The Wilding of America Essay Example

The Wilding of America Paper Before we look at the entire word. Lets break It down. The root of wilding is obviously wild. According to Dictionary. Com, wild is an adjective, an adverb and a noun and it has an idiom of run wild as follows: Run wild: a) to grow unchecked; b) to show lack of restraint or control. Now, by adding the inning does it become a whole new meaning, or is it right on course? Is tit way of life? Is it fulfillment of the American Dream? Is it criminal? Is it only Inflicted on Individuals? Is It political? Does It happen In corporations? In churches? The answer: All the above. Wilding holds no bars. It Is the extreme selfishness at best, a form of narcissism, with total disregard for individuals, communities, churches, parents, or even children. The term wilding was first introduced In 1989 after a rich, white woman, who was logging In Central Park, was attacked and raped by black teenage boys from the Inner city. According to the press reports, it was a term the youths themselves used to describe their behavior (Drabber 2). The term wilding was then associated with wealth, class, and race. It would soon take a shocking and not so subtle turn. Is It wilding If a husband of the same race and class kills his wife? Is this were ultimate selfishness kicks in? The Charles and Carol Stuart story answers these questions. On October 23, 1998, Just six months after the attack at Central Park, Charles and Carol Stuart, then 8 months pregnant, were walking to their car after attending a birthing class. They got In their car and minutes later Mrs.. Stuart was shot dead. We will write a custom essay sample on The Wilding of America specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The Wilding of America specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The Wilding of America specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Charles Stuart proclaimed that It was a black man who had shot his wife. To corroborate his story, Charles Stuart went so far as to shoot himself in the stomach. Months later, the nation was stunned. The murderer, her husband. The motive, he had the American Dream to open a restaurant using the life Insurance money (Drabber 4). So now wilding Is compacted Into the family unit. The Stuart case kicked off what I call Family unit Wilding. Lets not forget that soon to follow were the Maddened brothers who were of a wealthy family. They killed their parents and lived the high life they longed for until they were caught and convicted. Susan Smith. She was the white mother who took her children. Strapped them to the back seat of her car, and drove her car into a lake. Killing drowning her win children. Why? Her rich boyfriend did not want children. (She also blamed this heinous act on a black man. ) Scott Peterson, he killed his pregnant wife, Lacy, in order to continue an affair he was having with Amber Frey. Locally, we have well known sportscaster Vince Marseille. He disguised himself, wrote a to do list and killed his wife because she was divorcing him due to bigamy. Family unit Wilding has run amok. Although wilding was coined In America In 1989, Anthropologist Colic Turnbuckle experienced wilding first hand In 1964 when he lived among the k people of Uganda (Drabber 5). However, for the k, wilding was more of a form of survival. They would lie FIFO or melamine Ana teen would consoler anyone, even Tamely, won was SICK or malnourished as a threat or a waste of food. The k all but partied when a family member would die because that would mean more food, etc. For them. They even went so far as to kill their own children, family members for food. Aside from violent wilding, we have corporate or economic wilding. We have the corporations of Merrill Lynch, Enron, and Martha Stewart, who all played the stock market at the expense of others to personally gain a profit. I am sure that if one looked hard enough they would discover that corporate wilding existed with the Rockefeller and even the Kennedys. Now, recently, we have Bernard Maddox who admitted to defrauding clients for billions of dollars in a massive Opinion scheme in which he took new money from investors to pay off existing clients who wanted to cash out. Additionally, although it is relatively occurring at present, we have a national debate as to whether Alga has exercised wilding. Did they take money that rightfully belonged to the people of America in order to give 73 executives in their reparation a million dollar bonus or do these bonuses have merit? This story is still playing out and has yet to me seen. I personally see corporate wilding through and through. The most gruesome type of corporate wilding appears in the companies that make a huge profit at the expense, not only of Americans, but of those from other countries who work practically as slaves. Of course, I