Please answer this: Human beings invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago. This provided a bigger, more dependable food supply. It also allowed people to settle down in villages and cities for the first time. Birth rates went up because there was more food and settled life had other advantages. Death rates also rose because of crowded living conditions and diseases that spread from domestic animals. Because the higher birth rates were matched by higher death rates, the human population continued to grow very slowly. Gary researched two old human settlements. Village A was smaller, it existed about 12,000 years ago. He also studied village B, which existed about 6,000 years ago. The village was much bigger and better developed. Which village existed after the invention of agriculture?
++++++++
Answer: village B

Please answer this: Another major cause of extinction is global warming , which is also known as global climate change. During the past century, the Earth's average temperature has risen by almost 1C (about 1.3F). You may not think that is significant, but to organisms that live in the wild and are constantly adapting to their environments, any climate change can be hazardous. Recall that burning fossil fuels releases gasses into the atmosphere that warm the Earth. Our increased use of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, is changing the Earth's climate. Any long-term change in the climate can destroy the habitat of a species. Even a brief change in climate may be too stressful for an organism to survive. For example, if the seas increase in temperature, even briefly, it may be too warm for certain types of fish to reproduce. Ken and Stacy are two engineers discussing their plans about what source of energy they should use to generate electricity in a new city they are helping design. Ken feels that they should use coal since it's reliable, abundant and relatively cheap. Stacy argues that they should use solar power because there is an infinite supply of solar energy. Which person's plan will save more animals?
++++++++
Answer: Stacy

Please answer this: Following the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number economic inequality is problematic. A house that provides less utility to a millionaire as a summer home than it would to a homeless family of five, is an example of reduced "distributive efficiency" within society, that decreases marginal utility of wealth and thus the sum total of personal utility. An additional dollar spent by a poor person will go to things providing a great deal of utility to that person, such as basic necessities like food, water, and healthcare; while, an additional dollar spent by a much richer person will very likely go to luxury items providing relatively less utility to that person. Thus, the marginal utility of wealth per person ("the additional dollar") decreases as a person becomes richer. From this standpoint, for any given amount of wealth in society, a society with more equality will have higher aggregate utility. Some studies[2][32] have found evidence for this theory, noting that in societies where inequality is lower, population-wide satisfaction and happiness tend to be higher. Finland has one of the lowest economic inequality in the world. Finland's neighbor Russia has a different story. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia's economic inequality soared to the point that it has now one of the highest economic inequality in the world. John and Keith are residents of Finland. While John is rich, Keith is not so fortunate - he is poor. Similarly, David and Greg are residents of Russia. While David is rich, Greg is in poverty. Who would have smaller marginal utility, John or Keith?
++++++++
Answer:
John