D). Ming navigation
Hope this helps you 3 weeks late ;)
Answer:
a. Long Cycle Theory
Explanation:
In international relations theory, the Long Cycle Theory was first presented by George Modelski in his book <em>Long Cycles in World Politics</em> (1987). Modelski claims that <u>the US replacing Britain as the leader of the International System after World War II is part of a cycle in international relations where one hegemon is gradually replaced by another over a period of roughly a century</u>.
The transition from one hegemonic power to another leads to the new world power carrying on the costs associated with such a position. And unlike defenders of the realist school of international relations, Modelski doesn't see this cycle as produced by the anarchy of the internationals system, but rather as a natural consequence of economic and political developments, including wars. According to him, Portugal was the world hegemon in the 16th century, Netherlands in the 17th century, Britain stretched his period of international dominance over the 18th and 19th century, and since the 20th century, the United States is the world's dominant hegemon.
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.