am sure that there is no one in business to make others rich, but since when do American companies take so many Jobs away from Americans and out of the United States and give them to other countries at a seer expense. How is it these countries can do the work for so much less? We all know the answer to this and wonder how corporations allow it. The three children of Sam Walton, deceased owner of Walter, were all named one of this years billionaires. How can they be so proud of that. They have made their fortune knowing that 17 year old girls and younger are living in slave like conditions working 20 hours a day to mass produce their products. These women and children for that matter are making pennies an hour, get a 40 minute lunch break and are allowed only two bathroom breaks. Heaven forbid they call out sick, they lose income already earned (Drabber 62). How much are their supervisors making? The government tried to put an end to this by inspecting the factories, facilities, etc. , but all inspections were announced. Hence, why bother! Kudos to the companies that have discovered this was happening with their own products and put an end to it. Wilding has also nested a place in religion. Charles Drabber stated Wilding in the church is then, arguably, the most dangerous type (Drabber 84). Does individualism overpower a belief or a message? We have Jimmy Swaggers and Jim Baker who admittedly preached about morals and values, yet had affairs with prostitutes nonetheless. We have John J. Goanna who was one of many priests in Boston who molested children. Cardinal Bernard Law, a highly respected and valued member of the church, sealed his fate when he attempted to cover up the Boston molestations by transferring the priests to other archdioceses. Religious wilding and corporate wilding are very similar in these aspects. Hurricane Strain. What kind of wilding would one associate with this horrific, life canalling, analogical numerical? As tenure personal winning: survival winning? Government wilding? Economic wilding? Media wilding? Yes, there was. First, lets talk about the media wilding, my personal peeve. The national media made out like bandits and were chomping at the bit regarding this hurricane. They showed stories of people dying, hurting, starving, stealing, shooting, and trying to get out. They were here, they got in. Were they going after ratings at the expense of people lives? Why didnt they bring in any food, water, tents, first aid kits? They got in to do the stories. Why couldnt they help people out? The media showed what they wanted you to see. Chaos! Anderson Cooper was right there in the thick of it watching old women struggle to get up a bridge. Why didnt he put his microphone down to go assist? Why didnt the cameraman? The media did not show survival wilding and that the majority of people looting were doing so to survive. They showed people walking out with televisions, tennis shoes and guns. What about the people walking out with food, and water and sharing that with other? They showed police shooting, arresting, and even occasionally sleeping in high rise garages. What about showing the police and military who were working for over 48 hours straight who were exhausted, had not eaten in days and were still walking through infested water to save people? All sorts of wilding was present during and far after Hurricane Strain. There were helicopter pilots who were being shot at. There were nursing homes that did not evacuate the members, all died. There were gas and other price gouging prevalent all over the southeast United States. There were faulty and negligent insurance claims made. There was lack of government support. Contractors contracting to do house repairs, getting paid, not doing the work and skipping town. There were people charging to do work that other volunteers would do for free. Wilding during and after Hurricane Strain was rampant to say the least. Student wilding also has been going for years and years. Although it seems to be more prevalent now then ever more so due to advances in technology. There are essays that are for sale on the internet or even on the campus. There are codes that can be formed during tests. There are discs being sold with answers on them. There re sales of the professors study guides with tests in them. If one looks hard enough, a cheat sheet or quick fix are out there. Who does this benefit though? Yes it might get you that A you are looking for, but on the flip side it does absolutely nothing to help you in the future. So you get an A in this class, and then take the requisite class and have no clue what the professor is talking about. The only people benefiting from this are the ones making the buck. There are even books on how to cheat. The author of these books sees nothing wrong with it claims its his First Amendment eight (Drabber 50).

