Answer:
Explanation:
No
Humans developed over the past 200,000 years, mostly as hunters and gathers. This ancient form of life most recently practiced by Indigenous peoples of Australia, America and the Kalahari Desert, meant small groups of humans travelled endlessly with minimum goods and chattels to weigh them down. Most goods were considered communal property and members were very liberal about sharing. Some have said that this was the most idyllic lifestyle we ever had. We were able to live without “wealth" or even a lot of personal goods.
Once humans settled to farm about 10,000 years ago, ownership of land and crops were our first “wealth" objects. Larger scale conflicts, “wars" started to become the norm for society.
By the middle ages we had “money" and credit which was a much simpler way of measuring “wealth". Today, money and Ferraris and Porches together and other conspicuous consumption items, are the normal indicators of wealth.
I do believe that humans could exist without wealth. Who knows, some cataclysm could decimate our populations and cities and we may revert to a simpler and more fundamental life, without iPhones! Hope this helps
Yes
The world existed for billions of years without material wealth.
Life, even humans, existed for millions of years without material wealth.
There are groups of people that live without material wealth right now:
Monks
Some homeless people
A few tribes in the Amazon
A few cults
Concept of Material wealth is necessary for most forms of civilization. Without it, would be very tricky to have any sort of organization between people, but it is possible in small enough groups .
Answer:
Correct:
- Socialist mayors were elected across the United States, from industrial towns to agricultural communities.
- Socialist commissioners were elected in states as diverse as Alabama, Montana, and Pennsylvania.
Wrong:
- While socialists had success in mayoral elections, they were not voted into other major offices.
- Socialists opposed nationalization of industries all across the United States.
Explanation:
From my POV D is the answer
This can either be Louis Thurstone's Primary Mental Abilities or Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence. Both can support this premise because it illustrates that intelligence is not general unlike the theory proposed by Charles Spearman. In Thurstone's and Gardner's theories, a person can e intelligent in one aspect and not on another. This is because there are multiple areas of intelligence and it is not rarely possible for a person to excel in every area.
$3427
149000 times 2.3% or 0.23 equals $3427.
