Humanities desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 6[edit]

Economics of intensive animal farming[edit]

Why did people originally think it was a good idea to stuff animals into tiny containers and let them live in their filth? If there were fewer animals than humans but the price of meat is sky-high, then can the meat companies still make a profit by selling the meat as a luxury product for the super wealthy instead of a common commodity for everybody? Can Panaeolus papilionaceus be used to eat animal dung and be harvested for human consumption or be made into burgers for human consumption, along with genetically modified corn and soy burgers? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Free market andSupply and demand. A burger could be made of meat or faux-meat produced from a variety of sources such as grains, vegetables, legumes, fungus, bacteria, etc. 2001:1970:5DE1:6A00:A15D:F235:4F37:ADEB (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Burger vs Soylent Green's secret ingredient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But my question is asking about supply and demand. Gold is relatively rare in the world, and it is expensive. If the supply of chicken is low and the demand is high, but the company can't produce more chickens for meat because each chicken requires a finite amount of land with sunlight and food, then wouldn't the chicken be priced very highly and served for the upper classes? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens are a renewable resource. If the price of commercially produced chicken becomes too high, people will simply raise their own chickens.... Thus, lowering the demand (and price) of commercially produced chickens. Since the supply of chickens will always be high... the price remains relatively low. So the commercial chicken companies rely on "economy of scale" to make money selling chicken. They make only small profit on each chicken... but it adds up... sell enough chicken, and they make enough profit to stay in business. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Wikipedia actually has a chicken tax article. Chicken was more expensive before intensive factory farming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of competition. Gold is valuable because it's rare, but if one company found a way to somehow mine it in vast quantities, the other gold companies would have to adopt that new method to keep up or go out of business.

I guess what you're proposing is a conspiracy among meat-producers to artificially keep prices high, for the good of both their own profits and the animals' welfare. Anti-Price fixing laws would probably make that very illegal. ApLundell (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But poor livestock care produces low-quality meat or no meat (as the animals will be dying off because of disease). I wonder what would happen if chickens would be less centralized/industrialized and instead kept in individual households. Every family may have one or two chicken - more hens than roosters for egg production. Occasionally, families may bring their chickens and have them breed to make offspring and eat the chickens at a neighborhood-wide potluck to keep the population in check. Maybe eat some feral dogs and cats too to keep those populations in check. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're in denial. As Blooteuth's reference illustrates, modern industrial farming produces a fantabulous amount of meat. If it didn't they wouldn't do it. They're in the business of making money.

If you want to argue that it's not the most ethical way to source meat, that's a discussion you can have (elsewhere). But arguing that it's not profitable? That's purely wishful thinking.

As for eating feral animals, you might find some people who have no problem eating cats and dogs that are specifically farmed for that purpose. But not many folk are interested in stalking around back alleys with an air-rifle and a hunting knife trying to score a small quantity of dubious quality cat meat. ApLundell (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on roadkill cuisine, which points out that wild animals have leaner meat than farmed animals. Feral cats and dogs may hunt for small prey or scavenge in alleys, so their diets are as varied as wild animals, and their meat may be just as nutritious. Though, one problem is the cause of death. If the dog dies because a parasitic worm infection and then gets hit by a truck before getting eaten by a roadkill enthusiast, then the roadkill enthusiast may eat worm-infested meat. Ah, well. Such is the chain of life. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with ApL and others, I don't really understand your point. Wild animals generally have leaner and lot less meat than farmed animals for obvious reasons. Feral cats or even dogs are likely to have a fairly carnivorous diet so not the best source of food. Note the fact an animal did not die from parasites doesn't mean it doesn't have them, it doesn't have to get run over from a truck after dying. From a food standpoint you'd be better off to wipe out the cats and dogs via hunting and consumption and then eat the small prey yourself if you can find a way to effectively catch them.

Either way though, you're not going to come close to meeting the world's population dietary needs. You're not even going to meet the needs of the mythical 500 million world population target some wackjobs like to talk about. This isn't to suggest intensive factory farming is the only solution, but roadkill or wild/feral animals or even home grown animals clearly isn't it. (Of course the funny thing is as much as many people may dislike being vegetarians, if the alternative was the occasional mouse or rat, I'm not sure that would be their choice.)