In what ways did the dual Kingship of Sparta reflect (or perpetuate) other aspects of Spartan society Essay Example

In what ways did the dual Kingship of Sparta reflect (or perpetuate) other aspects of Spartan society Essay Example In what ways did the dual Kingship of Sparta reflect (or perpetuate) other aspects of Spartan society Essay In what ways did the dual Kingship of Sparta reflect (or perpetuate) other aspects of Spartan society Essay Essay Topic: History Sparta, as countless others scholars have noted, was a world apart from the other poleis in Ancient Greece in its customs. It was one of the few poleis to retain a Kingship, and as doubly odd to have had a Dyarchy two Kings reigning simultaneously, one each from the Agiad and Eurypontid lines respectively. Is it possible, in fact, that this strange royal partnership reflected and maybe even in some way fuelled the peculiar habits of Lacedaemonian society? I wish to explore the nature of the Kings role in the Spartan constitution, their role in Spartan religion and their powers commanding the army. I will also explore their role in diplomacy. The concept that we have of archaic monarchs (in this case, dyarchs), especially many of those during the Hellenistic era (like Phillip II Alexander I of Macedon, the Great Kings of Persia and later on into history) is that of absolute control and to check that power. In Sparta, it was a very different affair (Cartledge, 1987: 17; 2001: 57). Perhaps a very basic point, but something that reflected the overall ethos of Laconian society was the deemed seniority of the Agiad line (Hdt. 6. 51; Cartledge, 1987: 23, 100). This echoed throughout Spartan society; where the Spartan youth were tutored to obey their elders. The two Kings were overseen (literally MacDowell, 1986: 128) by Ephors and laws were passed by the Gerousia (which they were at least part of). It is quite plausible that over the centuries, before the advent of Ephors, the constitutional powers of the Kings were much greater (MacDowell, 1986: 123). For example, by the mid 5th century, we know that judicially, the Kings judged cases involving unmarried heiresses, adoptions and public roads (Herodotus, 6.57. 4/5). Indeed, the constantly fluctuating relationship between the Ephors Gerousia with the Kings is something worth investigating. In theory, the Ephorate was established to prolong the royal crowns (Cartledge, 2001: 33), with both of them exchanging vows to each other monthly to act within the law (Xen. Lac. Pol. 15.7). But there were instances where ulterior motives on either side came to the fore. Pausanias tells us that when a King committed a misdemeanour and was to be tried back home, the judges included the other governing arms the Ephors and the Gerousia, the latter including the other king (Paus, 3.5.2); Cleomenes was exiled for trying to dismiss the Athenian boule (Yates, 2005: 75/6). However, it is quite possible that this was a special case, regarding the trial of Pausanias (MacDowell, 1986, 128, Cartledge, 1987: 109). We also hear of the Ephors conducting a ritual sky watch once every 8 years, searching for bad omens which they could use against the kings rule (Rahe, 1977: 278-9, no. 145). Not only does this show a cautious approach from them towards the dyarchs, but the ritual itself fits very neatly with the religious aspect (page 6) of the kings themselves; they could be impeached by the gods. Ste. Croix goes further, categorising the trials and banishments of the Kings in the 5th 4th centuries as the work of the Ephors (1972: 350-3; Rahe, 1980: 398). Pleistoanaxs actions in Attica (446-5 BC) led him to being put on trial and exiled, and this may well have been due to the report of the Ephor(s) accompanying him on the campaign (Cartledge, 1987: 17). It might well have been that his peace with Athens was not popular with the Gerousia and Ephors, ably demonstrated by the violation of his peace (Cartledge, 1982: 261/2). This would also show the inherent hostility towards Athens in Spartan society . Yet, there are instances where the balance is reversed and the ephors were used as an advisory board of sorts. Cleomenes I went to the ephors in order to inform them about the suspicious activities of Mnaiandrios of Samos (Hdt. 3.148.2). We also hear from Xenophon that King (regent) Pausanias managed to convince three Ephors to take military action (Xen. Hell. 2.4.29), though this would have been different for other judicial decisions (MacDowell, 1986: 131). There is also the instance where Agesilaos managed to take drastic action and execute conspirators after consulting the ephors (Plutarch, Agesilaos. 32. 