hops after the rice harvest and that creates a confluence of pollution. it's right here. if you look at the moment here and bergs, is it a 161? so it's been about the most of the way that is listed as hazardous. so the doubly weight, so it would lead to long term respiratory problems even dealt with the problem partially overseas and partially linked to weaken normal development. it's hard to see what the government is going to do. what you can get much more on that story. tony chang has been covering from bangkok on our website, al jazeera dot com, but also there's everything else. there are headlines stories, but also analysis that takes you behind the news out. is there a dot com ah to quick look at the main stories are following this hour. at least 8 people

reported date in a, shooting, a synagogue, and occupied east jerusalem. this is one of the deadliest attacks on israelis for years. it's understood, a car pulled up outside the synagogue, and the settlement of new york of and the attacker opened fire. at least 12 people were injured by the gunfire. the gunman was shot and reportedly killed. palestinians have been protesting in the occupied west bank a day off to the deadliest israeli rate in almost 2 decades. israeli forces fight tier gases used to restore that them in our rum and the nablus region. more than a 100 palestinians were injured or suffered tear gas inhalation during confrontations with israeli police after friday prayers. in our, the headlines, the city of memphis is brace for protests after police release of video of a violent confrontation between tyrene nichols and the police who pulled him over while driving 5 officers was sacked following his death. this month. they've now been charged with 2nd degree murder. nichols died 3 days after was allegedly beaten during a traffic stop in memphis noise acting for the family of tyree nickels. welcome the

quick response by the authorities to monitor the same reaction for all police violence investigations. and when we look at how her pollution from the police department. 2 terminated bill and we look at how swiftly good this book or turn it vol, charges against bill and less than 20 days. i'm a bill we want to put clay that this is the break we're go. oh, well, it turn in the office of well that i be work all 11 of the story to bring you from congo and 23 rebels of continue to advance in the east and democratic republic of congo. they've seized the town at wicked chanitha, and they've cut off the last row to the north. now the army has confirmed its withdrawal, calling a tactical move to protect civilians. un peacekeeping missions has more than

$450.00 people, including women and children, as seeking refuge at its base. and the town is calling on the rebels to leave up front. is the program come out next with them mark lamb on tell the american people as spoken. but what exactly did they say is the world looking for a whole new order with less america in it is the woke agenda on the decline in america . how much his social media company to know about you and how easy is it to manipulate the quizzical look us politics the bottom line? the idea that human beings are primarily motivated by self interest, inherently competitive, or even just born evil, has permeated western culture for centuries, theories and studies from philosophers and historians from machiavelli to the cities, to thomas art of influenced major social, economic, and foreign policy decision making not so argues that historian, author,

record pregnant. he believes people are well, actually, fundamentally pretty decent. his latest book, human kind of hopeful history, proposes a new worldview predicated on what he refers to, a survival of the friendliest. but then how do you explain some of the darkest chapters in human history? alas, mercury, pregnant, and upfront special ah, ragman, thank you so much for joining us on up front. thanks for having me. the news media is often filled with daunting and even pessimistic headlines about the future, whether it comes to climate change or pandemic, endless wars, or human rights atrocities. but in your book, you write that we're actually quote, living in the richest safest, healthiest era ever. can you explain your thinking behind that? yes, this is pretty astounding, isn't it? but if you look at the, or if you look at the simple statistics that we have,

it's pretty clear as well. so most people don't know that extreme poverty has declined by more than 50 percent since the 1980s. most people don't know that child mortality is declined by more than 50 percent since the 1980s. if you see, see the rise in vaccinations, for example, against terrible diseases such as measles that used to be just 20 percent of the whole population. now it's more than 80 percent. so in many respects we are making progress as a species. it could have been and headline, you know, for the last 25 years that around 200000 people were pulled out of poverty every single day. but because it haven't happens every single day, people don't really feel it right. the news is often more about what happens to day, you know, and that's usually the bad stuff. but you also make an argument, your book about the fundamental nature of human beings and the human kind. at the core, as you say, are pretty decent. the example you give could make, could be making the case that as a society,

things are getting better because it's in our interest to get better. but that, that is that then another speak to our fundamental human nature. what do you say to that? yet the reason why i wanted to, to write this book is that in the last couple of decades we've seen a major shift in science. so many scientists from very diverse disciplines. and for paula g psychology, archaeology, sociology, you name it. they've been moving towards a more hopeful view of human nature. now a more hopeful picture of who we are deep down as a species. and, and the thing with the specialist is that they're so specialized that they often don't realize what's going on in the field next to theirs, right? and that's the reason why i wanted to write this book is to give people the big picture of what's, what's been happening, what's been going on is that scientists are now emphasizing that we are not fundamentally selfish. no, we've evolved to cooperate. we are actually a product of what they call survival of the friendliest, which really means where you think it means it means that for the biggest part of

