Would an Athenian agree or disagree with modern day democracy?

I think that an Athenian would agree with the principles, that everyone gets a vote, but not with many of the other details. For instance, i don't think they would like how we give one person so much power, and let him hold that job for 4 years. There is the possibility of that person being impeached, but that very rarely happens. On the Athenian side, they have many people in power, but each one holds that position for a very short time. They would also not like how, even though everyone gets a vote, not everyone's vote counts the same; the president has much more authority than the Average Joe. Also, things like the electoral college really stints how much power the voter actually has. While our democracy is much like that of Athens, it is also very different, and in ways i don't think an Athenian would like.

5. Then to Now

From afar, our civilization and the Mayan civilization way back when seem like too blatantly diametric societies. But from a closer look, you can see that they arent all that different. We share a lot of things with the Mayans (although they were not necessarily directly derived from there). For instance, their religion had a difinite leader, called the Hlach Unic, who ruled over that religion. This is just like the Pope to the Christian religion. They also believed in many Gods, as do many of the Eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Shinto. There religion and their government were not seperate, instead they were the same thing, their religion was their government. This is not exactly the same today, but it is still true that religiong greatly influences government. For example, one of the big issues today is wether or not gay marriage should be legal. One could argue that this it is not currently legal heavily due to religious conflict. The similarities don't only lie with religion. In certain areas, you can definitley see the architecture influenced by that of the Mayans. One such place, as pointed out by one of the groups, is Alta Plaza Park. For instance, the large staircase, is very reminiscent of the staricase on the Mayan temple. I could sit here for hours and tell you about all the similarities between these two seemingly different societies; there are just that many!

4. Chinese school of thought.

Confucianism and legalism are two diametric schools of thought. Confucianism says that everyone is born good, teaches to be very respectful, and well-mannered, that only the best man shouldbe ruler, and that education is important. Legalism says that everyone is born bad, that the way to a strong civilization is through strict discipline, the ruler is simply chosen by birthright, and education is frowned upon. But which one is better suited to run a society? I would say confucianism would work the best. With a confuianism run government, the people would be happy, and smarter, and chances are, there would be a much better ruler, based on how the leader is chosen. People would want to live in that country, and fewer countries would want to fight it. If one did, the ruler could probably reach an agreement, avoiding war. In a full on war, that cant be stopped through negotiations, a legalist country would probably do better, given that its people are trained by birth to be strong, and they have a very large army. But in all other situations, this wouldnt be the case. Nobody would want to live in a legalist country, and there is a big chance for a revolution, as many of the common people are probably fed up with the government.

3. How a leader can have a stable civilization

Well there are a few ways to have a stable society, but personally I would go with being loved, rather than being feared. If the people are pleased with the leader, they are more willing to fight for their country, and less willing to rebel. With a feared ruler, the people are less willing to fight for the country, and much more likely to rebel. But keeping them happy is not necessarily going to be in line with keeping the civilization under control. While keeping the people happy is necessary, it is just as essential to have laws the state what is illegal, and legal, and what the punishment for each crime is. Without laws, the country would be in complete chaos. However, it is quite likely that what will keep the people happy, and what will keep them under control clash. In a situation like that, i would say it is more important to keep them under control. A society can live on with a relatively unhappy population, but it cant survive with a population that is tearing the country apart.

Jared Dimaond's Theory

I think that Jared Diamond's theory explains the issue very well. It makes perfect sense that, because the Middle East had crops that are easier to plant/pick, and are higher in protein, and that they had more, and much more useful animals, that they would thrive. With useful animals, the people didnt have to work as hard, they had better clothes, a steady supply of nutritious milk, and more meat. But with Papua New Guinea's animal, the pig, which was the only animal they had, all they would get is the meat. With the Middle East's great advantage, it makes sense they would thrive. They also had much better crops. More nutritious, easier to plant/pick, and easier to store, they would have much more food for much less work. Papua New Guinea's crops were pretty much the opposite. The people of Papua New Guinea had to work much harder, and still werent nearly as well off as the people of the MIddle East. It would have been nearly impossible for the poeople of PNG to advance as the people of the ME had.

1.Advantages and Disadvantages of Farming

I believe that, despite the many disadvantages of farming, it is still a better system than hunting. It takes a long time, but when you want it, it is right there. You dont have to go looking for it, and you know that there is food. By that i mean, when hunting, there is no guranatee you are going to find any food. Through farming, it is also a lot easier to store food, and because of that, you can have a much more stable food supply. Lastly, and most importantly, farming gives a much greater amount of food than hunting, meaning it can feed more people, more profits, making up for the cost to actually grow the food, and the list goes on. Hunting does have its advantages, but in the long run, farming is really the way to go.