Can someone plzzz me wit this fasttt

Yes, because morally, it’s the right thing to do. Our common humanity means that those of us who are doing well (often doing too well) should help those whose basic needs are not met. And, in part, our personal and national wealth has often been created by the exploitation of poor people – colonial extraction of resources, the slavery and opium trades, unfair international trade and finance practices and others. Reallocating just 1% of global wealth would eradicate extreme income poverty at a stroke. Those of us who are ‘better-off’ would be stupid not to help the poor. If we want a prosperous, politically stable and environmentally sustainable world for ourselves (and for future generations), then we have to help poor people in poorer, less fortunate lands.

Hope this helps, honey. Best of luck with assignments like these.

my opinion on this subject is yes because it is the right thing to do in any circumstance of life simply because we are all human and we all share this planet and if we start to let one part of this planet die off then the rest will slowly die off because every place on earth depends on other parts of the planet for the resources that are not readily available to that specific place.

like say that the US needed more oil. the US depends on russia to send more oil over to the US simply due to the fact that russia has rich oil fields.

hope this helps :)

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals

answer; a team- maintenance role;