our history, when we're nomadic into gatherers, you know, which was around for you in a 1000 years. and it was actually the friendliest among us who had the most kids and had the biggest chance of passing on their genes to the next generation. friendliness helped us to survive. it was our secret superpower. now i think that's a pretty major shift in how we look at human nature. and that's why i wanted to wrap this, but i think i'm struggling with it. you know, and i found you, but quite provocative. i found your, your, your reach into various disciplines in histories to be quite compelling. i am just haunted by these extraordinary historical examples of people just doing awful things from the colonization of the americas and 14 hundreds to the holocaust. and we're, we're to other london genocide more recently next 94. and of course some archaeology as you well know, a believe that war has existed since the, the, the mr. living era over 10000 years ago. ah, how do you help me make sense of this? are you saying that all of these people's has a dollar civilization of committed some of the worst atrocities were simply

motivated by things like kinship to the group, as opposed to any kind of internal malice or more malevolence or violence inside of them? you know, i'm, i'm struggling to reconcile that. yeah, yeah. what any book about human decency will obviously have to acknowledge that we humans are also the cruelest species on the planet. i mean, we do things that no other animal would even think of doing. we commit genocide, so you know, all kinds of atrocities, warfare seems to be a quite in a specific form of human behavior. and they just don't see with any other animal. i've never heard of a penguin, you know, or a group of banging that says let's, let's exterminate another group of payments, right? so these are singularly human crimes. you have to deal with that. what i want to show in the book though, is that it is too simple to say that this is just in our nature, you know, that we've just always been doing this. because for example, if you look at the archaeology and the anthropology of war, you start to realize that war is actually quite recent invention for the biggest

part of our history. and when we were nomadic into gatherers, people did not engage in warfare. and there's no archaeological evidence whatsoever for that. so that makes you think what went wrong. now if i will give the quickest possible summary of, of the thesis in the book, it would be something like, most people deep down are pretty decent. but power crops, no power is very dangerous drug and once hierarchy start to arise in really see that when people settle down when they start living in villages and cities, when they event agriculture, you see that all kinds of terrible things happen. whether it's the invention of the pe tricky, the invention of private property, the, the era of warfare against. so i'm just giving you the big picture here. i, but that is with it, but i guess what i'm struggling with. there are 2 things here. one in you and you give excellent, you know, in both in the book and elsewhere sort of analysis of why people might participate in awful activities during, during a holocaust or awful activities during the rwandan genocide. and in many ways you link that to their desire to follow orders or the desire to not let their friends

down at the desire to be connected to a broader intellect. does that not let people off the hook for their own choices? i think that's a good point. look, i'm not in the business of proclaiming that people are fundamentally good. i think that people are fundamentally cooperative and fundamentally friendly. and sometimes that's exactly the problem. if i, if i could just tell you once short story, i am in the midst of the 2nd world war. the allied psychologists were wondering why the germans were fighting so hard, still in 1944 in 9045. and they had all these theories, the most popular theory at the time was that the nazis must have been brainwashed. you know that the soldiers were just, you know, ideological maniacs. and that was the reason why they were still fighting and 45 when it was clear that we're going to lose the war. but then they started interviewing prisoners of war. and they discovered that actually the main reason why these men kept fighting was, well in german commer at shot comradeship. there were basically fighting for their

friends and the german army committee knew this, you know, they, they very deliberately kept these bands of brothers, if you will, these, these groups of friends together because they knew that was the most important reason why these men were still fighting now i'm not saying this to condone anything. i'm trying to explain things in this book. yeah. and that's, that's different from saying a look at these people were just finding because they were monsters or maniacs or they were fundamentally selfish or evil. i think that's a much too shallow explanation. i guess what i'm wondering is this commitment to comradeship. if it's in the service of something evil, you read that as a sign of human decency because they are lying with their friends. whereas some of us might read that as perfect evidence of how awful people are because they beat, they're more inclined to do evil things, visibly evil things in order to maintain a social relationship, which in many ways the very selfish desire, rather than to help someone outside of their own immediately of control that that

