Want this question answered?
Tantalum doesn't exist in pure state in nature.
Earth-Wide Desertification, seems like.
i would like to know!!
This is an opinion question, as it all depends on what you like.
it would get hotter. more places would get sun. global worming would be easier to happen. and places like India and other hot countries would be to hot to live in and some scientists think that if this happened England would be as hot as Spain!
No, Hobbes did not like the idea of a state of nature. He believed that it would lead to a "war of all against all" and chaos, where life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes argued for a powerful sovereign to maintain order and prevent this state of nature.
To live in a state of nature would be absolute chaos and hell. There are no rules, no laws, no government. Although it could be beneficial to have no corrupt government or dictators, one will eventually form.
Hobbes' state of nature is a condition of perpetual war, where everyone is in a constant state of conflict and competition for resources. In this state, there is no authority to enforce laws or provide security, leading to a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. According to Hobbes, the state of nature necessitates the creation of a social contract and a sovereign power to maintain order and prevent chaos.
He meant to define what people would be like in a state of nature (pre-society). They would be independent and ape-like with simple needs that are easily met.
It depends entirely on the philosopher. Hobbes and Locke both held that the state of nature was a violent and terrible place in which to live. People regularly killed and maimed each other for temporary benefits. Aristotle and other classical philosophers found the question meaningless, holding that man would naturally form cities and societies since people are inherently political. The same way that oil will always separate from water, people will always evade the state of nature. Rousseau held that the state of nature was relatively peaceable, but still much less desirable than a society held together by a social contract. As a result, people will tend to create social contracts to improve their lot, but the state of nature is not a horrible place.
It depends entirely on the philosopher. Hobbes and Locke both held that the state of nature was a violent and terrible place in which to live. People regularly killed and maimed each other for temporary benefits. Aristotle and other classical philosophers found the question meaningless, holding that man would naturally form cities and societies since people are inherently political. The same way that oil will always separate from water, people will always evade the state of nature. Rousseau held that the state of nature was relatively peaceable, but still much less desirable than a society held together by a social contract. As a result, people will tend to create social contracts to improve their lot, but the state of nature is not a horrible place.
No, social contract theory and state of nature are not the same thing. State of nature refers to a theoretical condition describing human existence without government, while social contract theory proposes that individuals consent to give up certain freedoms in exchange for the protection and benefits of a governing authority. The state of nature sets the foundation for social contract theory by illustrating the need for a system of governance.
Hobbes believed the state of nature was chaotic and people needed a strong central authority to maintain order, with the social contract giving up some freedoms in exchange for security. Locke viewed the state of nature as peaceful and believed the social contract should protect natural rights like life, liberty, and property. Rousseau saw the state of nature as harmonious and believed the social contract should preserve individual freedom while maintaining the general will of the community.
It means like someth'n that would happen in rl life
Bluish-Black Solid, and Purple in Gaseous state
life would moon be on life on moon
Well it is the 21 st century and the truth is that it would be very difficult to wipe life out in any century short pf the earth falling into the sun. Life may not be as we would like it to be at times in both the past and the future but life will go on. Nature simply adapts.