From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< January 18	<< Dec | January | Feb >>	January 20 >

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.

Contents 1 January 19 1.1 Votes for Women 1.2 Delegate counts 1.3 Popular landscape artist 1.4 Personality and external appearance 1.5 Information about Yeoiju in Korean culture. 1.6 Painting depicting a Boy with a Monkey on His Shoulder - Probably Dutch Genre Painting - 17 th Century. 1.7 Dr Albert Schweitzer 1.8 Per capita income and living 1.9 England in the Middle Ages 1.10 Crusade route 1.11 A Medieval War 1.12 making her feel I've spent a lot of time on her... 1.13 Spanish erotic novel 1.14 Where are knife rests placed in tablesetting? 1.15 driving laws USA 1.16 1848 Rvolutions 1.17 19th Century Politics 1.18 Vivicide

[edit] January 19

[edit] Votes for Women

Where in the world did women first get the right to vote? Kristine Spencer (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Corsica. User:Krator (t c) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)The usual answer given is New Zealand. This assumes we are talking about national politics, and that we don't count minor countries that didn't last (as the above). Timeline of women's suffrage has more information. Algebraist 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

At a non-national level, the then-territory of Wyoming was pretty early (that's why it's known as the "Equality State"). The U.S. was in a slightly-anomalous position, since nothing prevented individual states from giving women the right to vote (if they so chose), even before the federal constitutional amendment guaranteeing women in all states the right to vote was passed. That explains how Jeanette Rankin was already voted into Congress even before the suffrage amendment passed... AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The OP doesn't qualify his or her question, but the answer still depends on what you mean by 'women' (some women, all women, two women?), 'right' (right in law, right de facto?) and 'vote' (vote in a representative election, vote in a formal decision-taking body, vote in a less formal group?) Some ancient women had a voice for some purposes. Xn4 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The first country which did not just allow women to vote in the election to the national parliament but where women also were able to get elected, was Finland in 1906. E.G. (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand is generally regarded as the first nation to grant Universal suffrage, when allowing all adult women the vote in 1893; however it did not give women the right to stand for parliament until 1919. What is interesting is that all Maori men were allowed to vote from 1867, 12 years before all European men gained the vote. New Zealand's first election was held in 1853. Universal suffrage is a good start for any investigation in modern democratic voting. But as Xn4 said, women have had a strong voice in many cultures; in fact there are even some Matriarchies. Gwinva (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, there aren't - as that article states (with six references), "most modern anthropologists and sociologists assert that there are no known examples of human matriarchies from any point in history." -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delegate counts

Is there an authoritative website which is keeping a record of how many delegates each US Presidential candidate has received? "x won state y" doesn't tell me anything, because the winning candidate in small state y may have 10 delegates whereas a losing candidate in big state z could get 100 delegates. Corvus cornix_talk 00:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The situation is a bit complicated because there is more than one type of delegate. CNN's election site has delegate counts and a lot of information. Is that authoritative enough? --169.230.94.28 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That works, thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Most major American news websites would also have this information somewhere. The delegate count is somewhat misleading this cycle (at least more so than other years) because a number of states have scheduled earlier primaries than was deemed acceptable, and have been punished by the national parties by disenfranchising all (in the case of the Democrats) of half (in the case of the Republicans) of the delegates from that state. But the media pays almost no attention to this, so it's not affecting psychological "momentum", but it is affecting the delegate count.--Pharos (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Michigan Democratic primary (where Edwards and Obama weren't even on the ballot) was certainly not taken too seriously in media coverage... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular landscape artist

What is the name of the landscape artist (water color?) who painted lovely landscape pictures of English/cottage homes set in the winter or spring? He advertised and sold products through magazines (e.g. Parade in Sunday newspapers). He also established his own art galleries which went bankrupt, I believe. Most popular during the 1990's.Kaseworkr (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)kaseworkr

Thomas Kinkade? -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaseworkr (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personality and external appearance

Do you think we can know something about a person just looking at him (especially its face)?Mr.K. (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Trouble is, what we know, and what we think we know, are not necessarily the same thing. It's easy to draw the wrong conclusions merely from facial appearance, but knowing what to look for helps, eg. eye behaviour. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in the article on phrenology, even though it's largely been discredited. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise the article Physiognomy. DuncanHill (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Following on from JackofOz, body language and facial expression are likely to be as good guides as appearance, especially for such things as health, personality and identity (with cultural subgroups, nationality, etc), current emotional status and more. On the other hand, appearance can tell you with a reasonable margin of error a lot of information such as age, sex (less reliable), general racial heritage, more on health. All of these things can be consciously and subconsciously disguised to a certain extent with make-up, surgery, clothing, acting, etc. I have a feeling that you meant more along the lines of personality and history, which are the hardest to determine. The saying "you can't tell a book by its cover" can apply to people as well. Steewi (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this with older people (eg. teachers) - nice people have more smile lines, mean people have more frown lines. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information about Yeoiju in Korean culture.

