people on this forum claim if the economy collapses and people don't have what they need there will be social chaos. so are they admitting when people do not have what they want or need they react negatively. if so, it would suggest there has been no real progress to human behaviour over the last few centuries it is like saying people have not improved morally but just been put in a situation where they don't need to behave immorally to have what they need. i would agree with the opinions of those who say people will behave immorally if they had what they need taken away and even worse i stand of the position people will now do negative operations to get what they want from desire rather than necessity when previously did not. this draws me to my original point if humans have not evolved socially and digressed have they evolved mentally. are the achievements of mechanics and science due to human ability to invent or was it god given knowledge. if that situation people have been put in due to new advancements where they do not need things was created through a god given knowledge rather than human progress it would suggest a divine will to prevent pain. it goes further though if it is god given knowledge it means all of the progression in society is given to us by god all of the things we have are presents from a higher conscious. and why are certain people given the knowledge to progress society and other not. therefore is the prevention of these people of ability developing their ideas denying the will of god on earth and the institutional neglect of progress a obstacle in the way of gods attempts to eliminate pain. what do you think.
I think greed and fear are part of human's survival instinct. It doesn't matter how intelligent or how educated we are, if we were to be put into a difficult situation, our survival instinct would kick in to ensure we survive--at whatever the cost is.
there are loads of full stops i just don't use capitals. if you read it there are three in the first paragraph alone.
do you mean the sentences never stop. or the sentence never stop. look who is talking. if you read it again you will see there is never more than two to two and a bit lines without a full stop.
there is no limit to how many words you can have in a sentence. i appreciate you are reading it again. perhaps your opinion might change. one point i will make is a sentence is usually used to display one thought or statement. when you read the post again you will find that there is only one thought and perhaps a query or extension of that thought per sentence, in which case it would be more likely to require a comma. (notice here i am still discussing the same thought but adding what i believe the appropriate action would be thus putting a comma after sentence and before in). there is no set standard in sentence length but longer concepts and thoughts require longer sentences to explain them. this is now moving from the original argument relating to divine influence of human comprehension to personal clashing over writing style. if you do not understand my comments that is fine although i believe each sentence is justified and relates to the thought expressed.