As has been said, intensive factory farming has a number of issues, but the ability to produce a tremendous amount of meat isn't one of them. Even in terms of infectious diseases, it's not clear it's worse particularly if you're comparing to wild animals. It depends what you're considering (e.g. bacterial, viral, parasites) and what is being done. Of course, since you can't feed the world's population this way, it's possible people would be healthier on average, but not for the reasons you seem to think. This move wild/feral/homegrown animals are going to mean a drastic reduction in meat consumption which could potentially (based on some disputed evidence) lead to healthier populations. It's not going to be because these wild/feral/homegrown animals are a lot healthier as you seem to be implying.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I am not suggesting that people should eat wild/feral/homegrown animals every day. If people were to eat meat every day, then cannibalism would be even better. Though, that kind of thing would be highly distasteful, so mandatory vegetarianism is the best option with the occasional meat from an animal that has been well-fed and raised. Now, because it's very expensive to produce meat this way, that would mean only rich people in the top 1% can eat meat, while everybody else become practical vegetarians. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animals are already very well fed, if anything the problem is over feeding. It's true that there are various ethical concerns over the way animals are farmed which are increased with intensive farming, but you need to define what problems you're trying to address and consider properly how you're trying to address. It's entirely unclear what problem you're trying to resolve since you keep saying weird crap which makes no sense. Notably greatly reducing intensification will significantly raises costs, but it's not likely to raise it to the extent your proposing and some of your proposals like forcing people to raise chicken by themselves have questionable ethical benefit (it's a lot harder to monitor welfare when everyone has a few chickens). Likewise even ignoring ethical issues, cannibalism makes zero sense except as a short term solution if you're one of these wacky people who actually believes in drastic population reduction. Even if the people you eat aren't the ones eating meat, it's still highly questionable why humans are the best food source. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism doesn't even begin to make sense as a non-trivial food source. Basic math should tell you that if the average person ate more than one corpse per lifetime, population would plummet dramatically. (After all, the average person only provides one corpse.) Even leaving aside meat quality questions, one corpse per lifetime is a trivially small amount of meat. ApLundell (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Intensive animal farming notes some debateable issues and quotes an economic statistic: in 1940, each American farm worker supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90 consumers. Panaeolus papilionaceus is a common brown mushroom that is edible but neither tasty nor substantial in mass. Blooteuth (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the OP's first question, the battery cage article has a section on the history of this housing system and lists the benefits. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riba plan of work[edit]

Is the RIBA plan of work a project management methodology in the same way PRINCE2 is? 82.17.228.64 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be much more detailed and specialised, dealing very specifically with the practicalities of construction projects - while PRINCE2 is a much more general project management methodology which can be used to develop detailed plans for many types of project. Unless you are planning a large construction project, it won't be much help - https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/RIBAPlanofWork2013Overview.pdf Wymspen (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some companies seem to have their own internal project management methodologies and tools as well. 2A02:C7D:B902:D300:5804:1D77:8F72:CE0D (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Straughan Page Request[edit]

I am not sure how to request a page request for men's rights activists, only feminists. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrengle (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested articles - probably in the Sociology category. Wymspen (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss central bank Euro reserves[edit]

As the Eurozone started plunging into crisis, inevitably, the value of the Swiss franc began to rise. As I understand it, in a desperate, and ultimately futile act, the Swiss central bank started mass-printing Swiss Francs, and exchanging them for Euros, in an attempt to hold the Currency peg between the Swiss Franc and the Euro. Eventually, they "threw in the towel", and gave up on maintaining the peg.

My questions are:

1. Does Switzerland now hold a massive amount of Euro currency reserves, as a result of this Euro-buying spree? How do their Euro reserves rank size-wise, compared to other non-Eurozone nations?

2. Does this mass reserve of Euros help the Swiss economy, or hinder it?

3. In which economic conditions would the Swiss central bank start offloading these Euros? Or would they already have done so?

4. Isn't doing this kind of currency peg thing exactly what failed in Black Wednesday? Why would it play out any differently this time round? If you know the central bank will hold the peg come hell or high water, and print infinite Swiss Francs to maintain it, won't investors force their hand? Did investor behaviour of the Black Wednesday sort play a role in forcing the Swiss central bank's hand? Eliyohub (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the sort of things they simply won't tell you - because knowing their plans gives you an opportunity to profit from them. Wymspen (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DOR (HK): as our resident economist, what are your thoughts? Eliyohub (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland is a classic "small, open economy," which means that the things we think we know about how larger economies operate may not apply. Inflation, for example, is likely to be more a result of import price movements than money supply growth.

In the case of Switzerland, the intervention to prevent the franc from following the Euro was tied up with a slew of other issues, including historic adjustments (under intense pressure) to the fabled Swiss banking privacy laws.

