Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
Farming/ slavery.
This answer really depends on what the question is asking, the southern economy banked heavily off of farming, BUT it was impossible to provide and have such an abundance of crops without slavery. So, it depends on the options you have.
Hope this helps, man!
Answer:
A. Craftspeople
Explanation:
Impacts of Industrialization
As factories expanded to manufacture things other than textiles, the process of making goods became highly mechanized. And as machine production replaced handcrafts, the level of skill required to manufacture items went down. Operating a machine in a factory took far less skill than making something by hand. As a result, manufacturing products' manufacturing process became cheaper, allowing the middle classes to buy more consumer products. Along with this, however, the wages for working-class laborers dropped and some trades had a difficult time competing with machines. When factories and machines replaced workshops and handcrafted work, tradespeople became workers. As workers tied to an employer, they were forced to accept lower wages for less-skilled jobs. This shift from skilled to unskilled labor made it difficult for workers to demand better working conditions and pay since factory workers were easy to train and easy to replace. This meant that workers could do little about their low wages or the difficult working conditions in the factories.
Working conditions in factories were incredibly harsh. Workdays were often as long as 16 hours with very few breaks. Factory conditions were uncomfortable and unsafe. With all the machines running, room temperatures could become very hot, and the conditions were crowded. Working the machines could be hazardous, and injuries and even deaths were common. And, despite all these risks and poor conditions, the wages were quite low.
Answer:
Released into the United States within hours
Explanation:
Answer:
The answer is C. The Mughal Empire