Can anyone please tell me the history and magical properties of a "yeoiju" in Korean culture? Where do they come from, and under what conditions would one have to go through to obtain one? What would happen if one was broken in half?

Please, no anime references, I already see the where they got those ideas from.

Thank you,

--69.207.99.230 (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Painting depicting a Boy with a Monkey on His Shoulder - Probably Dutch Genre Painting - 17 th Century.

I would like to find a Painting depicting a Boy with a Monkey on His Shoulder. The boy is lighting a match or a cigarette and the monkey is watching with glee. The image was probably painted about 1623 AD. Both the boy's face and the monkey's face are illuminated by the match. The image that most closely resembles the painting is found at the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hendrick_Jansz._Terbrugghen_003.jpg

The artists that paint pictures of this type are Gerrit van Honthorst or Jansz Hendrick ter Brugghen. I saw this painting about 1980 in Amsterdam. It may have been in a traveling exhibition. Can you help me find it?75.165.184.11 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Other thoughts - This may not be a Dutch Genre Painting, but that is my best guess and it matches the style of this period. The title could be "Monkey on his Back" or "Lucifer". Somehow these ideas come to mind. Thanks again.

I'm not able to answer your question, but when I first read it I immediately thought of Caravaggio. DuncanHill (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave Caravaggio a look. Caravaggio's paintings are much too polished.

I found something that looks like it. Follow the link below:

http://www.wga.hu/art/g/greco_el/06/0608grec.jpg

This painting is a close likeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidslindsey (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is the El Greco painting "A Boy Lighting a Candle in the Company of an Ape and a Fool (Fábula)" Thanks for the opportunity to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidslindsey (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Albert Schweitzer

Can anyone provide me with source information on the above person who expidited Zambia and Rhodesia at the turn of the century. Any books or website will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.178.148 (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you found our article Albert Schweitzer yet? It has some useful references and links which could help you. DuncanHill (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Per capita income and living

If USA's and Western Europe's Per capita incomes are 30 times greater than developing countries, does that mean that the people living in USA and Europe are 30 times happier than people in developing countries? And their life is 30 times better than an average Asian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.22.201 (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, you will see that per capita GDP (that is, total value of production by the economy divided by population) is $43,223 (IMF figures, as below), which is just over half of the top ranking country, Luxembourg ($81,511), while "Asian countries" as you alluded to, such as Thailand or China, have $9193 and $7722 respectively. India, lower down the list, is on $3802. So you can probably say that the "rich" countries are about 5-10 times as "rich" as the "poor" countries.

How do you measure "happiness"? One proxy might be the Human Development Index, which is a measure of quality of life in all its perspectives, and not just the monetary one. It's hard to say how many times a US citizen, for example, is happier than a Malawian, but List of countries by Human Development Index shows a relative ranking by HDI, and you can see that the richest countries are not necessarily those enjoying the best quality of life. In particular, the United States is ranked 12th. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] England in the Middle Ages

