Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 April 2

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.

April 2

Far-right

Opinion polls for political elections in Europe, and sudden appearances of street demonstration movements show that the appeal of the far-right has increased in Europe. What is the reason behind this? Pulled u policc (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean "reasoning" (logic by which this conclusion was reached) or "reason" (explanation for why this change has occurred).

As for a reason, recent acts of terrorism, associated with immigration, could certainly turn people off on immigration, and opposition to immigration is one aspect of right-wing groups. Economic problems also make the EU look like a bad choice for some nations (although personally I think it's their unwillingness to live within their means and attempt to get others to pay their debts that caused the problems). Withdrawing from the EU is also a right-wing position. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed to "reason". Pulled u policc (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I would read the article and section at Far-right_politics#Nature_of_support. The author Jens Rydgren is cited there; he seems to be one of the foremost scholars on the subject, perhaps reading his works may lead you to find the answers you seek. --Jayron32 11:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

At least some of the recent success of the right in Europe is that those parties are willing to challenge the pro-European Union consensus. For anybody opposed to European integration and steps towards a Federal Europe with the resulting loss of national sovereignty, the far right parties are often their only voice. EU policy is closely connected with the immigration issue highlighted by StuRat above. In the UK, the centre-right Conservative Party has promised a referendum on continued membership of the EU in an effort to undermine growing support for the more extreme UK Independence Party, for whom leaving the EU and restricting immigration are the main planks of their policies. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Lusitania

Who was (I'm saying was here since i'm pretty sure there are none still alive) the last living of the Lusitania disaster? Saturn star (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Audrey Lawson-Johnston. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Where will I find a safe haven from the coming economic collapse?

This shows there'll be a massive economic collapse more severe than the one in 2008, and possibly even 1929. Would I be wise to take German classes in order to flee to Germany before I get caught up in the collapse? What countries besides America will get caught in the massive economic upheaval?

OTOH, what countries will be safe from this type of collapse? I need to find a suitable venue to escape to before these massive troubles arrive to consume me alive. Thanks. --2602:306:B8A5:26B0:65E3:5559:F658:216A (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A recession on the scale your talking about would be global. You could look for someplace where you could live off the land and not worry about the rise and fall of the economy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume your post is intended to be humorous hyperbole. In case it is not, and you are not familiar with Porter Stansberry's background see this compilation of articles by Brian Deer, and US News' Financial Publisher Who Defrauded Public Investors Is Back With Another Ominous Video. Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The author is an obvious crank. There's no particular reason to believe his forecasts over those of any other people; indeed, given that he's trying to sell something, and thus has a personal interest in being as sensationalist as possible, there's probably less reason to believe his forecasts. There have been these kinds of forecasts of economic doom for centuries, but almost all of them have turned out to be wrong (sometimes they've been right, but just by chance). The mark of a good forecaster is that he is tentative in his predictions, and provides reasoned arguments in support of his conclusions. Inspection of the website you linked to shows that the first of these criteria is clearly not met, and, although I haven't read his "free" book (presumably he makes his money by overcharging on the postage and packing), the website doesn't suggest that there is any sound economic reasoning provided. I'd advise you to relax and ignore this person.

If you want to learn a language anyway, just for pleasure, I'd recommend French, so you can read Balzac's Comédie humaine, some of whose characters are motivated by a fear of poverty, and whose actions may illuminate your own reaction to the website you've mentioned. RomanSpa (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The fate of the German economy is bound up with that of the Eurozone, so maybe not as bombproof as you imagine. Alansplodge (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• In simplest terms "not with the guy who made that video". If impending economic collapse is coming, it would be caused by charlatans like the person who made that video tricking good people out of their money and making himself rich in the process. Work hard, save your cash in safe places, don't live beyond your means. That seems to work well for the rest of us. Buying what this guy is selling is a fast track to personal economic collapse. --Jayron32 12:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If the European economy shrinks/collapses, then the number of work permits for migrants will be cut. If this happens, you won't be allowed to work in Germany, unless you have (or can apply for) citizenship of an EU or at least an EEA country. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Both Cuba, not very far away, free healthcare and university, nice weather and their economy showed resilience through the last global recession. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That may soon change, though. The hostility between the US and Cuba is ending, and that may lead to extensive US investment which will tie Cuba to the US economy. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a third way of measuring and reward the value of work?

