Ancient Egypt’s Comparison with Mesopotamia

Ancient Egypt’s Comparison with Mesopotamia Ancient Egypt’s farming system compared with Mesopotamia Ancient Egyptians had an easier life compared to the other ancient civilizations because of their reliable agriculture system. Geography played a big role, especially in farming. Due to geography, Mesopotamia and Egypt had different farming methods, weathers, environment, and flooding seasons. In fact, Egypt’s great farming system led them to have better conditions to farm than Mesopotamia because of flooding, the rivers and irrigation and the farming tools that they used. Economy, crops, flooding, and the weather varied between Mesopotamia and Egypt. Geography, flooding seasons, different farming tools, and methods led Egypt to have a better agriculture system than Egypt. The difference between geographies, which includes the environment, was the main factor that the farming was different in Mesopotamians and Egyptians. Flooding influenced farming in Mesopotamia and Egypt. However, flooding helped Egypt but it influenced badly in Mesopotamia. Egypt is settled on the world’s longest river, the Nile, which flows from south to north because of the geography of land. Unlike Mesopotamia, Egypt had a predictable flooding seasons. Farmers, knowing when to expect floods, were able to schedule growing seasons around when crops needed water. Not only did flooding help with good timing with farming, but it also provided rich soil from the flooding. The Nile River floods between June and October (Louis, and Jennifer). After floods, there would be a fertile land along the river which Egyptians used to plant and grow things such as fruits and vegetables (Gill, 29). Flood played a big role in farming and growing crops in Egypt. On the contrary, growing crops were more difficult for Mesopotamians because of the difference in geography. Mesopotamia had limited natural resources because of the unpredictable floods (David, 117). Farmers had no prediction when it was going to flood, which gave the farmers hard times finding the right season to farm. Unlike Egyptians, Mesopotamians lived in the city-states which were based on farming and trade. The city-states were a group of small cities which needed unity with one the other. Also, they were isolated from one another geographically and so the independence of each city-state became important. Farming played a big role in city-states. However, Egypt did not have a good environment, especially the flood was the main problem. Floods destroyed villages and took many lives (David, 121). The floods sometimes caused rivers to change courses and due to this farmers had a lot of trouble with crops. Sudden floods forced Mesopotamians to create an organized agricultural sys tem to help them with farming and growing crops. Mesopotamia was very dry, hot and had little rainfall. Farmers had hard time finding water for their crops. Farming was hard for Mesopotamians due to the hot weather and bad environment conditions (David, 122). Flood was not the only cause of having different farming system, but also due to using different tools and farming methods. Using different tools in farming and farming in different environment such as soil and weathers led Mesopotamia and Egypt to harvest different crops. Egyptian grew a lot of crops due to good weather and soil. Egyptian farmers grew crops such as wheat, barley, vegetables, figs, melons, pomegranates and vines (Barrow). Also, they grew flax which was made into linen (Barrow). Out of all the crops that the Egyptian farmers harvested, the most important crop was grain because ancient Egyptians used grain to make bread, porridge and beer (Barrow). Moreover, grain was the first crop that they grew after inundation. Once the grain was harvested, they grew vegetables, such as onions, leeks, cabbages beans and lettuce (Barrow). Crops differed between Mesopotamia and Egypt because of the environment, but also due to the different tools that they used to farm. Ancient Egypt ian had simple farming tools such as winnowing scoops, hoes, rakes, flint-bladed sickles and ploughs (Barrow). Farming methods, and tools also took a big role in Egypt to have a reliable farming system. Moreover, Egypt was geography isolated by deserts, mountains and seas which allowed their crops to grow well. Mesopotamia had only few crops to grow due to the geography and flooding which influenced the Economy. Due to unpredictable floods, Mesopotamians did not know when to farm. For some farmers, when it was time to harvest, flooded unexpectedly and swept away all the crops. However, the farmers raised few crops which were grains, fruit, vegetables, and barn yard animals. One of the methods that the farmers used was by filling the containers with seeds. Cows would pull plow seed and the seeds would go into the ground (Louis, and Jennifer). Mesopotamian people invented the seeder plow, which enabled farmers to carry out the tasks of seeding and plowing at the same time. The plow created a long, narrow trench made in the ground as seed was dropped into a funnel (Gabriel). The Mesopotamians further enhanced the technology of the plow by learning how to use ox to power it (Gabriel). There were few farming methods, however, Mesopotamia did not have enough methods than Egypt (Louis, and Jennife r). Due to the lack of farming methods, the Mesopotamian farmers hand harvested most crops. Because of the unpredictable flood, and lack of farming tools and methods, Egypt had a better profit in crops and had developed farming system. Along with the farming methods and tools, Mesopotamian and Egyptians were both influenced by geography (McIntosh, 56). Egypt, irrigation led to an increased food supply and helped water dry lands with streams, canals, or pipes. Due to irrigation, farmers could plan for the seasonal flooding. Nile River played a big role in farming because the river provided silt whenever there was a flood, so Egypt was ready for flood and they did not have to worry about the right time for farming. Also, after floods, there would be a fertile strip along the Nile River that was about 12 miles wide (Louis, and Jennifer). Moreover, this benefited the soil, due to this they had rich fertile soil which was good for farming. Not only good fertile soil land, but also the economy boosted. Farmers had a lot of profit due to growing crops. Crops were able to boost the economy because of irrigation. This increased food supply, fertile lands, canals, pipes, and farmers suffered less. Due to Egypt’s geogr aphy, economy boosted because of crops. On the other land, Mesopotamia had hard time with their economy because of their geography. Mesopotamia depended on Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, however, they sometimes brought unpredictable floods (Wallenfels, 28-29). Unlike Egypt, Mesopotamia was overwhelmed with a large amount of silt. This silt was a constant cause of problems in the manmade irrigation systems (Grigg, 22). Not only the silt was the problem, but also the salt was the problem. Right below the surface of where Mesopotamia was, there was a large cluster of salt deposits. This high saline content of the soil made farming in Mesopotamia much more complex and difficult than it was in Egypt. Also, any time the irrigation waterways were not able to be maintained, a lack of the large food would result. Due to the salt deposit and overload of silt caused a decline in economy and crops in Mesopotamia (Grigg, 21). Above all, Egypt had better and suitable environment to grow crops which developed their farming skills as well as their economy. Also, there were many farming methods and tools which led them to grow more crops, and no longer had to do hand harvested crops. Egypt’s distinguished geography, farming methods, and farming tools helped to set them up to be more advanced and outstanding society than Mesopotamian civilization. Works Cited Bertman, Stephen. Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. New York: Oxford UP, 2005.  Print. Cline, Eric H., and Jill Rubalcaba. The Ancient Egyptian World. New York: Oxford UP, 2005.  Print. David, A. Rosalie. Geography of Ancient Egypt. Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt. New  York: Facts On File, 2003. 117-22. Print. Louis, and Jennifer. Farming and Agriculture of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Farming and  Agriculture of Egypt and Mesopotamia. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2014. Roaf, Michael. Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Arlington, VA: Stonehenge, 1992.  Print. Wallenfels, Ronald. World Eras, Volume 8: Ancient Mesopotamia, 3300-331 BCE. Detroit: Gale,  2004. Print. Gill, Vernon Dale, Tom (1974). Topsoil and Civilization, University of Oklahoma Press. Grigg, D.B, (1974). Agricultural Systems of the World. Cambridge University Press. Jacobsent, Thorkild (1982). Salinity and Irrigation Agriculture in Antiquity, UndenaPublications. Leonard, Jonathan Norton, (1973). The First Farmers, Time Life Books. Louis, and Jennifer. Farming and Agriculture of Egypt and Mesopotamia.Farming and Agriculture of Egypt and Mesopotamia. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.