I have two questions relating to the history of Medieval England. First, when did England achieve full consciousness of itself as a nation? Second, who were the most significant monarchs in this process of self-realisation? 81.129.85.133 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that ever happened in the Middle Ages. Do you mean a nation as in territory, or as in a people? In the 9th century there were clearly English, Welsh, Scots/Picts, and Danes all living in the territory of modern England. Alfred the Great wrote in Old English and fought against the Danes, so perhaps England recognized itself as distinct at that point. But what about after the Conquest? The monarchs were kings "of the English" but they were just the mass of peasants and petty nobles under French rule. Any disputes between England and France after that were family and inheritance disputes, not territorial wars between two separate nations, until, I would guess, the 14th century. The Hundred Years War was both an inheritance dispute and a territorial war. During that war or as a result of it, the Anglo-Norman kings came to see themselves as "English", English soldiers became as important as Norman cavalry, English replaced French as the official language, authors such as Chaucer flourished, and the English Parliament became more organized. Based on all of that I would say Edward III was very significant. Another milestone would be the English Reformation, which made England entirely distinct from all of Europe, even the other Protestant countries, and in that case, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I are significant. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole concept of 'nationhood' is an interesting one, and our modern understanding of it is worlds apart from a medieval view, which is one of the things which makes Mel Gibson's posturing in Braveheart so ridiculous. Family ties were more significant than nationality. For example, critics of Robert the Bruce often present him as a turn-coat or traitor, since he seemed to switch sides during the Scottish Wars of Independence, supporting Edward I of England at times, then fighting against him. But if you look at from another angle, you see he was consistently loyal to his family and family interests (but you need not read that as self-centred). As to when an idea of nationhood came (in England): quite possibly it hasn't. Visit the Borders today, and you will find people who define themselves as Borderers, rather than Scottish or English. And if you want to look at Great Britain: Wales has been subject to English then British rule since the 14th C, yet in some parts of Wales you wouldn't know it: they are determinedly independant. And some people in Cornwall want devolution aslo, since they claim not to be "English". Isle of Man is another interesting one. And so it goes on... Gwinva (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Adam Bishop was correct in saying that the English became conscious of their nationality in the time of Alfred the Great. Now, to be specific, I think it is important to note that this means the English or Anglo-Saxons, NOT the Welsh, Cornish, Scots, Danes or Irish... But during the time that Alfred lived the Danes almost completely defeated the English to the point where English society might have ceased to exist. Alfred was able to halt the Danes' progress of conquest, and then united the various English peoples under his reign - which up to that point had not been done before. After this, Alfred and his successors were eventually able to push English rule outward to the point where within a few generations they had won back the lands that the Danes had conquered - although the Danish descendants still continued to live in these lands. In other words, the ENglish absorbed the Danes. This critical juncture in English history was the fiery smelter that steeled the English people as one, in my opinion. Up to Alfred's reign people belobged not to "England", but to Mercia, Wessex, Sussex, etc. After Alfred they were English. -- Saukkomies 19:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I miss User:Clio the Muse.  :( Corvus cornix_talk 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah where is Clio anyway? How dare she enjoy the real world! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll find History of Anglo-Saxon England and Old English language helpful. Even in the days of the Heptarchy, the English had an identity and called themselves and their language Englisc and their country Englaland. Xn4 13:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Presente, Comandante! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xn4 that there was a consciousness of Englishness and England before the Danish onslaught in the ninth century; before Alfred and even before Bede. However, England, as we have come to know it, and Englishness as a given identity, was formed, it might be said, by a gradual process of cultural and historical sedimentation. A loose identity was given a definite shape and direction by adversity; by war and the threat of war; by victory, and yes, by defeat. The successive victories of Alfred, of Ethelfleda and Edward the Elder established England on a new and more lasting basis, one that could not be threatened by the fresh wave of Norse invasions in the tenth and eleventh centuries, when the country was absorbed into a Danish empire.

Even so, this England, at once Anglo-Saxon and Viking, effectively came to an end with the Norman Conquest in 1066. No longer part of a Germanic and Scandinavian world, the country was drawn into the mainstream of European feudal civilization; no more than an appange, it might be said, of a trans-continental empire. And there it might have remained, no more politically significant than Provence, but for one man: good old, bad old King John. An unusual 'hero' of Englishness, I know; but it was his loss of Normandy and the bulk of the Angevin Empire that threw England back on itself; that gave the country a new sense of its political importance, notwithstanding the fact that there was still a huge cultural divide between an English-speaking peasantry and a French-speaking aristocracy. The victory of William Marshal over the invading force of Prince Louis was also an important step in safeguarding this new political independence and sense of self-reliance.

In considering the whole question of the formation of modern England by far the most significant figure of all, as far as I am concerned, has to be Edward III. It was he who began the political and cultural transformation of the nation; he who embarked on a War that helped form a new national consciousness; a war that consolidated and defined some of the country's most enduring political institutions. It was his patronage that turned St. George into a national saint, and his policy that, in 1362, saw English recognised as the 'tongue of the nation.' It was during his time that the old divisions between Norman-French and Anglo-Saxon became less and less distinct, and Englishness, the Englishness of Chaucer and others, emerged on its modern path. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade route