Besides market price, and governmental set prices (maybe calculating the total time invested in a product), how can we value work? What has be claimed as fair independent of these two approaches (basically the capitalist and communist)? Noopolo (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the market price of an item is supposedly set somewhere between the cost to produce it and the value it can be sold for. In the case of labor, you listed the total time put in, which would go to the cost side (although I'd also include other costs like the level of education required, the danger involved, etc.). As far as the value, you could look at what money is produced by a fixed amount of labor and then set the pay based on that. For example, if you decide 50% of the profits should go to the workers, then if each shirt produced by a sweat-shop worker generates $10 profit, then that worker would get $5 per shirt, reducing the owner's profit from $10 to $5.

Note that this approach does mean that workers would automatically be paid more when profits are higher and less (or even nothing) when profits are low or nonexistent. Some type of insurance may be needed to cover them during bad times (assuming they aren't able to save up for bad times during good times). On the plus side, there would be no need to ask or strike for raises, as they would come automatically with increased productivity as the employee gets better at their job or the company becomes more profitable.

On the downside, figuring out how certain employees contribute to the overall profits of the company could be problematic. How much does the janitor who empties the trash, contribute, for example ?

For another alternative, perhaps you could set a ratio of CEO compensation to employee total compensation. For example, if you decided that the CEO should never receive more than 1000 times the pay of any employee, and his total compensation worked out the 10 million per year, then no full-time employee should make less then 10 thousand per year. Here you'd have to figure out what to do about part time workers (prorate the minimum based on hours worked per week divided by 40 ?), and very carefully define "total compensation" to avoid CEOs being given the use of mansions, private jets, etc., "off the books".

You could also break this down further and say unskilled workers get a minimum of 1/1000th, semi-skilled get 1/800th, and skilled worker 1/500th, for example. (Here you'd need to carefully define each category.) Again a big advantage is no need to ask for or strike for higher wages, as the CEO would be forced to give them, if he expects a raise himself. You'd also have to be careful the define "CEO" as the person who receives the top compensation, or you would get a CEO in title only with low pay and a President (who actually functions as a CEO) with the top salary. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Claims in "18 Signs of High Emotional Intelligence"

Re http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/18-signs-of-high-emotional-intelligence.html is there any support for the claim that, "Decades of research now point to emotional intelligence as being the critical factor that sets star performers apart from the rest of the pack. The connection is so strong that 90 per cent of top performers have high emotional intelligence."? Are the 18 signs listed based on reliable research? Basically, is this information reliable (without regard to the source reliability because I know it looks like a blog.) 50.243.144.137 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article titled Emotional intelligence, and one does find the concept well published in reliable sources. It's not a universally accepted concept, but does have some acceptance in scholarly circles. That being said, I have no idea if the specific statement "90 per cent of top performers have high emotional intelligence" is reliable, nor what these supposed "18 signs" are, as the Wikipedia article makes no mention of them. Still, the Wikipedia article could lead you some interesting places, as there are plenty of links to reliable resources, including peer-reviewed journals and the like. --Jayron32 19:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is "talent" anywhere on the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sports which women excel over men

