign of prosperity, and was quite acceptable. Trying to fit 2015 standards on people who lived 100 or more years ago is silly. If I am not mistaken, the heavier candidate got more popular votes in every election between 1884 and 1908. As for Taft, given that he is the only man to be president and Chief Justice, if you tell me what brand of snack food he favored, I'd like to send a case each to the current candidates and may put aside some for myself. And if you look up his record on race while Governor General of the Philippines, there is much to be said for him (I was recently in Puerto Princesa, in the Philippines. There is a Taft Street, right by the cathedral. I saw no other streets named for Anglos.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The richest president was George Washington, and he wasn't fat. He just wore a wig. That would look crazy nowadays. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington did not wear a wig. —Kevin Myers 23:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By George, you're right. Wore hair that looked like a wig, then. And donkey teeth. Or wooden teeth. Or something. We can't all have Parson Weems powers of recollection. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the "cosmetics" worn by many women nowadays will look equally ridiculous to future eyes - indeed, to me they do already. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little foundation never killed anyone. But yeah, loosely speaking, they're all nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln is believed to have suffered from chronic depression, which was called "melancholia" in his day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He won the war and lanced the boil which had haunted the country since its formation. His mental state is interesting, but does not detract. I'm no fan of his civil liberties record, but again, he won the war As for Taft, yes, he was ill in his final days, but that followed a half century of unmatched public service. Washington was property-rich but like most Virginia planters, cash poor, since there wasn't a lot of it in circulation in Virginia and it tended to flow overseas.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

His personal struggles made Lincoln's achievements all the more extraordinary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Many things about his life make what he did extraordinary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posting from talk page Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After Ronald Reagan announced he was suffering from Alzheimer's, there was conjecture that he was affected by it while still in office. Nothing conclusive, but our article explains some of the complexities of the diagnosis. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is the kind of thing you are looking for, but Wilson suffered a major stroke in October 1919 that left him incapacitated for months, and he never fully recovered. The stroke initially was kept secret but eventually became known, although the public did not know the full extent of the damage until later. John M Baker (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:7083:AC03:DB21:4801 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]