The absolute number of war deaths [1] have been declining since 1946. In some years in the early post-war era, around half a million people died through direct violence in wars. In recent years, the [2] yearly death toll tends to be less than 100,000.

The decline of the absolute number of battle deaths can be seen in the visualization here that shows global battle deaths per year by world region. [3]There are two marked periods of relative peace: the Asia and Oceania (Korea, early 1950s) and Asia and Oceania (Vietnam, 1971). There has been a recent increase in battle deaths driven by conflict in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

For more recent years, [4]I show these ‘state-based’ conflict deaths [5] alongside battle deaths in ‘non-state’ conflicts (where two or more organisations are fighting but no state is involved), and also violent deaths in ‘one-sided violence’ (where there is only one organised aggressor, such as in genocidal violence).

We see that, in recent years, state-based conflicts form the majority of such deaths, [6] however, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 stands out for its very high death-toll.

[7] The stacked area chart here shows the trend of the number of ongoing conflicts each year has risen. This increase however only relates to civil conflicts within states. Conflicts related to the expansion or defence of colonial empires ended with [8]decolonisation. Conflicts between states have almost ceased to exist.

[9]The casualties of man wars are known precisley, especially those of the Korean war: whereas 1,200,000 died during the the Korean War (1950–1953), other wars had ‘just’ 1,000 victims. [10]Unfortunately, statistics on the number of wars [11]need to be interpreted alongside data on the size of these conflicts.

The increase in the number of wars is predominantly an increase of smaller conflicts. This follows from the previously shown declining number of war victims while the number of conflicts increased. The decreasing deadliness of conflicts can be seen in the bar chart.

Biotechnology can be broadly defined as “using living organisms or their products for commercial purposes.” As such, biotechnology [12] was practiced since the beginning of recorded history in such activities as [13] farming, solar energy, and cheese manufacturing.

A narrower and more specific definition of biotechnology is “the commercial application of living organisms or their products, which involves the deliberate manipulation of their DNA molecules.” This definition [14] insinuates a set of laboratory techniques developed within the last 20 years that have been responsible for the tremendous scientific and commercial interest in biotechnology, [15] the founding of many new companies, the redirection of research efforts, and financial resources among established companies and universities.

[16] Combining DNA from different existing organisms (plants, animals, insects, bacteria, etc.) results in modified organisms with a combination of traits from the parents. The sharing of DNA information takes place naturally through sexual reproduction and has been exploited in plant and animal breeding programs for many years.

[17] Accordingly, sexual reproduction can occur only between plants and animals of the same species. [18] A Holstein cow can be mated with a Hereford bull because the two animals are different breeds of the same species, cattle. But trying to mate a cow with a horse, a different species of animal, would not be successful.

What’s new since 1972 is that scientists have been able to identify the specific DNA genes for many [19] in-demand traits and transfer only those genes, usually carried on a plasmid or virus, into another organism. This provides a method to transfer DNA between any living cells (plant, animal, insect, bacterial, etc.). Virtually any trait found in nature can [20], in principal, be transferred into any chosen organism. An organism modified by genetic engineering is called transgenic.

Specific applications of genetic engineering [21] are abundant and increasing rapidly in number. [22]

In 1891, the federal government assumed responsibility from the states [23] regulating immigration through the Immigration Act of 1891, which established the Office of Immigration (later the Bureau of Immigration) to administer immigration affairs. [24] It also appropriated money to build a new immigrant inspection station on Ellis Island. The Immigration Act assigned the Marine Hospital Service (later the Public Health Service) the responsibility of examining the health of immigrants entering the United States.

(1) A number of older buildings from the island’s time as a military post [25] were adapted for reuse. (2) Before construction of Ellis Island’s first immigration depot began, the island was doubled in size with landfill. (3) Ellis Island’s first immigration building, constructed of Georgia pine, opened on January 1, 1892. [26]

 Due to the economic depression at the time, immigration was [27] ceaseless and Ellis Island inspectors had no difficulty processing the fewer than 20,000 immigrants who arrived annually. On June 15, 1897, a fire destroyed the complex of wooden buildings.[28] 

The government announced almost immediately that Ellis Island would be rebuilt with fireproof buildings. The New York architectural firm of Boring and Tilton [29] were awarded the contract after a competition entered by five outstanding firms, including McKim, Mead & White.

The first building to be built was the new main immigration building, which opened on December 17, 1900. Following its completion, the kitchen and laundry and powerhouse buildings were [30] worked on in 1901 and the island was enlarged by landfill to make room for a hospital complex. In March of 1902, the main hospital building opened.[31] The hospital having the space and equipment to care for 125 patients but it was still not enough—the hospital was overwhelmed with patients diagnosed with trachoma, favus, and other contagious illnesses that warranted exclusion. Over the next seven years, additional buildings were added to the hospital complex [32] , including the Hospital Addition / Administration building the New Hospital Extension, and the Psychopathic Ward. [33] The island was also enlarged once more using landfill, which allowed for the construction of contagious disease hospital and isolation wards.  Later, additional support buildings were added.

A gene that keeps switchgrass forever young could have far-reaching [34] repercussions for the development of the plant as a biofuel crop, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists.

Inserting a specific gene called corngrass from corn into switchgrass essentially keeps the perennial grass in its juvenile form [35]a plant doesn’t flower, doesn’t produce seeds, and doesn’t have a dormant growth phase. [36] Because of these changes, the sugars [37] were making up the plant starch are more readily available for conversion into cellulosic ethanol.  

According to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) geneticist Sarah Hake, the starch in these transgenic plants [38] stay inside the stem because it isn’t needed elsewhere for nourishing flower buds and blossoms. [39] As a result, starch levels can increase as much as 250%, which increases the sugars that can be fermented into ethanol.

 Hake [40]  director of the ARS Plant Gene Expression Center in Albany CA teamed with University of California–Berkeley plant geneticist George Chuck to conduct this investigation. ARS is the USDA’s chief intramural scientifific research agency, and this work supports the USDA priority of developing new sources of bioenergy.

The scientists [41] seen that the leaves in the transgenic switchgrass are not nearly as stiff [42] like the leaves in switchgrass cultivars that haven’t been modified. In addition, they determined that leaf lignin is slightly different in the transgenic switchgrass than leaf lignin in other plants. This could lead to new findings on how to break down the sturdy lignin and release sugars for fermentation [43], a development that will be essential to the commercial production of cellulosic ethanol.

The researchers are now introducing DNA segments called genetic promoters that would “turn on” the expression of the corngrass gene in aboveground switchgrass shoots. This could help increase root mass development that otherwise would be inhibited by the gene. Hake and Chuck also suggest that developing nonflowering switchgrass varieties would eliminate the possibility of cross pollination between transgenic switchgrass cultivars [44] or other switchgrass cultivars.