Now this could be a spiky one, and it may have been discussed before, but a curious discussion at work led me to ask this: are there any competitive sports where women quantitatively out-perform men? Most competitive sports are divided into men's and women's contests to avoid the contest (including snooker, darts, curling, shooting etc), and obviously, comparisons like the 100m sprint or tennis finals clearly demonstrate a gulf in athletic ability (and reasonably so). The only sports we could come up where men and women currently compete against one another on a level playing field were dressage (dominated right now by Charlotte Dujardin) and ........ not much else. Ultimately I concluded that within objective scoring terms (e.g. time to run 100m, most points scored with 100 shots, highest pole vault etc) there is no sport that women excel over men. Can anyone refute that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Men are gradually being admitted to Synchronized swimming, but it started out as a women-only event. It may be worth checking out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I had considered that, but it's a sport in which the result is governed by judges, making subjective (albeit theoretically in compliance with some kind of guidance) judgements, much like dressage. It's not like saying Man A ran the 100m in 10s, Woman B can only do it in 11s. Are there any sports whose results are objective in which women excel over men? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that women were at least competitive with men in the longest ultramarathon distances, but I can't find any evidence of it in our article. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Women not only compete in dressage, but also in show jumping, which, despite the name, uses objective scoring. Just clearing all obstacles according to the rules within the given time gives a rider a perfect score. In the team jumping event at the 2008 olympics, the top 5 teams all had at least one woman, and the winner had two. The only rider with a perfects score in the first two rounds in that competition was Edwina Alexander. - Lindert (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There are very few women jockeys in thoroughbred racing, but Julie Krone won the Belmont in the 1990s, which means women can compete in that sport. Danica Patrick competes in auto racing, though with no major wins to her credit. The pattern here is that in sports that are not all about brute strength, women have a fair shot. It's also worth pointing out that men tend to not do well in some events where women excel. The uneven parallel bars, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Crediting the woman when the horse/car does all the work seems rather unfair to the horse/car. --2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:3 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying that the horse/car "does all the work" is a late April Fool's joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you can't dispute that the horse/car does do almost all the work. There's a big difference between horse riding and, say, ultra-distance swimming (mentioned below). --Bowlhover (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying in dressage or in cross-country horse-riding, that the horse does almost all the work, saying in rally-driving that the car does almost all the work, is like saying in competition parachuting, that gravity does almost all the work, or like saying in shooting sport, that the gunpowder in the cartridge does almost all the work... Akseli9 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultra-distance swimming. Also competitive in shooting, Archery, and equestrian events (as already mentioned). Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Giving birth. Still undefeated, in all of history. --Jayron32 00:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait till I tell your wife that you think childbirth is a "competitive sport". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If we're comparing men to women, we lose every time on that one. And my wife is FAR better at it than I would ever be. Trust me. Two time champion. I conceded every time. --Jayron32 05:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Susan Butcher was a major competitor in the Iditarod. We should also say a bit about why women do better in some sports than others. Women tend to have higher body fat and less muscle. While muscle is important in most sports, fat can also be important, in providing long term energy for endurance sports, thermal insulation, and bouyancy, in the case of water sports (or potentially falling through the ice while mushing dogs). StuRat (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are competitive Mixed doubles (tennis), Badminton#Mixed doubles and Mixed curling. The first and last have major competitions. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ronda Rousey is arguably the most dominant UFC champion, as far as the gap between a division's champ and top contenders. She barely breaks a sweat. Five men ahead of her on the pound-for-pound rankings, but that's because their opponents are tougher (and a little because of sexism).

But as far as starpower goes, Dana White (among more objective others) has called her the biggest in UFC history. So she excels at getting paid for her sport. Bonus perks aside, she made $12,857 per second in pure purse last time out (also the fastest title fight ever). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Does she fight men? I don't see any indication of it in her article. If she doesn't fight men, then I don't think she's really relevant to the question being asked. --Trovatore (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not yet. Though it's the logical next step, and the idea gets tossed around a lot. Joe Rogan is cool with it.

But excelling at sports isn't purely about athletics. Mainstream fame and glory has always counted for something, and men compete with women on that field. She's probably also the only judoka most North Americans can name. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, but this is routine. There have been lots of times that there's more excitement about the top woman tennis player than the top man. The question seems to be about the case where a top female tennis player could actually beat a top male one (not a Bobby Riggs). --Trovatore (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

She beats the men, indirectly, in fastest average fight time and just barely second in submission attempts. Aside from fellow cash cow Conor McGregor, she's the only one on that fast list that didn't get there by losing fast.

But yeah, she's an exception to the rule. MMA's still a man's game, overall, and Rousey herself recently crapped on the mixed match idea, for the punching. Plenty of videos of her grapple sparring with top guys, though. She usually holds her own. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, that doesn't count. If she's fighting women, then the fact that she wins her fights faster than the men is not an equal comparison (unless of course the men are fighting women too, which I don't think they are). --Trovatore (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In theory, at least, two top-level male bantamweights are as evenly matched as two female bantamweights. That the woman wins so much more cleanly over her equal than the man does gets makes her proportionately better. In theory.

Depending on your viewpoint, Fallon Fox might be a man who fights women. Not a great record. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

But the question is clearly not about "proportionately better", but about absolutely better. --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The answer's no, then. Every purely athletic direct competition will generally favour men. Black men. But a white woman can excel in certain sports, considering the whole picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I recall Serena Williams playing (training with?) a male player who was ranked around 100th. He had to take it easy on her. Williams herself admits she would stand no chance against a top player like Andy Murray.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here we go. Both Williams sisters played Karsten Braasch, the 203rd best male player in 1998. He beat Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked out the claims in this thread and the only one I can see is long-distance swimming. You've probably heard of Diana Nyad, but Lynne Cox swims for hours among the iceburgs, something I can't imagine even doing for a second without dying.

