I think this statement highlights the severity and urgency of the threat posed by climate change. While it may create a sense of despair or helplessness, it can also serve as a call to action for individuals and societies to take concrete steps towards reducing our impact on the planet and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

I think this suggests that it is physically possible for humanity to construct a worldwide civilization that is capable of providing basic needs for all human beings while also protecting the environment and other forms of life on the planet. The author emphasizes the importance of recognizing the interconnectivity of all life forms in the biosphere and suggests that it is essential for a successful civilization to prioritize the protection and livelihood of all beings.

In reading this, I feel like, the statement assumes that the only pleasure of reading dystopian stories is in feeling better about one's own situation. While this may be one aspect of it, dystopian stories can also be thought-provoking, challenging, and even inspiring. They can encourage readers to consider the consequences of our current societal issues and motivate them to take action towards creating a better future.

I think dystopian stories can serve a deeper purpose beyond just entertainment. They can be a warning sign for what could happen if we don't take action to prevent the worst-case scenarios. By exploring the consequences of our current societal issues, we can better understand the potential outcomes of our actions or inactions.

The Hôtel-Dieu was a hospital in Paris, France that was founded in the 7th century and became one of the oldest and most famous hospitals in the city. In 1772, a major fire broke out in the hospital, which caused extensive damage and forced the hospital to be rebuilt

I get the feeling that the model described in the statement is unfair and disciplinary because it involves the use of extreme measures of control and violence to maintain order in the face of a deadly disease. The statement suggests that the rulers of the plague-stricken town respond to the outbreak of disease by imposing a strict and brutal regime of surveillance, quarantine, and punishment.

For me this statement is a simplification and generalization that overlooks the complexity and nuance of legal and political theory. I say this because while it is true that some legal and political theorists may use thought experiments or hypothetical scenarios, such as the state of nature or the state of plague, to explore the limits and possibilities of rights, laws, and governance, these scenarios are not used to "make rights and laws function according to the pure theory" or to "see perfect disciplines functioning."

"Periphery" typically refers to the outer edge or boundary of something, or an area that is on the outskirts or fringes of a larger region or system.

In a dystopian context, this phrase could indicate a society where certain medical conditions are stigmatized and individuals with these conditions are treated as outcasts. The centralized registration of these individuals could be used as a means of control and oppression, with the government or authority monitoring and potentially restricting the movements and activities of those who are considered "pathological."

What I get from this line is a strong and severe warning that leaving a certain location or situation is not allowed under any circumstances, and that those who attempt to leave will face severe consequences, potentially even death.

I agree with, Even in today's society I would definitely say, its for most parts the only reason men within reason ever fight.

I agree with this statement. I think all of these factors go hand in hand. There has to be a common power for their to be a common notion of right and wrong, which would be determined by the law and without the law there would be no justice.

I think, this speaks to the difference in strengths from one person to the next. where one person might be stronger and the next might be smarter but all things considered those differences do not really matter. the reasoning behind that I do not really understand

what exactly is he implying about American civilization. Is he saying it would be a good study because he thinks its a very damaged civilization?

This is very important because it can reflect cultural, moral, and religious values that shape attitudes towards sexuality and can influence sexual behavior. For example, in some cultures, premarital sex may be discouraged or considered taboo, while in others it may be more accepted. This restriction can also be tied to ideas about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of preserving the family unit.

it makes perfect sense that primal man would have taken an interest in whether others were working with or against them. By doing so, they would have been able to determine the most advantageous course of action for themselves, which would have been essential for their survival and well-being. In essence, primal man's discovery that their life could be improved through work was not just about the physical act of labor, but also about the relationships and dynamics between people and the impact that these relationships had on their lives.

Is he trying to point out that men had to seek out other forms happiness because of their overall loss in it, which would kind of explain how it then led to an addiction?

How do you truly define that these are the requirements of civilization? Before certain countries were colonized what they viewed as beautiful, and cleanliness was not by colonizers. However, they were thriving without the colonizers changing their whole perspective on life. So does it not come down to what one believes and sees? we are all not the same so something maybe beautiful to one and not the other.

Essentially one loses the true essence of their freedom because the live within the constructs of someones else idea of life or a general idea of life, one which suits the civilization and not themself

Man will never be satisfied, Even with all the great advancements that the future brings. Man will always look for more.

This is interesting because essentially society has set these almost impossible standards and set them even at the cost of their own happiness. When actually these standards and cultural ideals should be set at the service of everyone or at least the majorities happiness.

I agree with this statement to a large extent as for example, one person may find happiness in spending time with loved ones, while another person may find happiness in pursuing personal interests or goals. Some people may find happiness in material wealth and success, while others may find happiness in spiritual or emotional fulfillment. There is no universally agreed upon definition of happiness, and what makes one person happy may not have the same effect on another person.

I personally believe that the main reason for this is because of the world we live in. Men are meant to show no form of weakness or emotion. There are certain duties and responsibilities men are to uphold and if they are not, they are looked down on. This creates the sense of unhappiness as the pressure and stress to do so is large. Unfortunately most men will never be happy.

I could not agree more with Young here. I know of a person who is studying abroad and he is very silent when he is away from home. He minds his own business and does not go out at all. He sticks to his work and makes sure he never misses a deadline. He is focused when he is abroad because he has no distractions. However, when he goes to his hometown he is the compete opposite. He goes out constantly, not silent at all and is always out and about. Everyone is different in certain groups. Which I will always find amazing

Young using this sentence is showing how it doe not take a lot to understand exactly what she means when talking about groups. It is very straight forward.

I agree with this statement as I do believe that Political philosophy doesn’t recognize the concept of a social group to a large extent. The focus is often on the person and the state, than on social groups and their role in society

The author argues that "oppression" isn't widely used to describe social injustice in mainstream American politics. However, to my knowledge it is a central concept for various marginalized groups, including socialist, feminist, Native American, Black, and LGBTQ+ activists. These groups use the language of oppression in their political discourse, which is different from the dominant political discourse in the United States, which is based on liberal individualism.

The author argues that "oppression" isn't widely used to describe social injustice in mainstream American politics. However, to my knowledge it is a central concept for various marginalized groups, including socialist, feminist, Native American, Black, and LGBTQ+ activists. These groups use the language of oppression in their political discourse, which is different from the dominant political discourse in the United States, which is based on liberal individualism.