Theories of Crime | Introduction

Theories of Crime | Introduction There are many theories of crime which fit into four different models each explaining crime through varied approaches, in this essay I will be discussing the weakest of these theoretical explanations of crime and the strongest. The weakest theory of crime is Biological Positivism which is part of the Predestined Actor Model which is a positivist model explaining criminal behaviour based on scientific factors beyond a persons control. Biological positivism has been heavily criticised by many criminologists due to their explanations that the internal factors of a person is what causes crime, this will be explored further and proven to be the weakest theory throughout the essay. The strongest theory of crime is Left Realism, which is an integrated explanation. This theory takes into account elements of other approaches and realises that there are multiple causes of crime therefore making it one of the strongest theoretical explanations, this will be elaborated on in the body of the essa y and will be further proven why it is the strongest of all the theories. Throughout the essay I will be addressing the main points, the key thinkers, their explanations of crime and why it was chosen for each theory, which will then conclude in support of my claim of the weakest and strongest theories. Lombroso was the founding father of biological positivism and his theory suggested that people were born criminal; this explanation was influence by Darwins work on evolution and atavism. Although he was a biological positivist his work gradually turned towards environmental factors therefore suggesting that biological factors as the cause of criminality was not enough of an explanation and poverty for example also became influential. Lombroso was interested in criminal behaviour and categorized criminals as born criminals, insane criminals, occasional criminals and criminals of passions. He set the scene for all positivist work and other biological positivists based their work on Lombrosos findings. However Lombrosos work has been criticised, as it used outdated methodology which was very basic therefore he was unable to create any meaningful conclusions. Furthermore he did not consider female offenders, any criminal acts which were carried out by women he disregarded and stated tha t the men were responsible for the female involvement, therefore lacking in validity (Burke, 2009). Matza in 1964 went on to say that a criminal is a specific type of person, that is different to those that are not criminals and that crime occurs due to factors outside of their control. However, this then ignores the aspect that humans have free will to commit crimes therefore disagreeing with theories in the rational actor model like Classical theory, which states that people choose to commit crimes. There are many theories in biological positivism which all state that individuals are compelled to commit crime as it is part of their biological make-up, such as physical factors, theories related to the body, chromosomal anomalies, etc. however these have be criticised as you will see below. Physical type theories were the first to come out and this was based on the idea that criminals stand out based on of their appearance. Lombroso did research on atavism as mentioned above, that criminals are born criminal and show signs of criminal throwbacks for example long ears and sloping foreheads. As a result of this, people speculated that those with physical atavistic characteristics were criminals and used it as a prevention tactic. However this only related to a small amount of criminals and therefore is not very reliable and many with these characteristics could be wrongly accused of criminality. In todays society Lombrosos work is considered outdated and discredited due to the theory that a persons physical appearance increases the likelihood of them being a criminal, this is seen as absurd and meaningless, hence perceived as a weak theory. Phrenology, which is the study of skulls was also used to explain crime, Gall stated that by looking at the shape and bums of a skull can indicate a persons character and specified that the area above the right ear determines how violent that person is. This theory has been criticised immensely along with physiognomy, which tells a persons character through facial featured, due to its lack of credibility. There is not enough substantial evidence to prove this theory amongst a vast population because people are individuals with an individual biological make-up (Maguire, 1997). Sheldon has done some similar work on linking body shape to behaviour, (his theory of somatypes) and identified three forms of body types which relate to certain personalities. He established that offending behaviour and crime is linked with mesomorphs, who are muscular and athletic with an aggressive personality. However it does not consider that these types of people may be targeted by the police more than the other two body types therefore is supporting his theory as those athletic built individuals are getting caught, where as other body types are not. These physical theories are very weak as they are ignoring different aspects of the interaction between the physical characteristics of the person and their social circumstances. (Burke, 2009:74) People from poor families and areas may have a poor diet therefore causing them to be small, while young people working manual jobs are more likely to be muscular. These people are over-represented with criminals, which could be explained by socio-cultures not via biological factors (Burke, 2009). Furthermore, to support the statement that biological positivism is a weak theory, Sheldons work was follow up by a Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development and found there was no physical difference between offenders and non offenders, therefore suggesting there is no reliability due to the inconsistency. Further criticisms of this theory are based on its methodology, as the sample of offenders and non offenders are not representative to society as mentioned above it does not account for those who do not get caught, it ignored the sifting process in the criminal justice system. It also disregards interaction with the environment, as those individuals with physical stigmas may retaliate against their social environment and labels given to them therefore living up to the expectation leading to a self fulfilling prophecy (Taylor, Walton, Young, 1973). Chromosomal Anomalies is another category of biological theory criminologists have used to explain crime, it looks at the link between abnormal chromosomes and criminal behaviour. A normal female complement is XX and male is XY, an abnormal complement is when there are chromosomes missing or there are too many for example the XYY. Brown in 1962 found that those with sex chromosome abnormalities had higher rates of delinquency than his other patients. Casey et al (1966) followed on from his work and did the first major studies at a secure hospital and found supporting results for men with an extra Y chromosome as well as them being taller and having low intelligence (Taylor, Walton, Young, 1973). The limitations for this theory are similar to that of the body type category, for example those with an extra Y chromosome may be taller and well built therefore targeted and treated harsher by agents of the criminal justice system like the police and judges. Further limitations which makes this theory the weakest, is that there are many individuals that are normal and do not behave criminally in society that have extra chromosomes, therefore suggesting that others factors have to be involved. In addition this theory also ignored the fact that those young men with an extra Y chromosome came from a working class background, therefore the cause