> You could just as easily say, 1900-1950 had two world wars and hundreds(?) of millions of death, 1950-2000 had zero world wars and many fewer deaths. If we co

> You could just as easily say, 1900-1950 had two world wars and hundreds(?) of millions of death, 1950-2000 had zero world wars and many fewer deaths. If we continue the historical trend, this century will see no more than a few million killed in wars. You can always cherry-pick. Look up Steven Pinker, who is convinced that global violence is the lowest it's ever been... While deaths in wars post 1950 might be much smaller, it's still far from insignificant. Are we content that millions of lives are disposable? It's possibly worth pointing out that of the post 1950 wars, a significant portion of them have been perpetrated by the US and it's allies, who have not yet been held to account for their crimes. > There's an enormous growing middle class in Asia and Africa that begs to differ... Don't just look what's happening, but ask why. The growing middle class in Asia is due to the demand created by our outsourcing of manufacturing to there, along with the growing Asian based industries. They're given more opportunities to work. Not coincidentally, this coincides with the growing unemployment and poverty in the US and Europe. It's more economical to hire Asian labour than western labour. But with the improvements in the physical and cognitive capabilities of computers/robots, it won't be long before that huge demand that brought work to Asia is replaced by machines. Where then are those Asians going to find employment?