that effectively sets up a one set shootout for the trophy and the momentum state visible anchor. she got the crucial break and soon found herself serving for the match. she failed to convert 3 championship points, but at the 4th time of asking, she finally got over the line. is the 1st grand slam title for the 24 year old. because it belushi supported the russian invasion of ukraine. she wasn't allowed to officially represent a country in melbourne in e. she's the 1st ever neutral player to win tennis grand slam during amazing atmosphere. i hope next year i can, but i came back stronger and they'll, i'll show you even better anything you guys support me one more. ah zeppelin is a lebanon strike when it the year sees a return to a career high world number 2, ranking david stokes al jazeera.

ah, your children's early civil robin in doha, remind her of our top stories to israeli settlers had been injured in a shooting attack unoccupied east jerusalem is ready for to say the suspect is 13 years old and taking him into custody. his family denies that he was involved from occupied east jerusalem. james bayes has the latest on the alleged shooter. the information we have is that he is 13 years old. but i have to say that information is being challenged. that's come from the police. it's being challenged by his own family who say that the 13 year old boy happened to be there at the scene. it was a case of mistaken identity. he was the one wielding the hand gun. so there's a dispute over that what the police are saying and what the family staying at this time. what we do know is the victims of this attack to settlers a father and son,

we understand the father, 45 year old, 45 years old son in his twenty's, the son we believe is more seriously wounded. but both are being treated in the hospital for the injuries, at least 42 pallets to the end. they've been arrested at re palestinian government, killed 70 bloodsaw. the synagogue of friday. israel's military says that it's increasing its presence in the occupied west bank. fight a shooting came a day after 9 palestinians were killed during a raid by his writing forces in the janine refugee camp. it was the deadliest rate in decades, at least $32.00 palestinians being killed by the troops. all settlers this month in the occupied west bank, the lou expressing their anger across the us after police in memphis release, disturbing video sharing offices, beating an unarmed black clam timing. nichols later died and hospital and marches were held in the streets of memphis on friday. and across the other american cities,

several protest is arrested during confrontation with the police in new york. us president joe biden said that he was outraged by the video and called a protest to be peaceful. the headlines course, you follow all stories on the website out there, dot com. oh news and half, and next it's upfront to stay with us. how do they control information? how does the narrative influence public opinion? how is this is in journalism, we're bringing the story. the listening post dissect the media, we don't cover the news. we cover the way the news is covering. the idea that human beings are primarily motivated by self interest, inherently competitive, or even just born evil, has permeated western culture for century, theories and studies from philosophers and historians. from machiavelli to the seated ether, thomas and influenced major social economic and foreign policy decision making. not so argues that historian, author rector pregnant. he believes people are well, actually fundamentally pretty decent. his latest book, human kind, hopeful history,

proposes a new world. he predicated on what he referred to as survival of the friendly. what then, how do you explain some of the darkest chapters in human history? i'll ask about the pregnant and up front special the record pregnant. thank you so much for joining us on upfront. 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, and try for these. but in your book, you write that were actually quote, living in the richest safest, healthiest era ever. can you explain your thinking? 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, you know, 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 what you think it means. it means that for the biggest part of our history, when we're nomadic hunter 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 mess, elliptic era over 10000 years ago. ah, how do you help me make sense of this? are you saying that all of these people's as 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, is very dangerous drug. and once hierarchy start to arise in really see that when people settle down when they start living and villages and cities, when they event agriculture, you see that all kinds of terrible things happen. whether it's the invention of the pe turkey, 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, 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 and the desire to be connected to

a broader incident. 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 could just tell you once short story, i'm in the midst of the 2nd world war. the allied psychologists were wondering why the germans were fighting so hard, still in 1944 in 1945. 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. they were basically fighting for their friends and the german army event 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. 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 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 then 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 immediate sphere control that, that this rent,