The franc peaked (broad basket) in August 2011. In September, the central bank set maximum exchange rate vis-à-vis the euro. That led markets to sell off the franc, reducing its value by 9% within minutes. The forex reserves did not surge simply because that was not the mechanism used to manage the currency. It was persuasion, and the implied threat of intervention that did the job. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes. According to this from the Swiss National Bank they held a value of 696.1 billion swiss francs in foreign reserves. 309.3 B or 42% in Euros, 231.5 B or 33% in US dollars. (At this moment, April 6, a Swiss franc is almost exactly equal to a dollar.). For a small country, this is humongous. For only Japan & China, about 10 and 100 times the population respectively, have larger total reserves. See List of countries by foreign-exchange reserves.

2. Hard to explain tersely. Sorta neutral. Having always let it float might have been a bit better. But the dangerous thing - which is why countries do it so much, which is why it has economically wrecked nation after nation - is what the UK did & the Swiss didn't see #4. One reason why the Swiss generally do so well is that they have this piece of wisdom "The sound internal economic system of a Nation is a greater factor in its well-being than the price of its currency in changing terms of the currencies of other Nations." embedded in their DNA more than most nations.

3. An outbreak of sanity. It is a pretty sure bet that this will take a while. As Keynes said in the early 40s (when it wasn't as invariably true as it is now), when it comes to international finance, countries do the exact opposite of the logical thing. The Swiss could buy a huge amount of stuff from the Eurozone disaster area with those Euros and benefit their own population and all of Europe's but it ain't going to happen. It makes too much sense & contradicts the "old fetishes of so-called international bankers" (which are in reality "basic economic errors")

4. No, it is the exact opposite of the UK situation. A country like Switzerland can maintain that kind of peg - to keep its currency value DOWN, forever. As long as people want to sell 1 Euro or 1 dollar for 1 franc, the Swiss can print the francs and buy the fx. The UK was trying to keep its value UP, which may not be and usually is not possible indefinitely. So George Soros, by making the UK stop doing something stupid and unsustainable earlier, clearly benefited the UK quite more than the amount of money he made on the deal.

"won't investors force their hand?" No, they can't. Logically impossible. Only the Swiss can print Swiss Francs. The Swiss weren't forced to do anything. They just made a decision. Sensible people sensibly thought that the Franc was a good place to store value, because the Swiss are sane and sober. Sensible people fled and flee the Euro because the ECB, the Eurozone, the economists who support the Euro - are insane, for either their reason or their morality is deranged. They create a temporary scarcity of Euros (and hence a "high value") at the cost of wrecking the economies of Europe, and the futures of much or most of its population.John Z (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Soros, supposedly the currency genius, foresee that the Swiss Franc peg would be abandoned? (If yes, surely he could have made a fortune? The Swiss Franc jumped 30% when news broke that "the peg is dead"). Buy a massive amount of Swiss Francs on margin (the interest rate is tiny!), wait until the peg is abandoned, and swap them back to your own currency! Yippee! Wouldn't you make a huge profit? Was Soros (supposedly the world expert on this stuff), or anyone else, smart enough as to do this? Eliyohub (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], Soros didn't profit but he narrowly avoided getting crushed. In the months before the change, Soros was one of a number of major investors who were holding short positions in the Franc. However, he had the foresight to remove those positions before the change actually occurring. He claimed at the time that the risk was too great for the return provided. Obviously, anyone who was short on the Franc at the time of the change got crushed (some firms even went immediately bankrupt). Relatively few large investors had the foresight to be positioned to benefit from the change, though a couple are mentioned at the link provided. Dragons flight (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "investors" question, it is worth noting that the SNB actually has a rather unusual ownership arrangement. Whereas most central banks are essentially federal departments insulated from popular demands, SNB is actually 45% owned by private Swiss citizens and 55% owned by cantonal governments. It can also be forced to take actions in response to popular referenda. There was popular discontent at the losses caused by holding the Franc to the Euro, and the SNB may have felt they needed to prevent future losses. By comparison, most central banks focus on how their actions impact the larger economy with relatively little concern for the impact on their own balance sheet. Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering and project management equivalent roles[edit]

Would the equivalent of a project support officer in the engineering profession be an assistant project engineer? As in equivalent grade or level in the org structure? 2A02:C7D:B902:D300:5804:1D77:8F72:CE0D (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Job titles are not in general standardized, even within an industry, and they vary over time. In addition, in some countries the word "engineer" cannot be used by an individual who is not a graduate of an accredited engineering school. So, the answer will depend on the specific project. -Arch dude (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]