Many Crusade nations are located on western Europe and they are England, French, German, Spain. Which route do they took to get to Jerusalem? As far as I know they all went to Italy and then go by boat to Jerusalem, is it true? Is there any group that went by land and walk through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Syria, then Jerusalem? roscoe_x (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See our many articles on the Crusades. Different groups used different routes at different times. For example, during the Third Crusade, the army of Frederick I Barbarossa travelled overland through Hungary and Serbia to Constantinople and then crossed into Anatolia, the army of Richard I of England sailed from Marseilles via Sicily and Cyprus to Acre, and the army of Philip II of France marched to Genoa and sailed from there via Sicily to Acre. Gdr 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, and on the First Crusade the various armies took similar routes. However, none of them sailed directly to the Holy Land, because that would have been foolishly unsafe, as there were no Christian states there yet. Some went to Italy and sailed from Calabria across to the Balkans, and marched the rest of the way, through Constantinople and Anatolia. Some marched the whole way, down the Rhine and the Danube, through Hungary and the rest of the countries on your list - Raymond IV of Toulouse marched that way, for one. On the Second Crusade, some of the French sailed across the Adriatic from Italy to the Balkans just like in the First Crusade, but everyone else marched across Europe. There was a fleet from England and Flanders that tried to sail down the Atlantic and into the Mediterranean, but they were sidetracked in Portugal and never made it all the way. The Fourth Crusade was entirely naval, leaving from Venice, but they ended up in Constantinople and never made it to the Holy Land either. The rest of the crusades in the thirteenth century were directed at Egypt, and were therefore also naval, departing from southern France or Italy. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Medieval War

During the medieval times, there were 10,000 soilders that went to war. They fought for thier king, and though 3/4 of them died. They end up being vicoties. Now the question I give you is this. What is the name of the irish clan that won this war? 99.233.78.172 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a riddle? If not, are you referring to the Battle of Clontarf? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] making her feel I've spent a lot of time on her...

I'm very busy but would like to do something that lets me girlfirend feel I've spent a lot of time on her, what could I do or buy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.4 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, something that only she would like is always a good pick. I use eBay to find all sorts of treasures for my wife. But it's hard to be more specific than that, since we don't know your girlfriend. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's something that always worked for me when I was dating (and still does wonders with my wife now I'm not). Go to the grocery store, buy some NICE cheeses, a bottle or two of NICE wine, some fruit that goes well with wine and cheese, and some nice crackers. Pick up some flowers. Then call her and have her drop by later. Fix up a romantic setting with the wine, cheese, fruit and crackers arranged nicely on plates next to the flowers on a table. Dim the lights, put on some nice music, and then when she shows up try to make her as completely comfortable and feel as completely pampered as you can. This doesn't take a lot of time to arrange, but it will feel to her like you've lavished a LOT of attention on her. Being pampered, loved and respected is the sure way to a girl's heart. -- Saukkomies 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, if you are serious about the relationship, there's no substitute for actually being a considerate and attentive person. If you have little time, here's my two cents: ask her a question or two about herself and what matters to her, and really listen to the answer. Then give her a gift that shows her that what she said actually got through--if she's dreaming of foreign countries, a travel book, for example; if she misses an old friend, arrange a lunch for them without her knowing, etc. Sure, flowers and cheese, etc., are fine, but there's no substitute for hearing what someone else has to say, and showing them in a genuine way that their words mattered to you. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb for gifts (and events) is to find something that the person in question is not aware that they want. This means that when said gift or event arrives/occurs, they are pleasantly surprised by something unexpected and are impressed by your insight and understanding of their personality. It can go wrong, if you find that what you thought they wanted wasn't what they wanted, but as jwrosenzweig and Saukkomies mention, showing that you're doing something special just for them, even if it falls a little flat can definitely make someone feel wanted. Some surprising possibilities might include: tango (or other dance) lessons, some special cooking of your own (especially if you don't cook often) or a massage by a qualified professional. Steewi (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish erotic novel

It seems to me that there are very few erotic novels written in Spanish language (I mean those originally written in Spanish, not translated from English or French.) Or perhaps I didn't search hard enough? Could anyone recommend a good one, in that case? --211.243.245.23 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, an easy one to start with! The one book you really have to look for, 211.243, is Las edades de Lulú by Almudena Grandes, translated into English as The Ages of Lulu. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where are knife rests placed in tablesetting?