My theory is that any man who is in good enough shape to swim that far won't be able to hold so much fat on his body. Lynne Cox has a lot of subcutaneous fat despite her marathoner stamina. She floats where a man in such great condition would sink. Her fat keeps her internal organs warm enough to not die, just like that of a seal or something, where a man would suffer hypothermia. There is no reason to think that a man will ever beat a woman at long-distance, ultra-cold water swimming, it's just physics. A man who could beat Lynne Cox would be a freak of nature. Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what people said about women in sports like the 100 m run. But the records for men and women have improved so much that the best woman today in the 100 m run can beat the best man 100 years ago. This is even more true of some other sports, like marathon running, where the current women's world record of 2:15:25 was only surpassed by a man in 1958. There is no reason to think other men--and other women--won't eventually beat Lynne Cox. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In the early years, Finnish female competitors in parachuting were not numerous enough, so they were competing together in the same categories with men, jumping together with men from the same plane, etc. These women were as good as men, reaching the top-ten etc, and it's a woman, Raija Syyrakki, who was Champion of Finland in 1993, and the only other woman who participated that year, placed 7th. Parachuting championship competitions consisted of two main disciplines called "style and precision" and it's the overall results addition that was taken into account. Akseli9 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bowlhover, sorry but you're logic is faulty. The records for all top men at the 100m have always been far ahead of the men, and just because women's have improved enough to best very old male records doesn't imply that they will one day surpass them. In contrast, all the records for long-distance outdoor swimming belong to women, and have for a very long time. Women dominate at swimming the English Channel and all other such feats and there is no logical reason to think that men will ever beat them because they are things about the female body that makes it best at swimming long distances outdoors in cold water. The 100m run is nothing like that at all. Chrisrus (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source for these assertions? Looking at List of successful English Channel swimmers, it appears that all time records related to swimming the English channel belong to men, not women. - Lindert (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, in particular User:Clarityfiend who has reminded me that women tennis players getting their equal pay packet do so with consummate ease (and much less competitive effort) compared to the men. The ultimate conclusion here is that there is not a competitively and objectively measured sport in which women can beat men. Thanks for all the discussion! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you say about "the ultimate conclusion here". Did you miss the parts about ultra-distance swimming? --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, could you show me the records where women beat men in a head-to-head contest in that event please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not know of any such. However, references were given showing that it is at least reasonable to believe that women might emerge victorious, were one held. Therefore, your sentence that starts "[t]he ultimate conclusion here" appears at the very least to be too strongly stated. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so without any evidence to the contrary, and if it makes you feel better, replace "The ultimate" with "My ultimate". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You also forgot the competitive parachuting example, in which "style and precision" is what counts to win. Obviously when it comes to strength only, men will beat women, however, when it's all about style, precision, focus, self-control, self-confidence, and more about mastering some technical and mechanical aspects, I don't see why women would not be equal to men. Other examples that come to mind: Rally driver Michele Mouton, factory driver of the Audi Quattro, she has won rallies and she (along with her teammates) accomplished her mission which was to make Audi the Manufacturers World Champion. Another obvious example comes to mind: Free solo rock climber, alpinist and mountaineer Catherine Destivelle, who is the only one who can compare in the (boldest and fearlessmost) style in which she climbs, with the recent free solo climbing genius Alex Honnold. One could mention also Tanya Streeter, who used to hold the overall record of the deepest human being in the sport of No Limits Free Diving. Akseli9 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget about fluke wins. Given enough tries, the less athletic person can beat the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Recent history also suggests that woman can perform alongside men in shooting competitions. At the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, female competitor Shan Zhang of China became the Olympic gold medalist that year in mixed-event skeet competition. Over two days of competition she produced a score of 373 out of 375, a new Olympic and world record. She also became the first woman to topple the men in the history of the Olympic Games' shooting competition. Since that time, no mixed events have been held in an Olympic shooting competition." USA Shooting

While it's not quantitatively, women are always better, like men would be in a push-up competition, that's because it's the nature of professional sports. Professionals are always pushing the envelope. Also don't mistake this for a logical fallacy that men are always stronger. Men have more potential for strength, that doesn't logically follow to all men are stronger than all women.Outcast95 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In shooting, don't forget Annie Oakley. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Or her 50 lady sharpshooters, whatever their names were. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Do humans have a "natural habitat"?

