Explanation:
<em>It</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>important</em><em> </em><em>to</em><em> </em><em>preserve</em><em> </em><em>our</em><em> </em><em>cultural</em><em> </em><em>heritage</em><em>,</em><em> </em><em>because</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em> </em><em>keeps</em><em> </em><em>our</em><em> </em><em>integrity</em><em> </em><em>as</em><em> </em><em>people</em><em>.</em><em> </em><em>The</em><em> </em><em>importance</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>intangible</em><em> </em><em>cultural</em><em> </em><em>heritage</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>not</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>cultural</em><em> </em><em>manifestation</em><em> </em><em>itself</em><em> </em><em>but</em><em> </em><em>rather</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>weatlh</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>knowledge</em><em> </em><em>a</em><em> </em><em>d</em><em> </em><em>skills</em><em> </em><em>that</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>transmitted</em><em> </em><em>though</em><em> </em><em>it</em><em> </em><em>from</em><em> </em><em>one</em><em> </em><em>generation</em><em> </em><em>to</em><em> </em><em>next</em><em> </em><em>generation</em><em>.</em><em> </em>
Answer: Principle of discrimination.
Explanation:
The principle of discrimination indicates that in a war, the soldiers must be the targets of attack, while it is necessary to avoid attacking or harming civilians. It also indicates when it is moral or not to attack a soldier; for example, it is immoral to attack violently a soldier who has surrendered.
However, "collateral damage" is inevitable in wars. This is the destruction that is created and the damage that civilians receive when soldiers are attacked.
<em>I hope this information can help you.</em>
Hey there,
Your question states: <span>Why do historians have more knowledge about the Shang dynasty than previous dynasties?
Your correct answer would conclude to be of that "</span>They were the largest dynasty." which was very easy for us the have <span>more knowledge about the Shang dynasty than previous dynasties
Hope this helps.
~Jurgen</span>
Answer:
Religion declines with economic development. In a previous post that rattled around the Internet, I presented a scholarly explanation for this pattern: people who feel secure in this world have less interest in another one.
The basic idea is that wealth allows people to feel more secure in the sense that they are confident of having their basic needs met and expect to lead a long healthy life. In such environments, there is less of a market for religion, the primary function of which is to help people cope with stress and uncertainty.
Some readers of the previous post pointed out that the U.S. is something of an anomaly because this is a wealthy country in which religion prospers. Perhaps taking the view that one swallow makes a summer, the commentators concluded that the survival of religion here invalidates the security hypothesis. I do not agree.
Explanation:
The first point to make is that the connection between affluence and the decline of religious belief is as well-established as any such finding in the social sciences. In research of this kind, the preferred analysis strategy is some sort of line-fitting exercise. No researcher ever expects every case to fit exactly on the line, and if they did, something would be seriously wrong.
The geography of Egypt had a significant effect on the development of the Egyptian civilisation. The Nile flowed through Egypt and flooded every year. The floods brought fresh deposits of fertile soil which ancient Egyptian farmers used to develop a prosperous agricultural economy. The Egyptian civilisation grew from the farmer's crops and all aspects of society were connected in some way to agriculture and the inundation.<span>
</span>