this reads maybe i just read too much or too much hobbs and on of russo but, but when that's what, that's where i keep as i read your book. i found it so compelling in. yeah, i just kept it keep getting stuck there. yeah, i see a quick look. i think you're just absolutely right. what, what i guess you got to realize though, is that what i'm finding against in this book is what scientists skull veneer theory. and the near theory is this notion that people are fundamentally selfish, that our civilization is just a thin layer, you know, just a thin veneer and the, as soon as something bad happens, say a crisis, an earthquake war or whatever that people basically are all in it for themselves, you know, they start looting, they start plundering and this is a story that's very often, you know, being taught. it was also, you know, in media you remember maybe after katrina, 2005, the store is full of stories about or the press was full stories about looting and

plundering in the end that turn out, you know, to be factually incorrect. so i'm are pessimistic or cynical view of human nature has, you're really negative consequences. what we assume in other people is often what we get out of them. so i'm not in the business of, you know, for claiming that the, that people are angels or anything. i obviously know we're capable of terrible atrocities, but our, our theory of human nature really, really matters. it can be yourself in a prophecy, and i think it really pays to assume the best and others around us in 2019 you went virally dabbles. when you caught out all the millionaires and billionaires who were in the crowd, you said that they can talk about, quote, stupid philanthropy schemes. but that people really need to be talking about tax avoidance, because the rich simply are not paying their fair share. it's been 3 years since you made those statements and frankly nothing. nothing's really changed at all. it economic inequality continues to grow. the rich are still exploiting tax loopholes without any accountability. corporations are still dodging taxes left,

right. what does the lack of progress on this issue say about the relationship between wealth and responsibility? i guess i'm a little bit more hopeful. i wouldn't say i'm optimistic, but i am hopeful because i do see change. if we just zoom out a little bit and look at what has happened in the last, say 10 to 15 years, we've seen the rise of so many big movements, whether it's me to or black lives matter or fridays. for future, you know, the climate movement and actually also in the fight against tax evasion, we have actually seen progress. the problem 15 years ago was that no one was talking about it. you know, this was all in the shadows, but now it's been politicized. and now people are starting to get angry about it and actually, you know, switzerland already had to abolish it's, it's, and secrecy, laws, bank secrecy laws. so that some progress, actually the fact that people are starting to get angry about this is in itself a sign of progress. this is one very paradoxical phenomenon that we often see in

the public debate. you know, is that the very moment that people start to get angry is already when we're making progress. and that's because they're kind of angry and, and that's, that's exactly what we should be. just taking a step back for a moment, your assessment of human nature's that we're, that there's this decency here, but that the power has a corrupting force and tap capitalism. kind of normalized the i the that some was going to be powerful. someone's going to have in someone's not going to have is it possible within the context of capitalism to ever get to a place of actual justice of equality, of not having a kind of oligarchy rule over the world. ah, can we ever get there as long as we have this kind of class defending state in place? can we, can we get to the ultimate vision inside of a capitalist world? so i've never really liked the stop magic debates about capitalism versus socialism . it's pretty clear to me that you can have terrible capitalist society, such as do us, where a life expectancy is act to be going down right now. i mean,

u. s. g d, p per capita is like 50 percent higher than in spain, but people live 5 years longer in spain. so clearly something's going bad or there, there's a, there's a huge amount of diversity obviously. so the way i envision it is that civilized, just society as it provides all these public services, you know, high quality health care are high quality, public education, a basic guaranteed income for everyone. we're more than rich enough right now to completely eradicate poverty. and i think that's actually an investment that pays for itself, but then yes, sure there's still place for companies and markets. i don't think we should abolish markets altogether. if you visit finland, for example, or costa rica. i mean, these are technically capital the societies, but you know, so radically different from, for example, the united states. so i sometimes fair, we get lost in all these theoretical debates. and we, we forget to focus on, you know, just to concrete, saw that, that, that lies ahead of us, which is just,

you know, building movements, drafting legislation and winning. i think that will get to do with standing on the right side of history involved, maybe redesigning our political and economic systems in ways that don't assume that we're awful. they don't assume that we're monsters that don't assume that we, that we will look out for ourselves even in moments of crisis. i mean, is there a way to design a difference? what could a different world look like in the context of what you're describing? so i think that the idea of updating your view of human nature towards a more hopeful view of humanity is quite revolutionary. there is a reason why throughout history, those who have advocated this more positive view have often been persecuted. so if we look at the amicus tradition, for example, maybe you know, peter kropotkin, the russian anarchist in the 19th century, he believed them. people were fundamentally good. and while he had to basically run around the globe, you know,

