Obviously, there are senses in which economically developed nations can do more immoral things than less economically developed polities—if only because of the scale of atrocity that is technologically possible. !Kung San hunter-gatherers didn't build Auschwitz, and they didn't bomb Hiroshima. (No, I'm not equating the two, but I wouldn't say Harry Truman has been indisputably cleared of all moral charges, either.) However, if today you scan the horizon for places in which large numbers of people countenance killing other people on the basis of their race, religion, or nationality, those places, I submit, will tend disproportionately to be less developed nations, or at least nations with less globalized economies. In my view (as I've suggested), the reason is that a modern, globally interdependent economy naturally equates self-interest with intercultural, inter-ethnic, international tolerance (especially to the extent that all people within the economy share in its fruits). Is intercultural, inter-ethnic, international tolerance more "morally developed," less "primitive," than racism and chauvinism? Yes, I think so.