maybe i just read too much of that too much. hobbs and on of rousseau. but. but that's what, that's where i think 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 gotta realize though, is that what i'm finding against in this book is what scientists culver near 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, whatever that people basically are, 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, in media you remember maybe after katrina, 2005, the store was full 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 your 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 that, 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 in others around us in 2019 you went viral in davos when you call it out, all the millionaires and billionaires who were in the crowd, you said, but 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've made those statements. and frankly nothing. nothing's changed at all. economic inequality continues to grow. the rich are still exploiting tax loopholes without any accountability. corporations are still dodging taxes left and 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 am. 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 a 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 are

making progress. and that's because they're getting 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 is that we're, that there's as decency here, but that the power has a corrupting force and cap capitalism. kind of normalized the either that some was going to be powerful someone's going to have and 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 due 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. are 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 fare, 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 involve 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 prosecuted. so if we look at the anarchist tradition, for example, may be, you know, peter kropotkin, the russian anarchist in the 19th century, he believed that people were fundamentally good. and well, 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 contrast 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 here to load with everything you're describing. sounds like can only happen if we just met the hierarchies you're talking about only happen of leaders metal capital. sure, sir. well, i'm all in favor of going beyond capitalism, post capitalism, blah, blah, blah. as i said, i literally non super interested in all these, you know highbrow ideological debates. i am more interested in. okay, what are we gonna 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 presence there,

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 is one prison that even has its own music label called criminal records. and her and, 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 that someone will come in another crime once he or she gets out of prison, while 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 presence 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 built these terrible places that actually turn, you know, people into their criminal genic. they produce, they produce more and talk 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 boogeyman 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 hunter, gatherer societies, they had a very straightforward way to do this. they used the power of shame. so shame is really essential and human societies, humans are the only animal in the animal kingdom with the ability to blush. i mean, isn't that astounding? we involuntarily give away are feelings to other members over 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 2 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 where 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 politician's or a 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 really an essential part of the human experience. you know, we copy each other all the time. you start yawning, ice 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. are yet to say in who mains,

you know, a gimmick. and the other is clear policies, if people are fundamentally geared towards is you say, cooperation, it taken care of each other? yes, yes. wow. okay. i'm not saying that humans are angels on the one hand over the years . 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 their swan 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 burton 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, you talk about this throughout your career, is idea of not just knowing what we're going to fight against,

but also having sort of an affirmative vision, you know, knowing what we're, what we're fighting for what our, what our goal is, talk about what that means to you. so when i wrote my 1st book, which is scott, utopia, freelance, i was frustrated that young people at the time didn't really have a big positive vision, and they mainly knew what they were against. this was just after financial after the financial crash of 2008, and we were all against the establishment the, and against the stairs. he and against them, a phobia against racism. and obviously i'll also was against all those things, but i felt what's actually our load star, what something were striving for, what could be a utopia for the future? i mean, the under slavery and democracy in the welfare stayed 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 helpful because i think that young people to day had do have a much more positive hope of youth future, her vision of where we could go if we radically change our society and you help us with that vision. you have some concrete ideas yourself, of what we could do to change the world, or 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 receival are 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 u. s. m. 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 the 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 find 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, or 40 percent right of her. while if you're talking about while the paying more in taxes in the poor getting more cash to more radical re distributions of wealth from

the ruling class to everyday workers. a mean? yes. your internet, your isn't as away from capitalism. bit by bit sir. i, i can't wait for your next book, which will, which will be that when you have the full conversion anyway, it is incredible conversation is incredible. thank you so much for joining us. an upright has been an absolute pleasure. thanks so much room. really everyone that is our show up for it will be back ah ah. ready ah.

ready ah, ah ah, wherever you go in the world, one airline goes to make it feel exceptional. katara always going places together. our diets define who we are. but who are we?

if we don't know what we're eating in a disturbing investigation into globalized food fraud, people and power reveals long hidden, scandalous practices that have infiltrated international wholesale markets and supermarket chains and asks, what's really on our plate. food in glorious food on out josie, around informed opinion, far right extreme is there is real and need to be tackled as soon as possible. frank assessments. there was a joke about the interim government that it's not in for him and nor does it go inside story on al jazeera. ah ah, hello, i'm adrian.