Gene Therapy Saves Lives Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive Argument Es

Gene Therapy Saves Lives   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Tim was diagnosed with a rare and deadly disease this morning. He is only five years old with the rest of his life ahead of him. It isn't his fault that he received this disease or even his parents'. This disease comes out in anyone's body that has a defected gene. The disease has made Tim live in a sanitized bubble the last year because of the fear that he might catch any common bug and die. He has severe combined immunodeficiency, or SCID. The disease lacks a gene in charge of the body's immune system called adenosine deaminase. Tim could be helped through a process called gene therapy, but he won't because there is too much debate on the ethnicity of gene therapy; too much even to save his life.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The use of gene therapy to prevent illness and disease by changing a person's genetic makeup is a good use of science. Gene therapy is an approach in science to treat, or ultimately prevent disease by changing the expression of a person's genes. The way a gene is expressed is something like a person's hair color. Gene therapy is still in its very early stages of development. Any gene therapy that is being worked on today is still in its experimental stages. It will not be used in humans for extensive use for a while. The only humans are ones who are in clinical trials ("Gene Therapy").   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Gene therapy can be done by using either somatic, which are from the body, or germ, which are from egg or sperm, cells. In somatic gene therapy the recipient's genome, genetic makeup, is changed, but the changes are not passed down to the next generation. In germ line gene therapy, the parents' egg and sperm cells are changed with the goal of passing on the changes to their offspring. Germ line gene ... ...http://www.srtp.org.uk/genthpy1.htm#Issues]. "Gene Therapy." Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 21 Nov. 2002. 3 Dec. 2002 [http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/medicine/genetherapy.html]. "Genetics in the Courtroom." Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 21 Nov. 2002. 10 Dec. 2002 [http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/courts/courts.html]. Godoy, Maria. "Gene Therapy Offers Hope for the Blind." TechTV News. 1 May 2001. 4 Dec. 2002 [http://www.techtv.com/news/specialreport/story/0,24195,3325114,00.html]. "Human Genome Diversity Project." Morrison Institute. 6 Oct. 1994. 3 Dec. 2002 [http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/faq.html]. Kitcher, Phillip. "Manipulating Genes: How Much is Too Much?" PBS Online. Apr. 2002. 8 Dec. 2002 [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/manipulate.html]. "Scenario A- Part 1." Strategis.gc.ca. 6 Dec. 2002 [http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/bb00010e.html#AP1].