Humans build their own houses and can adapt to whatever terrain is available. Does that mean that humans' natural habitat is the whole Earth, minus the oceans and Antarctica? 140.254.136.174 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why exclude those two entities? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why exlude those two entities? Are you kidding? 130.195.253.36 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, Antarctica's freezing temperature and the ocean floor's immense pressure would not make human life inhabitable. Also, humans need to breathe air, not water. Ocean water is too salty, so there must be a way to purify the water, like distillation or osmosis. 140.254.136.174 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

While any given individual may not spend decades of their life in Antarctica, there has long been a (small) permanent human population there. Babies have been born there. It's clearly very habitable. It's cold, sure, but heating is no more necessary there than it is in Toronto, for example. I guess you're excluding it because most food and other supplies need to be brought in from elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The original natural habitat of Homo sapiens is the savannas of eastern and southern Africa, that is the environment where the species evolved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

To me a "natural habitat" would be a place where we can survive without any technology. That is, no clothes, no houses, etc. That pretty much eliminates most of the Earth. While we evolved in Africa, I actually think small tropical islands are better suited to modern humans, as the temperature ranges are less extreme. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Spears and arrows are technology. With no technology at all humans could have eaten only whatever foods naturally grew wherever they might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's possible to catch some fish with bare hands. See noodling. Eggs can also be obtained this way (although climbing a tree might be required). StuRat (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, yeah, humans are everywhere (once you discount the biggest part of Earth). But an individual human from the tundra will find the desert unnaturally hot, and vice versa. A kid from the "wrong side of the tracks" is more likely to get in trouble on the other, whichever side is which. There are town mice and country mice. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea, but I bet even Eskimos would find a small tropical island acceptable. If they overheat, they could just go for a swim. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and when he wants seal, he can eat a coconut. Same difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

He can eat mahi-mahi, or any of the vast variety of tropical fish and mammals. If pigs live on the island, that might be a good choice, too. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just maybe stay away from the little umbrella cocktails. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

With no technology, that should be safe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't realized we were using Stu's premise. Without tech, the Eskimo wouldn't even get to the tropics. Even assuming the bigger carnivores left him be the whole way, that's a hell of a barefoot stroll. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't looking at people moving to the tropics after having lost the use of all technology, as that wasn't part of the Q. If that was a requirement, then all humans far from tropical areas would simply die, if they weren't allowed to use any technology (some would survive until the winter). I should also note that the entire human population of 7+ billion couldn't all live in tropical areas, without technology, so we would end up with a much smaller sustainable population after a massive die-off, even if they could all manage to get there alive. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

More likely they'd use a family kayak, in the days before modern technology. LongHairedFop (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A kayak is technology. StuRat's premise was no technology, not just no "modern" technology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Modern humans did not evolve without technology--to live without tools is unnatural for us. It is also unlikely that we ever lived without fire, clothes, or shelter, or jewelry (adornment) (Compare Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Homo erectus used tools and inhabited East Asia. Homo floresiensis crossed Wallace's line. Modern man seems to have originated in East Africa, but that does not make East Africa our 'natural habitat'. Bioloigists use the terms biological range and ecological niche, not 'natural habitat'. That latter term is opposed to 'unnatural habitats', such as zoos. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good answer. Some groups have had rather minimal technology, even to the point of not being able to create fire (though still controlling fire). In most habitats, we'd be hard pressed to get adequate nutrition without fire. Consider that most birds need to build nests to reproduce, but we don't exclude areas where they do as "natural habitats" just because they need technology to survive there. Without language, fire, and at least basic tools, we wouldn't be human. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Language itself is a tool. Communication is necessary for any society to survive (and despite what most people think, every social (or even non-social) species has some form of communication). But before answering the question about our 'natural habitat', as intimated above, we would need to define an 'unnatural habitat'. Humans can quite easily adapt to basically anywhere on this planet without tech (except for underwater, and teenagers who can't put their mobile down). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that concepts are man's greatest tool, and spoken language is modern man's normal means of conceptual communication. There is indication that spoken language may have evolved from sign language, given even 'normal' children master sign language at a pre-vocal age nowadays. μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A naked human is no match for freezing weather, but freezing to death often makes them get naked. The tactful human calls this behaviour "paradoxical" rather than "stupid". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)