11). The Ephors were liable to manipulation from wily Kings (Brunt, 1965: 279). Despite being put in place to check the power of the Kings, it is likely that the Ephors werent indicative of popular representation within Sparta, being as they were, just 5 citizens elected from the damos (Aristotle, Pol. 1256b39-40) and holding office for only a year. Individual Ephors might well have exploited disagreements between Kings to their own advantage (Cartledge, 2001: 59), but split voting, change of policy with new Ephors and disagreements would have put pay to any personal ambitions. Moreover, the Kingship remained the principal office for which true political power remained, as the Machiavellian scheming of Lysander attests to (Cartledge, 2001: 36). What this shows is the willing subservience of Spartan society to adhere to their rigid hierarchy of royal dominance, and that the downfall of a King would be the reluctant last solution, if it would save the Lacedaemonians from doom. Let us take the example of a King being indicted (see above). If a charge against a King was to be upheld, it was necessary for all the Ephors and the majority of the Gerousia with the other King to vote against said King on trial (Cartledge, 2001: 60). If the King was summoned by the Ephors, he was only required to do so upon the third time of asking (Cartledge, 2001: 62). In Agesilaos IIs case, he hobbled. The Spartans despised physical disability but since Agesilaos was King; this must have been overlooked because of his status, again reflecting submission to ones betters. We should also note that in the presence of a King, everyone else had to stand. As Cartledge picks up upon, this mirrored the Spartan ideal whereby juniors were expected to give up their seat to a senior (2001: 62) and probably also the deferral to ones superiors as well (Kelly, 1981: 48). As for the Gerousia, Cartledge argues that it might well have been as old as the Kingship itself, but its size and the inclusion of the 2 Kings (If a king was away, then his vote was given to another, who would vote for him and himself (Thuc. 1.20.3) thus conforming to the rest of the Gerousia) within it reflect a change in status of the Dyarchy, to the advantage of the Gerousia (2001: 31). He also argues that the Gerousia was the main domestic and foreign decision making body (2001: 60) made from the senior, aristocratic Spartiates (however, as the Kings were ex officio members, it is possible that the Kings could have been the youngest faces within the Gerousia, disagreeing with the superiority of the elders (Pleistarchus and Agis IV McQueen, 1990: 167)). If this is the case, then a long reigning King would have been able to see the Gerousia membership appointed in his favour (by his own admission: Cartledge, 2001: 65). Agesilaos IIs vote to save Sphodrias in the trial of 378 is a good indication of his control over the Gerousia. So it is a good bet that the Kings were the political foci (Mitchell, 1991: 58; despite Lewis, 1977: 48; Hdt. 6.52.8). Far from the nature of the Dyarchys role within the government of Sparta, we can tell a lot about how much they mirrored Spartan society from their day to day lives within the polis. The Kings would both eat in the Royal mess tents (syssitia), which the homioi were separated from, promoting the idea that the Royals were something else (Cartledge, 1987: 104). Whats more, the Kings were awarded double rations so as to honour guests (Cartledge, 1987: 108; Xen. Ages. 5.1; Lak. Pol. 15.4) and we can presume that this was used as part of the xenia process. The mess tents the homioi used were subject to control of membership, along grounds of social, wealth and seniority status (Hodkinson, 1983: 253/4), thus promoting the oligarchic fashion of Sparta. That the Kings were kept separate heightens this idea. In terms of property, it was very much a case of furthering ones own ambitions (Leonidas in Plut. Kleo. 1.1) and keeping property within their family by literally doing just that marrying close consanguineous kin or similarly wealthy aristocrats (Hodkinson, 2000: 82, 408). This was done by the Kings and aristocrats alike. In the cases where they judged adoption, the Kings would make sure that the adopted was landless and would pass them onto those who were the same, thus allowing them to keep the properties in the upper echelons of society (Hodkinson, 2000: 82). The royal houses were typical of Spartan propertied classes. Good examples of this would be Leonidas Is marriage to Gorgo, Cleomenes Is only child so as to inherit Cleomenes property when he died as well as bolster his claim to the Agiad throne (Hdt. 7.239.4), Cleomenes IIIs marriage to Agiatis, the widow of Agis IV (Hdt. 6.71), Ariston marrying his friends wife (Hdt. 6.61-2) and Aegisilaos Is marriage to Kleora (Paus. 3.9.3). We should however note that the Agiad Eurypontid royal lines owned considerably more land than any other citizen as they possessed territories in many perioikic communities (Xen. Lak. Pol. 15.3). Though they imitated the attitude of the wealthy few in Sparta by such a process, it limited the number of heirs and the division of inheritance, concentrating the property and wealth in the hands of the closely related few; wealth married wealth, segregating society even further. The royal houses enhanced their socio-economic position over history through such activities (Hodkinson, 2000: 413). As the elites perpetuated their position, the decline in citizen numbers accelerated, allowing the successful aristocratic lineages to safely secure high offices and property (Hodkinson, 2000: 415). This in turn would have lead to policy-making