The US rejected the idea of a treaty to ban autonomous robots with lethal arms.

I can imagine US officials thinking about the current US advantage in AI and concluding that unrestricted deployment of autonomous weapons would give the US an advantage in this decade, so (they might conclude) it is better to reject the treaty.

On the other hand, if 15 years from now China is in the lead in AI, having this treaty in place already would benefit the US against China.

Those short-term considerations are the wrong way to look at this question, because it is bigger than the narrow questions of short-term advantage. In the long term, this treaty will prevent a danger to all humans.

Military personnel at Pearl Harbor believe that jet fuel has leaked from tanks into their water supply, because the water looks, tastes and smells of oil. They suspect that it is related to various symptoms that many have developed.

The Navy has been warned about the danger from these tanks but didn't pay attention until now.

The coup in Sudan is not over: the military brought back the civilian prime minister, but only as a front man.

A large statistical study found that some pollutants affect the sex ratio of human babies.

It is inconceivable that that people who will have male babies would tend to move to places with certain pollutants, while those who will have female babies would tend to move to places with other pollutants. The pollutants must be causing the change in sex ratio, somehow. Most likely each of these pollutants is more likely to cause an abortion of one sex than the other.

We don't have any evidence about how far into the pregnancy these abortions tend to occur. If it is more than six weeks, some southern US states may someday try women for "feticide" if they live in places where such pollution is present.

*Ecuador's Highest Court Enforces Constitutional "Rights of Nature" to Safeguard Los Cedros Protected Forest.*

This demonstrates that countries can establish and defend broad protections for natural ecosystems, including broad prohibitions of actions that tend to damage them, without endorsing an appearance of animism by saying that forests, rivers, etc. are "persons".

The push for animism can be seen in that article, however, where it claims tat monkeys, bears, frogs and birds won this legal battle.