of criminality could be due to their exploitation from the ruling class not because of chromosomes. Marxist theory would agree that the cause of criminality was a result of capitalist society and not chromosomes that are not identifiable and unable to predict criminal behaviour. Biological positivists also explained criminality as genetically inherited; they suggested that a criminal gene can be passed on through the family just like physical characteristics. To test this theory they used three sources of data, studies of criminal families, studies of twins and studies of adopted persons. All three sources claimed that criminal behaviour was inherited rather than environmental, however family studies did not considered the effect of an absent parent lending to criminality. In twin studies they could not identify whether criminality was influenced more by environmental or biological factors however did mention that biological theory on its own to explain crime is not enough, therefore is a weak theory to base criminal explanations on. This was also reiterated in adoption studies emphasising that environmental factors play a role and add to the reliability of the theory, therefore showing the weaknesses of the biological theory when it is used to explain crime on its own (Wiley, 1996). There are many weaknesses in the categories within biological theory, from the methods used by criminologists to their shortcomings in ignoring certain aspects including the three data sources that explained inherited criminal characteristics. The main limitations in biological positivism occur throughout all the categories even biochemical explanations such as hormone imbalances and substance abuse which has not been discussed in detail. The reason this theory was chosen as the weakest is due to it many limitations; criminologist largely discredit this approach as it is nowadays seen as outdated and not relevant, therefore there are many better explanation to crime that can be proven. Biological theory only looks at criminality from one approach which is seen as a very over determined view of human actions and a more integrated approach would explain crime better for example the more recent socio-biological explanation of crime. It only explains criminal behaviour effectively in a m inority of offenders and has considerably more limitations as mentioned above. This weakest theory also cannot explain the variation in crime rates and offers no explanation to why and how laws arise. A further reason it was chosen as the worst, was due to the unethical and harsh treatments to prevent crime which in the USA, even results in death, genetic selection and sterilisation. The strongest theoretical explanation of crime is left realism. This theory is chosen as the strongest because unlike biological positivism it does consider other factors and is an integrated model which recognises that there are many causes of crime and contains essential parts from all three models of crime. Jock Young had a major turnaround which altered criminological thinking to the emergence of left realism; when crime rates were meant to decrease due to economic restructuring and improved conditions and instead actually increased, with the increased awareness of victims of crimes and crimes that were previously invisible, and finally a growing public demand and disapproval in efficiency of public service (Newburn, 2007). This new criminology from the left political view, with criminologists such as Young, Lea and Matthews believed crime is a real issue and not socially constructed therefore it needs to be addressed. Left realism is the strongest theory as it takes into account the immediate fears that people have and seek to deal with them (Burke, 2009:264), such as street crimes in high offending areas as those living there are caught right in the middle of it. As mentioned above this theory is seen as theoretically strong as it recognises various causes of crime that are credited. The relationship individuals have with the police could be a cause of crime, if the police are harassing people therefore causing them to retaliate or feel helpless; this will drives them to offend. This theory is supported by labelling theory which makes it stronger because instead of theories disagreeing with the causes it agrees therefore creating validity. The police can also cause moral panics in society which can lead to further criminal behaviour; this could be a distraction by capitalist so that the working class are not aware of the real issues that they should be concerned about, this strength allows the individual to be aware of the capitalist system and the exploitation by the ruling class therefore can avoid crime. A key element of left realism is relative deprivation as a cause of crime. People measure their situation for example what they have got, (money and jobs) against the expectation that society creates. When individuals are unable to reach that expectation they may turn to crime in order to achieve it, this is the theory of anomie suggested by Merton. This explanation adds to the strength of this theory as it highlights economic and social factors of crime. Another key element is subculture, Lea and Youngs subcultural model explains how subcultures are used as a response to problems. Those who are unable to adapt to middle class values create subcultures that include people that share their norms and values so they are no longer frustrated. This therefore can be a response to the problem for the working class individuals; however this subculture may create norms and values to suit the group which may include criminal acts as a way of rebellion against the system (Lea, 2002). The final key element is marginalisation, as certain groups lived on the margins of society and are not accepted by others, consequently turning to crime. All these explanations of crime are some of the best from other theories and now under one theory therefore this is the strongest theoretical explanation of crime. An additional reason this is chosen as the strongest theory is because it provides a solution to crime and not just the causes, this is shown with the square of crime. Left realists state that crime is a gathering of the following four factors and the relationships between the four factors determine the effectiveness of that relationship to preventing crime. The first of the four factor, is the state; where the agents of the system label individuals as offenders which is a major factor of recidivism, the second is the victim; who may encourage criminal behaviour due to lack of defence or through repeated lifestyle (routine activity theory), the third is society; where formal and informal social controls occur and the fourth is the offender; how often they commit crimes and the type of offences, etc. (Burke, 2009). To prevent crime, you have to interfere at each point of the square. For example, in the state the police should have more effective policing and the courts should not make preconceptions. The victim should be more responsible for their protection and maybe change their daily routines regularly. The public (society) to ensure that the required socialisation is taking place in primary years and finally the offenders should exercise their free will and decide not to offend. A criticism of left realism, is that the theory is mainly based on previous approaches. However this can be considered as a positive factor, as the theory is hard to criticise due to the fact it has elements from all modules therefore accounts for many explanations and was chosen as the strongest theory. Further advantages includes how it seeks realistic policies to tackle crime problems and how left realism is about prevention not control, therefore left realists believe that if you punish it will lead to marginalisation, so consequently prevention is better.