Essay on Liberty and Society

The good society. In a good society, an individual can experience both freedom and justice. But these ideas, freedom and justice, are still debatable. Could these ideas really exist with each other? The existence of both freedom and justice are both limited by many factors. Freedom is to be able to exercise your desires, to freely express your feelings, you expressions, and to be able to live your life in a way that you enjoy it. The limitation though, is when your freedom overlaps other people’s freedom, whether negatively or positively. Like freedom of expression, when you do so it affects other people, like their freedom to choose a religion; then there is injustice there. That is where the concept of justice enters. Justice is there to correct people’s mistakes, so that they would not further step on other people’s freedom. It is not punishment, but it could be a means to punish. Justice is the idea that sets guidelines to one’s freedom. It is there to make sure that you remain fair and observe law and order. This is all for the good of all, not only for yourself, but of the community. Different views. Henry George and John Stuart Mill are both brilliant people with different views of society and how people should live. They have almost inverse, opposing ideas about the way people should go about their lives and their communities. Majority Rules. For Mill, it is the majority that rules, wherein they are the ones who impose a law on questions of duty to others, regarding their own self interest, and   so be able to impose economic injustice to minority individuals and to groups(Mill, p.4). For George, it is not the majority that rules and must decide on rules to impose on others. It is the interest of the people that we should decide on what rules we impose. For George, the movement towards equality is important, wherein the majority or the rich are not the ones who have the power to make rules. George states that when you remove the root of all problems, which is the individual right to land, you are taking it away from priority of occupation, the most illogical ground where land ownership is defended. According to Henry George, â€Å"Priority of occupation give exclusive and perpetual title to the surface of a globe on which, in the order of nature, countless generations succeed each other! Had the men of the last generation any better right to the use of this world than we of this? Or the men of a hundred years ago? Or a thousand years ago? Had the mound-builders, or the cave-dwellers, the contemporaries of the mastodon and the three-toed horse, or the generations’ still further back, who in dim aeons that we can think of only geologic periods, followed each other on the earth we now tenant for our little day? ( George, VII.I.28)† George points out those imposing rules such as individual rights to land would greatly induce poverty, thus creating inequality. When there is inequality, there is abuse from the people above, thus creating injustice in the system. Who would want to experience injustice? The real problem lies on the hands of the people who are on top, who are manipulating the situation for their benefits. It is a great burden to carry for the people affect, the masses, the poor people who are work-stricken in order for them to live, the ones who are sweating it all out, while the real people benefiting are on their warm offices relaxing, waiting for the money to come to their pockets. George stresses that these inequalities must be resolved, and offers us a solution. That is to make the land a a common property, a property for all, not only for the rich, thus reducing the terms rich and poor, to a term better known as equals. These equal rights not only promote the availability of these resources to everyone, but also the respect to other people’s rights. He appropriates his rights to the land with respect to what other people have, thus being able to distribute the use of these resources with the other people. Land Distribution. For Mill, a free society doesn’t have laws that states that the government should take land from the rich people to give to the poor. Land distribution, or the distribution of the wealth of these rich people is not a law in a free society. The government has no right to take away these lands in order to give to the poor. That kind of action is not a manifestation of freedom because you are imposing that the lands be distributed. Freedom is being able to own lands that you desire, in a means that is lawful and does not violate any laws. Freedom does not entail that the government takes away if you have much of that something. Freedom is letting you own what you are able to own, not distributing it to others. But George has a different point of view. He said that the unequal distribution of wealth is the real problem of the modern civilization. He then stated that if you look at it carefully, it is clear that this unequal distribution of wealth traces back to the institution of private property in land. George said that because of this institution, there is no increase in productive power that is beneficial for all the people, and the existence of this institution further worsens the situation. But for George, distribution of this private property, private ownership of land, doesn’t pose any good effects or is impracticable (George, VI.II.1). But he proposes a way on how to deal with this problem, a way to remove an evil, he said, is by removing its cause. He explained that poverty intensifies as wealth increases, and wages are decreased while the productive power rises. The cause of all these is the monopoly of land, which is where the money comes from, the field of labor. So in order to rid us of this poverty, to level of the wages, only the way the law states that they should be, then the individual ownership of land should be ceased, thus substituting common ownership (George, VI.II.2). He then concluded that the chain of reasoning has led to this decision, wherein both by deduction and induction breaks down to the unequal ownership of land means unequal distribution of wealth. Unequal ownership would then be associated to the private ownerships, individual property in land. Thus, it follows that when you make land a common property, it removes the problem of unequal distribution of land. Money allocation. For Mill, he stressed that in a free society, the government – as the public’s representative, should not have a veto on the way a person or a member of the society spends their money (Mill, p.97). But for George, he presents yet another different point of view. For him, the universe is in harmony, and so must be everything within it. Equality should be practiced and if we are to hope for equality, we must associate this with social development and must have harmony with other reforms. He proposes to show that the universe does not deny people to aspire for something, does not deny the people to want something, yet in order for the society to have progress, there must be equality, wherein all motives must lead towards equality, not inequality. Even though there are objections, George sees it as a part of the solution, wherein the eradication of this evil is to provide equality, to stop the unjust distribution of wealth, the people should have equality. What we spend is also affected, for George; we must work on towards that equality. Henry George said, â€Å"All this I propose to show. I propose to meet all practical objections that can be raised, and to show that this simple measure is not only easy of application, but that it is a sufficient remedy for all the evils which, as modern progress goes on, arise from the greater and greater inequality in the distribution of wealth – that it will substitute equality for inequality, plenty for want, justice for injustice, social strength for social weakness, and will open a grander and nobler advances of civilization.(George, VI.II.8)† George proposes that everyone practice equality in order to maintain the justice for all. This includes all the actions towards people’s wants, including their budget and expenditures, wherein they are responsible for watching it closely. References: George, Henry. Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth: The Remedy Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1879. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Pelican Books, 1859.   