We have crystal knife rests. Where do these go on the table? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.139.207 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would place these to the right of the plate, to the right of the knife's initial position. comment added by jbblack (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (CST)

On this page you can see an image of a table setting with a knife rest.  --Lambiam 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Knife rests on a table invariably ask the question "why?" Now, Emily Post says "At an informal meal, the dinner knife may be used for all courses." I'd just ask myself, "Are diners to keep the same knife while plates are changed?" Then, if an entrée is to be followed by a relevé, that's a use for a knife rest. Would they be using a dinner knife for the fish? A first course otherwise shouldn't require a knife. That includes asparagus. Would they use it afterwards to cut cheese leaving streaks of sauce espagnole? ...or peel fruit? It doesn't seem very likely. I hasten to add that anyone who doesn't always place their knife on the plate, during a course gets crossed out of the little book. --Wetman (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] driving laws USA

when & why did the USA decide to drive on the right? billy.cheyne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.cheyne (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You might take a look at Traffic_directionality#United_States. It's pretty old, back to pre-automobile days. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1848 Rvolutions

Was nationalism the most important factor in the 1848 revolutions?

• I refer you to the do your own homework policy, however, take a look at the revolutions of 1848 article

It was certainly an important factor, though it tended to go hand-in-hand with liberalism. It was only after the failure of the social revolution that the two forces began to separate. You might consider the particular example of Germany. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And for comparison look at the French Revolution of 1848, where "nationalism" wasn't an essential factor at all. Be sure that you have an answer why was there no "revolution of 1848" in Great Britain? It will be on the exam. --Wetman (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 19th Century Politics

To what extent did liberalism affect 19th century politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.177.243 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I refer you to the do your own homework policy, however, check out the article on liberalism

Ignore the poster above.Clearly liberalism had no impact on the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.108.38 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Ignore the poster above? The questioner or me? Surely you cant make such spurious claims without providing references or some sort of context. Clearly it did as that is when the feminist movement started to prosper, as did battles for independence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question is impossibly broad, 66.225, but, yes, liberalism was a decisive force in nineteenth century European politics, both at a national and at a trans-national level. After the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars the defining political struggle across the Continent, particularly in Germany and Italy, was between nationalism and liberalism, on the one hand, and conservatism and reaction, on the other. In Spain the great political fracture, the one that ran through the whole course of its nineteenth century history, was between new forms of constitutional liberalism and old forms of royalist reaction. In Britain the Industrial Revolution led to the victory of political liberalism in the widest sense of the term, the victory of the urban bourgeoisie over the landed aristocracy. Though not fully democratic the country saw itself as a bastion of liberal progress, set against the despotic Continental regimes, triumphant after the failure of the great liberal revolt of 1848. In practice this meant that England became a haven for all sorts of political refugees, Karl Marx among them. This included many who were considered terrorists elsewhere. The Orsini Plot against Napoleon III was conceived and planned in London, to take but one example. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vivicide

Is vivicide technically a crime or does it not have any legal status? --82.36.182.217 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but if all forms of life were obliterated from planet Earth, there'd be nobody left to decide whether to prosecute or not, and there'd be nobody left to be prosecuted in any event, so there'd hardly be any point in having such a law to begin with. Obliterating life on other heavenly bodies is not the subject of any human law afaik. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is usually just a minor, but unfortunate, consequence of preparations for the construction of hyperspace bypass. As this construction is administered by the Imperial Galactic Government which, as most governments do, enjoys sovereign immunity, there is no crime. AUTiger » talk 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are you mocking me and referencing the hitchikers guide to the galaxy? My question was merely hypothetical, if an earthling went and wiped out everything on Mars would they be prosecuted for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See space law for potentially applicable treaties. I don't believe any of them refer to extraterrestrial life per se, but you could run into some trouble indirectly: for example, deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space is against the Outer Space Treaty. Algebraist 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Current human law is very human-centric; even other species on earth have only bare minimum protections usually in the form of animal cruelty laws that are unevenly applied (in favor of cute, cuddly, pet-type animals). If an earthling on Mars killed everything there, it's unlikely there would be any charges. AUTiger » talk 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

People may not care much about the rights of individual organisms, but they do care about species. There are pretty stiff penalties for killing members of endangered species, cute or not. There may be no law against meddling with life on Mars right now, but I imagine that such laws would be enacted pretty quickly if life ever is discovered on Mars. On the other hand doing anything to Mars is so difficult that there might be no need for a blanket law, since there would be plenty of time to regulate each expedition on a case-by-case basis. -- BenRG (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since by killing all life you'd also be killing individual humans, who indeed have rights under the law, then you would be committing many crimes of murder - one for each killed individual human. So this would make the act illegal, even if it is not specifically illegal in and of itself. -- Saukkomies 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)