what Does it Mean to be a Good Person?

what Does it Mean to be a Good Person? Everyday across the world we are being told to be a good person, but what does that really mean? Is a good person in America the same as a good person in communist North Korea? I say yes; a good person is unlike the good citizen whose virtue is relevant to the regime in which they live; the good person is a good person no matter the regime while the good citizen is only representative of that which the state deems best. The good man can be good anywhere because he follows virtue, and finds happiness in that virtue. To illustrate this point I will first define the good man then the bad regime, and finally how a good man fits into the bad regime. The Good Man Socrates, while under trial, explained his definition of a good person in refutation of the charge that he was ashamed of pursuing a dangerous occupation that had the possibility of death. He responded You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look to this only in his actions, whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or a bad man  [1]  Here we have a very cut and dry explanation of the good man, he who does not concern himself with petty personal wants but only whether his actions are good and just. Aristotle sets out a clear boundary between what he considers a good man and a good citizen. For Aristotle the good man is the man that acts and lives virtuously and derives happiness from that virtue. And the good citizen acts to the best virtue of the state and each of these things are quite separate, The good citizen need not of necessity possess the virtue which makes a good man  [2]  The separation is clearly evident, the fact that what makes a good citizen does not qualify someone to be a good person. So being a good person does not mean you have to by association be a good citizen they are two distinctly different states, it is only in the best of regimes that the good person is also the good citizen. The nature of political rule is that rule of those similar in stock and free  [3]  As Aristotle argues if the virtue of a citizen is the capacity to rule and be ruled in turn, then the virtue of the good man is also to have this capacity in the best of regimes. The good in any animal or plant is the same as it is for humans: that to be and act in harmony with the virtue of that species. In a way this is a human participating in that which is most human, to act in harmony with rationality and virtue. The good in acting with the virtue of a human is the perfection of that which can only be described rationally such things as love and justice. To act unto these things is to act with virtue but there also stands limits to everything. To act with too great or too little emphasis in any act is to disrupt balance and pulls the good man from his path of virtue, too much love is obsession, too little disdain either extreme is undesirable to the good man. The good man lives by the Golden Mean that which is not too in excess in either direction. To bring together the definition of a good man, Socrates says he is a man who always considers his actions and acts in a good and just manner. Aristotle says a good man acts unto virtue and derives his happiness and pleasure from that virtue. So we have a man who is prudent, virtuous, and just. This man must now fit into a corrupt regime, a regime that does not follow all those things which make him a good man. The Bad Regime There were six different categories in which all regimes were placed as defined by both Socrates and Aristotle, those of tyranny, monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy and polity. Of these regimes tyranny, oligarchy and democracy were all negative and corrupt regimes because the governing body whether it be a single person, small group or the many respectively only were ruling in their own interests and not to the benefit of all. In the good regimes it is those same forms of governing bodies yet they govern in the interest of the state as a whole. Of the bad regimes Aristotle had declared that tyranny was the most undesirable state as the citizens were reduced to nothing more than slaves. In a tyrannical government the governed are not looked after but only used to further the goals of the leader. The next two are defined in a similar manner men ruling by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many,  [4]  for an oligarchy and defining a democracy as where the poor rule.  [5]  To Aristotle an oligarchy was a twisted degradation of the good regime aristocracy, in the oligarchy it is not that few men govern it is that it is the wealthy class that rules creating a state in which all power resides in the upper class. .