How Does the Tell Tale Heart Fulfil Your Expectations of...

How Does the Tell Tale Heart Fulfil Your Expectations of A Gothic Story? From a gothic story such as the tell tale heart, by Edgar Allan Poe, I expect numerous amounts of gory deaths, intense suspense, hideous horror, plently of fear and espically paranoia. They should also contain a variety of literacy techniques including imagery, sentence structure, punctation and repititation in my essay I will be focusing on the amounts of death, horror, fear, suspense and the amount of literacy techniques used throughout the story. Edgar Allan Poe uses a lot of suspense in the Tell Tale Heart. To increase the effect the suspense he incorprates it with literacy techniques. One example of mixing literacty techniques with suspense is†¦show more content†¦There is a lot of suspense right at the end of the story, the man has killed the old man and places chairs directly on top of where the old man was buried for the police officers to sit on. ‘I brought chairs into the room, and desired them here to rest from their fatigues, while I myself, in the wild audacity of my perfect triumph, placed my own seat upon the very spot beneath which reposed the corpse of the victim.’ At first it doesn’t seem to hold that much suspense but in fact with the mans cockiness comes suspense because he placed the chairs directly on top of the mans corpse. Throughout the story Edgar Alan Poe portrays the man as a madman. This is the first impression the Edgar Alan Poe tries to create. ‘I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad?’ Here he’s trying to state that he isn’t a madman when in fact it creates the impression that he is indeed a mad man. Later in the story he gives proof that he has indeed gone mad when he starts to hear the dead mans beating heart. ‘It grew louder --louder --louder! And †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ And now --again! --hark! Louder! Louder!Show MoreRelatedThe Genre of Stokers Dracula Essay6296 Words   |  26 Pagesconsistent in their effort to stamp out evil. In the end they triumph over evil even though the evil is very strong. This theme slowly and steadily gathers momentum until it becomes clearer in the end. In Dracula, Bram Stoker emphasizes how as the daylight ends, the horror begins, for from the depths of the swirling mist, he (Dracula) appears, his pointed teeth gleaming as he edges towards his victims. This is Count Dracula the King of the Un- dead - the dreaded vampire.