hiding from the russian secret service. because those at the top understand that a positive view, a hopeful view of human nature is downright seditious. if people can trust each other than they now don't need kings and queens anymore, they don't need armies and secret services. and ceos and managers in you name it, then maybe we can move to a much more egalitarian and generally democratic society, that sounds like it as a capitalist society. to me, i mean that not, not that, that, that, that is linger dialogue with everything or describing sounds like can only happen if we just met the hierarchies you're talking about only happen of leaders middle capital. sure, sir. well, i'm all in favor of going beyond capitalism. post capitalism, blah, blah, blah. as i said, i normally not super interested in all these, you know, hybrid ideological debates. i'm more interested in. okay, what are we going to do concretely to morrow? okay, so that's why in the book i included a lot of case studies of organizations of while even criminal justice, whole criminal justice systems that try to implement this. so for example,

if you go to norway, they have a completely different kind of prison system. you visit the prison stair and while a doesn't look like a prison at all, you know, the prisoners are treated humanely. get the freedom to socialize with the guards to make their own music. there's one prison that even has its own music label called criminal records. in her eye, and if you don't look at the results of these kind of institutions where you can look at one thing that criminologist called the recidivism rate, you know, which is the chance it's someone will come in another crime once he or she gets out of prison, well that recidivism rate is nowhere as low as in norway. so even though these places don't look like prisons at all, they're the most effective prisons in the world. now if you compare that to the u. s. u. s. prisons are more. well, kropotkin, the anarchists i just mentioned, called them universities for crime. so we take back taxpayer money, and we build these terrible places that actually turn, you know, people into their criminal genic. they produce, they produce more,

it's much more cra, let me talk the a little bit more about this question of power because in some ways you talk about power. almost like if it's a buggy man that is outside of human agency that it's outside of who we are as a people. if there is, in fact the case. what is what generates as power? what we understand what power is and how we can dismantle it. power is absolutely essential to the human experience. so even anarchist organizations that they can't think away power, it's always there, even if it's not institutionalized, or formalized or whatever. so it always needs to be kept in control. and if you study nomadic, you, hunter, gatherer societies, they had a very straightforward way to do this. they used the power of shame. so shame is really essential in human societies. humans are the only animal in the animal kingdom with the ability to blush. i mean, isn't that astounding, right? we involuntarily give away her feelings to other members of her species in order to

establish trust. so, so that was really important in those kind of societies. once you would start to behave in a to narcissistic ways, you know, people would shame you. so humbleness would really be a prerequisite as a leader in a, in a horizontal society, like that. not what we see a more hierarchical societies, like the one we we live in today, is that actually sit shame, shame, less nurse can sometimes be positively advantageous, right? which is very much the opposite of how things used to be. we now sometimes have a politicians are leaders who are able to do things. you know that other people you know, just wouldn't be able to do, right? because they would just immediately start blushing. but if, if you just think of, say your, the president in your specific country and think of like, one was the last time ice saw him or her blushing, right? probably hard to remember. you know, that's not really what you do in politics these days. so there seems to be something in the human psychology itself,

and this has been and studied even in brain scanners, is that under the influence of power, you become less empathetic. it's as if you become disconnected. as i sat there are neurological studies that show that people seem to mirror each other last. so mirroring is a really a central part of the human experience. you know, we copy each other all the time. you start yawning, ice, that yawning as well, right? i people who are in more powerful positions they, they do this way. last and so it seems as if they're less in sync with the rest of humanity in and down and suddenly pauses in place. that almost concede of the disposability of people or big believe that brutality violence harm it's. it's just how it is just, it's just the way human ears, for example, was the, a global outcry over an image of a young child. you know, they're lifeless body washed up on a european beach, just one of countless, you know, migrants who are struggling to get to safety. but border policies in most countries

don't change. they remain incredibly restrictive. oh, yeah, it was a in who mains, you know, a gimmick. ha, in that it is clear policies. if people are fundamentally geared towards is you say, cooperation, it taken care of each other? yes, yes. well, i'm not saying that humans are angels on the one hand over the you think this is we are being an angel. we're talking about mad at us. yes. systemic inequality, structural harm that we see every single day. you don't be an angel to not want child labor or people washed up on a shore or so, you know, these kinds of things. yeah. yeah. yeah, but you're right, that are empathy is limited in there's one psychologist called paul bloom, who's written a quite terrific book with a title against empathy, where he argues that the problem with empathy is that it's more like a spotlight. it's a cert light, right? it helps you to focus on a specific group or a specific person, right? one child that you know washes up on our shores. and then every once shocked. but it's very hard to look at the statistical number and feel the same outrage right?