robots &machines for the Empire :: essays research papers

ROBOTS & MACHINES FOR THE EMPIRE THE GEORGE LUCAS NIGHTMARE! Coming very soon to a theater of war near you, your family and your home, will be the machines and robots which will greatly magnify and make more mobile the State’s deadly force for deployment against its eternal enemy: the people. Government Executive Magazine, traditionally pro-federal government, includes an article in its April 15th issue entitled "Future Combat Zone." Staff correspondent George Cahlink begins his article, "Six years ago, the Army decided to stake its future on an untested approach to acquiring futuristic weapons in support of a grand theory about the nature of 21st century warfare. The resulting program, known as Future Combat Systems, has turned out to be the most expensive and complex program procurement effort in Army history. According to current estimates, the service will spend well in excess of $100 billion by 2014 to develop the ‘system of systems,’ which includes manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles and sensors tied together by a wireless network." [Emphasis mine.] "Untested approach?" "Futuristic?" "Grand theory?" It doesn’t sound very supportive of our nation state’s latest high-tech investments consistently touted as absolutely necessary for our defense in an increasingly technologically hostile world. The Army’s Future Combat Systems program was recently examined against the backdrop of totally uncontrolled federal spending, which long ago has left the State’s fiscal launching pad roaring skywards both in defiance of gravity and any modicum of budgetary restraints. Tim Weiner in his NY Times article of March 28th offers, "The Army’s plan to transform itself into a futuristic high-technology force has become so expensive that some of the military’s strongest supporters in Congress are questioning the program’s costs and complexity." The article, "An Army Program to Build a High-Tech Force Hits Cost Snags," goes on, "Army officials said†¦that the first phase of the program†¦could run to $145 billion. Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said the ‘technological bridge to the future’ would equip 15 brigades of roughly 3,000 soldiers, or about one-third of the force the Army plans to field, over a 20-year span." The "grand theory" Cahlink explains, is "[t]he Army’s bid for unprecedented speed and killing power require[ing] double the amount of computer code than is contained in the Joint Strike Fighter’s systems, rely[ing] on 53 new technologies and require[ing] more than 100 network interfaces." The "wireless network" Cahlink mentions is described by Weiner as the "Joint Tactical Radio Systems," known as JTRS [pronounced ‘jitters’].

Effects Of Youth Crime :: essays research papers

Effects of Youth Crime   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A kid walks down the crowded hallway at school. He is late to his class so he is going as fast as he can. In his hurry, he accidentally bumps into another kid. The other kid backs off and starts yelling at the first one. He asks why he bumped into him, and was he trying to start something? The first kid hastily apologizes as he turns and starts to race down the hall toward his third period class. The second kid takes this the wrong way and pulls out a handgun, the crowd around him quickly disperses as they see the gun. He aims his gun at the first kid and says take this you punk! He quickly pulls the trigger several times, the bullets tearing through the first's body. He falls to the ground, dead. Things like this happen every day. Kids hurting other kids, it's not something that should be happening. Because of things like this, there are many rules and regulations at schools and other places that there wasn't before. Youth violence happens every day and it is tearing society apart.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A lot of crimes now days are committed by kids, people under the age of 21. They do all sorts of crime, they murder one another, they steal things, they paint graffiti on the wall. Crime is worse than it ever has been. It used to be the mob that people were scared of, now it's the gangs. If you cross a member of a gang, you can bet that his friends will get you back for him. Gang wars are especially dangerous, it starts with just two people, one from one gang and one from another gang. One of them does something to the other, like stab him, and then the victim's friends will get the attacker. It continues to escalate until it is all out war. Stopping gang wars is just one small step to stopping youth violence.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Gangs are not the only youth's who commit crime. There are tons of kids who steal from stores, do and sell drugs, vandalize buildings and a lot of other things as well. These kids are just as large of a problem as the gang members are. Some kids think that stealing a candy bar here, a pair of jeans there, is totally harmless. They think that they aren't stealing that much, so it doesn't really matter. Or some kids think that they are beautifying the city by painting on the sides of buildings. Both are wrong, what they are doing is a