being dominated by very few, not least between the 2 Kings and their respective supporters in the Gerousia (Roy, 2009: 442). Religion was integral part of Spartan life, like most other Classical poleis. In Sparta, the Kings had an important part to play. We learn from Herodotus (6.59) that both Kings were hereditary high priests of Zeus Lakedaimonios and Zeus Ouranios (perhaps one for each). As such, they were required to sacrifice to Zeus and others before, during and after a military campaign (Lipka, 2002: 221). Whilst marching, the Kings preceded the fire-bearers, whilst a train of sacrificial animals followed behind the army (Burket, 1985: 257). The representation of Castor and Polydeukes was taken on military campaigns (Cartledge, 1987: 109). They ate first and received twice as large a portion as everyone else at sacrificial feasts (Cartledge, 1987: 107). The Kings received 72 litres of barley and a quart of wine every new moon and on the 7th day of the lunar month (Lipka, 2002: 221). Lastly, no-one was permitted to touch the Kings (Plut. Agis. 19.9). They were probably not God-Kings, but more than mortal (Miller, 1998: 2). It is clear that the health of the state was bound to the health of the Kings (Cartledge, 1987: 105; Parker, 1988: 153). The fact that the Kings were apportioned the skins and entrails of the sacrifices shows the high esteem they were held in by the Religious community. As Sparta was an extremely superstitious and seriously religious community, it certainly seems consistent that the Kings were assigned such duties. They were also given the honour of appointing two Pythioi each, who acted permanent ambassadors to Oracle at Delphi (Hdt. 6.57.2-4), the highest honour, presumably as Delphi was the pan-Hellenic sanctuary! Lysanders attempted bribery of Delphi reflects the entrenched power the kings had, since they maintained a close relationship with Delphi through their Pythioi (Cartledge, 1987: 96), maybe even to further their own agenda (Cartledge, 2001: 63). Royal funerals on the other hand, were perhaps the most spectacular in the Peloponnese (Hdt. 6.58), which would have been in sharp contrast with the simplicities (Laconic) of ordinary Spartans (Parker, 1988: 153), and it would have had an impact upon the members of the royal house (Hodkinson, 2000: 263). Each free household (Spartiate and Perioikic) had to provide one male and female each to the funeral; Helots were obliged to attend (reflecting Spartan societys dominance over them (Cartledge, 1987: 333)). The funeral would have been a public affair, lying-in-state, reflecting the very Spartan practice; other cities kept their funerals as private affairs (Cartledge, 1987: 333). Again, unlike anywhere else in Greece, the King would have been buried within the boundaries of the living, maybe even close to a sanctuary, defying the Hellenic taboo of Greek pollution (Plut. Lyc. 27.1). It is interesting to notice that the custom of embalming their King was copied from Persian and Egyptian practices (Hdt. 1.40.2, 4.71.1), which is seemingly at odds with their xenophobia towards foreign cultures. Leonidas I, who died in battle may well have had an exceptional burial (buried again after his demise 40 years earlier), sharing a similar Spartan trait of honouring only those who died fighting (Cartledge, 1987: 336). The royal funeral was beyond what a mere mortal man could claim and what many aristocrats aspired to (Xen. Hell. 3.3.1), thus convincing the Spartiates of the connection between a healthy Sparta and the dual Kingship (though this would become less and less effective in later Sparta (Cartledge, 1987: 337/341)). For Spartans, soldering was their life. However, unlike the homioi, the heirs to the thrones were not required to go through the Spartan education system the agoge (Plut. Ages. 1.4). This does seem strange initially, but when you consider how the Kings were perceived as beyond mortal (see above), the heirs and Kings were already superior to everyone else (Cartledge, 1987: 24). Agesilaos IIs decision to go through the agoge would naturally have made him even more special, considering his disability; just like Leonidas before him. Herodotus tells us (5.75.2) that because of a crisis between Cleomenes and Damaratus on a joint campaign in 506 BC, one King stayed behind in Sparta. The King elected on campaign assumed sole command on campaign, handling an enormous amount of power; anyone who tried to prevent this would be cursed (Cartledge, 1987: 81, 105). He was even assigned his own bodyguard (hippeis) who were the elite soldiers (Thuc. 5.72.4). The King could also expect a personal haul of a third of the total booty collected on campaign (Polybius. 