It hasn't and probably it never will.
It is also philosophically dangerous to equate civilization to good and savagery to evil. After all, we as so called civilized men would be inherently biased in assuming that we represent the positive side of this equation while nature's savages, or that which is the antitheses of what's civilized, represents or equates evil.
Binary comparisons often lack the subtlety to portray the complexity of life and its myriad shades of gray.
At best we could say that evidence suggests civilization seems a more desirable option than savagery.
The answer is C.Direct object
Answer:
pa brainliest answer po follow me follow back and pa heart po thankssssss
Explanation:
no one would have believed in
he last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutnised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable.
<h3>H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds</h3>
Answer:
Coherence will be the answer
Explanation:
This reason because, the story doesn't really have any consistency to it. It moves from one statement to another, with no type of warning. This can end up causing confusion about the excerpt.
I don't if this helped out much.