Risk and types of Financial Risk Essay -- Business, Banks, Insurance

Value at Risk -Introduction As Walter Wriston, former chairman of Citigroup, said â€Å"All of life is the management of risk, not its elimination† and nowadays modern banking is about controlling risk and returns. The ability of a financial institution to control risk is a key factor that determines its success or its failure in markets. As the late financial crisis has demonstrated institutions that were not properly prepared to face the crisis, failed and they were either bailed out by governments or serve economists as bad example. This is the reason risk management is an important field of every financial institution. -Risk and types of Financial Risk As Philippe Jorion (2007) mentions a definition for risk can be the volatility of unanticipated outcomes and can be created by natural disasters, such as the recent earthquake in Japan that is reported to cause a drop of 3% of the oil price in the first few days after it, or it can created by human activities such as technological innovation which might create unemployment. Phillip Best (1998) argues that risk matters only when it causes financial losses and financial risk is the one linked with financial assets and portfolios and is classified in broader categories; market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk and operational risk. There is evidence that these types of risk can affect one another. Market risk is the one linked with the movements of the price level of market. Credit risk is generated when parties involved in an economic contract are either incapable or reluctant to satisfy their commitments. Jorion (2007) classifies liquidity risk into two forms; asset liquidity risk and funding liquidity risk. Jorion (2007, p. 23): Asset liquidity risk†¦arises when a transaction can... ... effects than those expected. Nevertheless VaR is always a statistical tool, meaning that if using VaR is estimated a loss of  £10 millions in one month, it is known that there might be months with smaller losses and months with larger than  £10 millions. There is also the problem of identifying the right method because each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. So it is important for a risk manager to be able to identify the key factors of the market. These can be market rates and prices that can affect the portfolio and the necessity of this derives from the fact that without these factors is impossible to build a proper quantitative measure of market risk, due to the complexity of financial markets. So to start properly one has to recognize the instruments through which market risk factors will be embodied, such instruments may be options, swaps or loans.

Compare how two television programmes you have studied offer comic representation of gender