2.62.1). Aristotle (Pol. 1285a 7-8, 1285b 26-8) inferred that the Kings were mere hereditary generals, but as we can see, that was patently not the case. Their power was absolute (they even had the authority to choose between life and death (MacDowell, 1986: 126). With the King at the head of an army, the connection between the military and the political hierarchy was plain to see. Leadership went hand in hand with the military caste (Cartledge, 1987: 203). To lead the army in a military orientated state like Sparta would surely have been the greatest honour. This echoes what was said earlier (page 4), about having to submit to ones betters, especially in Sparta, replicating the master/student, senior/junior, rich/poor relationship in all of Spartan society. The Lacedaemonians were subject to the power of the Ephors, Gerousia and the Dyarchy at home, yet outside Sparta, it became a Monarchy. I feel this could be due to the way the Spartiates perceived non-Spartiates. As they distrusted foreigners, they needed to be, in theory, intimidated. So, one King with full power and a large army would have done this perfectly and was indicative of Spartas xenophobia. Where it was a matter of gaining advantage for Lacedaemon, the Spartan elites did engage with those from the outside (of Sparta). The Kings were allowed to appoint proxenia, Spartiates who acted as ambassadors for those from other poleis (Hdt. 6.57.2). This was certainly related to Spartas xenophobia (cf. Figueira, 2003: 66), where the only ones who were entrusted to make relations with non-Spartiates were those trusted by the Kings, and was thus open to manipulation (Cartledge, 1987: 81, 97, 108). No doubt, the Spartan kings would already have had friendship ties (xenia) with many Peloponnesian oligarchies, thus enabling them to influence foreign policy in those states (Cartledge, 1987: 246). King Agis II was fined for negotiating with Argives (Thuc. 5.59-63), one was a Spartan proxenos and another had xenos with Agis himself (Hodkinson, 2000: 352; Roy, 2009: 440). Archidamus had terms of xenia with Pericles of Athens (Thuc. 2.13.1; Mosely, 1971: 434). The relationships the Kings had with their friends in the Peloponnese is reminiscent of the 18th 19th century European Monarchs, who retained ties of blood and friendship with each other. In what ways did the Dyarchs reflect other aspects of Spartan society? Though they were designed to prevent it, the Kings dominated both of the Ephors and Gerousia, reflecting the superior/inferior (master/slave) aspect of Sparta as a whole. Messing in the syssitia and the accumulation of property through marrying close kin or wealthy others promoted the oligarchic fashion (ruled by the few (in this case 2!)). The Kings as high priests and their spectacular funerals cemented their demi-god credentials; it fitted perfectly with the zealously religious Spartans. Leadership of the state was reflected by their leadership of the army and the Kings leading the peculiar form of Proxenia and xenos reflected the inherently xenophobic nature of Spartan society. The Dyarchy was coterminous with Sparta (Arist. Pol., 1310b 38-9), though it has been considered an egalitarian society, it was anything but, with competiveness instilled from youth (Kelly, 1981: 54). Sparta demanded high reverence to the continued influence of the Spartan Kings (Rice, 1974: 165) and time passed, the un-checked power of the Kings fostered Hellenistic monarchic tendencies in later kings (McQueen, 1990: 166). The dual Kinship promoted a dual image, where the Spartans promoted one thing, but did another (Miller, 1998: 13).

Hw5 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 2

Hw5 - Assignment Example The theory also explains that most of the universe large parts do not support complex life calling the places to be dead zones. The places that support the complex life are known to be the habitat zones for the living creatures. The habitat zone acts as a primary function having a distance from the galactic center. When the distance between the two places increase, the stars’ content begin to reduce creating terrestrial planets. The dangerous x rays that are produced from the black hole found at the galactic center including the stars of the neutrons and quasars become less intense. This creates hell to the life and enables the hypothesis to identify the early life of the universe. Also, the gravitational that occur between the stars and the planets become less due to the low density caused by the decrease of the stars. This explains that if a planet is far from the galactic center, it is likely to have been hit by a bolide. It is an impact that affects the complex life. 2. The population density for the galaxy proofs to be 50,000 light years. Having 2, 500 civilizations while assuming that they are equally spaced, there separation will be found by dividing the light years by the civilizations. One civilization will proof to have 20 light years. 3. There is compatible function between the humans and the nature itself. In nature, there are a number of circumstances that lead to the human survival. Science and nature has also a new version on the relationship between humans and nature. It proofs that the physical substances that surround human beings are complex. There is also a lot of interdependence between the humans and nature. This begins with the human genes that are able to produce several traits creating a survival. The lives that are on earth have the form of life that is found only at the biosphere that is the membrane of both the plants and animals. On the same note,