there's, this is quote from the philosopher bertrand russell, that i always loved. he, he once rode, the mark of a civilized mind is to look at a row of numbers and be able to weep. i guess that's a challenge if i, if i tell you 5000000 kids every year, die from easily preventable diseases while you don't feel much probably. but these are 5000000 children, you know, with, with parents who really, really love them. so what we got to try and do hair is overcome our cognitive limits, overcome our emotional limits and realized that we can them. and we should also help people who, you know, we don't instinctively feel these kind of things about. and that is possible. mean we, again, we have made progress in, in quite a few respects, but not nearly there yet. fair enough. one of the things you talk about in the book

that i really appreciate and you talk about this throughout your career, is idea of not just knowing what we're going to fight against. but also having 7 affirmative vision, you know, knowing what we're, what we're fighting for, what are, what our goal is, talk about what that means to you. so when i wrote my 1st book, which is scott, utopia frivolous, i was frustrated that young people at the time didn't really have a big positive vision. they mainly knew what they were. again, this was just after financial after the financial crash of 2008, and we were all against the establishment and against the stare at the, and against them, a phobia against racism. and obviously i also was against all those things, but i felt what's actually our load star, what's something we're striving for? what could be a utopia for the future? i mean, the end of slavery and democracy in the welfare state, all these great achievements they were once utopian until they happened. so in history quite a few times, we've seen the impossible become inevitable. and that's what i've been looking for

. but you know, the thing is there's, there's quite a few reasons to be hopeful because i think that young people to day had do have a much more positive, hopeful youth future her vision of where we could go. if we radically change her, says i, and you help us with that vision, you have some concrete ideas yourself, of what we could do to change the world. talk what universities income a 15 hour work weeks, open, borders, all of this stuff. what would your utopia for realist as you put it looked like? so maybe it's interesting to zoom in on that 1st idea universal basic income. when i 1st wrote about it, i think that was in 2013. it was a pretty much forgotten idea. most people haven't heard of it, there were some people here in the netherlands who are asking me like, oh, basic income. is that sort of the base salary of the bankers on top of which day receive all their bonuses? i said no, this is actually really exciting idea, and we can completely eradicate poverty. and what we see now is that there are

dozens of experiments happening all over the globe. there was actually a recent piece in the new york times about the, the huge wave of experiments in the us. and, and i think that's really exciting. people are starting to realize that poverty is not a lack of character. it's just the lack of cash. and how do you solve a lack of cash while you get people money? that's what you do because poor people themselves are the experts on their own lives. there's nothing wrong with them. they just don't have did the means. they don't have to venture capital to invest in their own lives. and what the evidence shows us quite clearly again and again is that when you invest in people, when you give them the means to make their own choices, a lot of positive things happen. you know, kids do better in school health improves people fight new jobs. they start new companies. they actually are able to pay more in taxes. so again, this often pays for itself. and it's one of those ideas that really moves beyond the standard, you know, divide between the left and right. and that's a pretty radical while, if you're talking about while the paying more in taxes in the poor getting more

cash to more radical redistribution of wealth from the ruling class to every day. workers are me. yes, your internet, your is away from capitalism. bit by bit sir i, i can't wait for your next book, which will, which will be that will you have the full conversion anyway? it is an incredible conversation is incredible, but thank you so much for joining us in a friend. it's been an absolute pleasure. thanks so much room, only everyone that is our show up for it will be back ah

ah, to inculcate a culture of knowledge, openness and pluralism worldwide had to reward merit and excellence and encourage creativity. the shea come out award for translation and international understanding was founded to promote translation and honor translators, and acknowledged a road and strengthening the bonds of friendship and co operation between arab islamic and wild coaches. for a $150000000.00 traits disappear every year into the clothing that we all wear from up cycling to save the forest. the famous yellow dress fade from blue jeans law to conserving the wealth, dwindling wetlands. 3 of the 8th worlds. global bird migration white intersect right where we are basic discovered a treasure. it is one of the most special that lands on the plan i for ice ecosystems, the light on al jazeera talk to al jazeera. we also do believe that women of

afghanistan was somehow abandoned by the international community. we listen, we have a huge price for the war against terrorism as going on in some money. we meet with global news makers. i'm talk about the stories that matter on al jazeera. ah al jazeera. when ever you. oh oh, i'm mary m m ozzie and london al, breaking news story this hour. at least 7 people are reported dead in a shooting at a synagogue.