In this essay I intend to use two sitcoms to answer the question. Gender representation is a major part of many sitcoms and I will be looking into why this is, and how they are represented comically. I will be using an episode of Absolutely Fabulous and an episode of Keeping Up Appearances to provide me with examples to support my ideas and opinions. * Absolutely Fabulous- Eddie- comical features: Over dressed, flamboyant & eccentric appearance No sense of moral or political correctness (buying merchandise from African villages) Physical behaviour- poor co-ordination of arms and hands- looks comical- lots of movement. (Example- when arrives late in & faces questioning from Saffy) Voice-sounds younger than she is & talks like she is younger- comical because trying to hide from her real age Language- talks like a teenager, talks to daughter like she is her mum (role reversal) Also degrading to daughter, loud and immature behaviour. Not stereotypical mum- quite the opposite, stereotypical teenager. (mood swings & behaviour, dress etc) Main interest is men- questions Saffy about when she will finally get a boyfriend. Generally most of her features are exaggerated to increase comical value. Saffy- Comical features: Very boring/ sensible dress sense, dull colours & appearance- even though a teenager. Sensible & boring- role reversal with her mum- example- when telling mum off about returning home late. Body language- reserved, sensible, quiet and controlled. Tries to make deals & compromise with her mum- role reversal again. Also with Patsy- T.V show. Well spoken, doesn't use slang, swear or shout. Stereotypical mum, portrayed through a daughter 9role reversal with her mum) Relies heavily on Saffy. Generally most of her features are exaggerated to increase comical value. Patsy- Comical Features: Shows how women can get wherever they want- slept with her Boss to get a better job. Pretends to be professional. Dresses like she's on a catwalk- completely inappropriate & ridiculous. Uses too much make up & has an overdone hairstyle. Addicted to cigarettes and alcohol. Tries to use and manipulate Saffy- uses sob story to make her appear on T.V show. Appears to be very shallow with not much of a life & few friends- when she is desperate to go to lunch with Eddie, as has no one else to go with. Generally most of her features are exaggerated to increase comical value. Other notes: Patsy and Eddie- more than best friends, rely on & need each other. Magazine editors- all similar to Patsy. Some appear very aristocratic. Main editor- very professional, smartly dressed, busy, taking what some would perceive as a male role. Patsy and Eddie try to get as much free stuff as they can from the building- demonstrates that although they behave like the others, they cant afford to live the lifestyle or dress the same. T.V show- Presenter is typical morning T.V presenter- dress, behaviour and style. Very awkward situation & patsy doesn't know what to do or say, and fails to appreciate the situation- national television. Keeping Up Appearances Hyacinth- Self obsessed, eccentric & extremist. Overpowering and controlling. She is embarrassed of her family except for her rich sister. Very Snobbish. Tries to show off to visitors and family/ friends. Obsessed with material goods & values as well as appearances. Centre of attention. Speaks freely & says what she thinks about others, unaware of others feelings. Richard- Does as he is told, also finds Hyacinth dominating and overpowering. Puts her before his job although it should be the other way round, he finds it difficult to say no to her. Highly sarcastic. Elizabeth- She does not like Hyacinth and is very nervous around her- does not want to do or say the wrong thing. Discusses Hyacinth with her Husband- make jokes and dislike her, particularly Emmet. Daisy- Poor appearance, obviously no money. Tries to do & say the right thing for Hyacinth, like Elizabeth, very nervous around her. Daisy's husband- Very poor appearance, unaware or not bothered. Dislikes Hyacinth. However is not that uncomfortable around her- tries to take biscuits from tin. Again, as with Richard, dry & sarcastic humour. Other Notes: more than gender issues- family & social as well. Hyacinth is centre of attention for all wrong reasons. Hyacinth and Richard have different values in life (far more material) to Daisy and her husband. Conclusion. I conclude that representation of gender is a major part of these two sitcoms. In absolutely fabulous, gender representation is used to make comical situations of women, but underneath, there is a moral and it is saying this is how women are and have ended up but that not all end up this way. It is showing the viewer how women can be, although this is a highly exaggerated situation, I'm sure many can relate to, or know somebody who relates to at least one of the characters in the show. It focus more on gender representation between family and close friends. However, Keeping Up Appearances focuses more on the gender representation and its comical values between relatives and neighbours from different social classes. Again, as with Ab Fab, it mostly features women and the comical features between them, and men play a smaller role.

Changes in Technology Essay

The many changes in technology over the years greatly impacted the development of early human societies. Agriculture, religion, and competition between groups are just a few of the many things that were greatly impacted by the changes in technology. New inventions and ways of thinking of things made a huge difference in the world. There have been many changes in technology through out the years and in the development of early human societies. There were many changes during and after the classical age when it comes to agriculture. The invention of crop rotation and irrigation helped a lot in agriculture. They made farming much quicker and easier. Jethro Tull’s inventions of the seed drill and horseshoe also helped speed up the farming process. The seed drill made planting easier by planting seeds deep in the ground so they aren’t washed away. Horseshoes allowed horses to plow much quicker than before, which increased productivity. The increase of farming also made life a lot easier by allowing for less nomadic living due to the crops being so close to home. These inventions, as well as having more food from farming, are the reason for agriculture being as technologically advanced as it is today. Like agriculture, religion was also hugely impacted. Religion has always been very important in human societies. In the early years, religions such as Christianity and Buddhism introduced the idea of mutual intolerance. Mutual intolerance was the acceptance of disagreeing with another religion. Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity are just a few examples of the religions in this time. Things such as improvements in tools and weapons changed competition between groups. As time went on, there were more and more developments when it came to agriculture, engineering, and tools. The tools becoming more advanced led to the ideas of better weapons. Because weapons and tools kept improving, they began to be used to obtain power more regularly. In turn, groups like the Aztecs, Toltec, Mayans, and Oaxaca began fighting with these weapons in competition between groups. These examples of change in agriculture, religion, and competition between groups show that technology greatly impacted the development of early human societies. Whether it was because of inventions or different perspectives on things, these societies were obviously greatly impacted. With this information, it is clear that there have been many changes in technology through out the years and in the development of early human societies.