Answer:
I haven't studied this, I think, so this is off of what I think it might be, I suppose.
Explanation:
A: If it's widespread, it might be harder to govern everyone rather than if it was more compact. If it's bigger, one center of power in one part might not be able to handle monitoring the entire country as there's al lot of space, so their influence might not be felt throughout the entire country and rather more in the areas closest to it. Like how people who lived in England were seemingly more loyal to the king, but in America, which was an ocean away, more people seemingly felt and expressed their lack of connection to a ruler so far away.
B: If it's wide-spread enough, there might be different ideas of grouping based on it. If a river runs through it, for example, it could lead to a "east of the river" versus "west of the river" difference in how they identify. An example of this is in Italy where the North and South have differences between them or how in the U.S. there had been/is the idea of "The North vs. The South" or even "The North vs. The South vs. The Midwest vs. The West Coast".
You don’t have any answers
1. Mars has a thin athmosphere
2. Its red colour is dues to a big number of iron oxide
3. It has two moons
4. Olympus Mons, a volcano on Mars is also the largest volcano in the solar system
5. Mars is visible from Earth with a naked eye
6. It has around half the diameter of earth
7. Mars is less dense than Earth
Shipping technologies and cultures were more readily shared
Corporations are often accused of despoiling the environment in their quest for profit. Free enterprise is supposedly incompatible with environmental preservation so that government regulation is required.
Such thinking is the basis for current proposals to expand environmental regulation greatly. So many new controls have been proposed and enacted that the late economic journalist Warren Brookes once forecast that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could well become "the most powerful government agency on earth, involved in massive levels of economic, social, scientific, and political spending and interference.
But if the profit motive is the primary cause of pollution, one would not expect to find much pollution in socialist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, China, and in the former Communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe. That is, in theory. In reality, exactly the opposite is true: The socialist world suffers from the worst pollution on earth. Could it be that free enterprise is not so incompatible with environmental protection after all?
