Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

I'm not so sure I agree with this. 200,000 years is certainly enough time for noticeable evolutionary change. Much less than that, I would think. Think about the duplication of the gene that codes for amylase production - this is hypothesised to be a recent mutation that has arisen since the dawn of agriculture, but is common among most of the world's population. Interestingly enough, similar mutations are fixed in dogs - presumably in reaction to domestication and the resultant increase in starch in their diets.Now, you may be thinking that the production of a digestive enzyme is completely different to 'human nature' and so a bad comparison, but think some more about the dogs. Domestication has wrought dramatic changes in the temperament and behaviour of our pets and livestock. As seen in the famous experiment with foxes in Siberia, intense directional selection would do this in remarkably few generations.Some humans have been living in towns. cities and states for millenia, in social envirnoments totally different from those experienced by some band of hunter-gatherers 200,000 years ago The selective environment, from the point of view of genetic influences on temperament, is clearly not the same. Population has also rapidly expanded, which increases the probability of selectively relevant gene variants appearing.It seems very unlikely to me that the degree to which we possess traits like generosity, kindness, empathy etc has remained unchanged since the Pleistocene.

The key word you seem to have overlooked in jar's question is 'major'.Sure, any conflict is major from the perspective of the person getting shot, but I don't think this is what was being asked. If the fighting in Niger is a major conflict, what could possibly count as minor? A couple of guys scuffling in a pub in an argument over a spilt pint?Further, I'm a bit confused by your use of 'at war with'; since clearly to you it doesn't have the face meaning. In most of the conflicts you list, the US is cooperating with the local government. Now, I can see how you might look a situation where the US is violently propping up a fig leaf of a regime in the face of massive popular resistance as being at war with the country, but this clearly does not apply in most of the listed cases. In Somalia, for example, there is a small US force that is supporting the much larger African Union force, both of which are fighting to support the Somali government - itself a fragile construct created from the alliance of most of the country's warring factions. Much of the north of the country has declared itself independent, but the US is not involved there. I'm unclear how this could be seen as the US 'at war with' Somalia.WIth regards to Niger and Iraq, do you even know where these countries are? I'm at a total loss as to how the US could be currently considered to be at war with either. If having soldiers there is enough, are you also at war with Germany?

There's an 'acknowledge reply' button for those circumstances when you don't know how to form a sentence without admitting error but can't bring yourself to simply ignore a post.

Hi Faith No such thing happens. You seem to have the idea that the basic human rights outlined in the constitution are intended for citizens, but this is obviously not the case - they apply to humans, regardless of citizenship.This is nothing unique to America. Every country with any pretension to being governed by the rule of law reserves certain rights to citizens - typically including the right to vote, for example. But basic rights like access to a fair trial, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest - these are universal human rights. And laws clearly notate them as such. The US Consitution specifies which rights apply to citizens, and which to people generally.If you came on holiday to Europe, do you think you would have no legally enforceable rights while you were here? Of course not - you would have all manner of legal rights here. I don't think you'd be too keen on the way they did it al Ellis Island. Laws today are much, much, much more restrictive.Immigrants arriving to Ellis Island had a perfunctory health check to see if they were carrying infectious diseases like cholera; and were asked a few questions about where they came from and why they were coming to the US. About 300,000 people were turned away.Now, you may think that sounds like a lot, but it represents about 2% of arrivals. By contrast, most claims for asylum today are rejected.

No it's not. That's how things work on paper almost everywhere in the world, and in practice in every liberal democratic society.

I was addressing jar's silly claim that 'innocent until proven guilty' is something unique to the United States.Interestingly, though, your courts are sometimes used to judge cases in other countries sometimes, as a result of the international nature of modern business. But I guess this is not what you're shouting about.

In a sense that's true, but in another sense of course it's not. If you're considering what should a particular government do to assist; then per capita is the only real way that makes sense. Otherwise we're in some ludicrous situation in which we pretend the majority of the world's countries don't matter and can do what they like. We here in Europe can change lifestyles, not to try and reduce our carbon output, but can increase it massively! After all, we here in Czech Republic could produce 25,000 times more carbon dioxide, and we'd still contribute less than the US! Let's start burning!Obviously that makes no sense.The article is not aimed at the US specifically. It's aimed at the world. Amongst their specific recommendations are to end fossil fuel subsidies - which are huge in Turkey, Iran and Russia. They talk about family planning policies they think should be introduced in Africa, Latin America and Asia.This isn't foreigners picking on the US - there are loads of American signatories. Most of the authors who actually drafted the text are Americans.