I am sick of people not including the United States on these lists. Sure, it can be improved. Sure, it's not all that peaceful. But it has contributed to humanity more than, say, Iceland. So have South Korea, Japan, and China. Before you start complaining about China, it never said anything about bad governments, and think about what would be different if China was erased from the map. South Korea is a leading medical country and has probably saved millions of lives with vaccinations. Japan has all these wonderful technologically advanced inventions and without that many of our everyday appliances would be unusable. Back to the United States: I find it absurd that countries such as Cyprus and Luxembourg have contributed to humanity more than the States, and think that maybe we should be easier on the States.
I understand your argument, but do check out the original list (http://www.goodcountry.org/overall). They specifically state why each country has the ranking they currently hold.
It would seem that this list looks only at the current situation, and not at past events, which explains Germany's high rank, and the relatively low rank of the United States. Fair enough. But might want to change the caveats which imply that this takes history into account.
It might also be that those countries had a longer time to accomplish what they have or have not. The USA, after all is only a couple hundred years old. Given the age of some of these other countries (where are Egypt and Iran?) they should actually have accomplished more.
Regarding the topic, here's an excerpt from the site:
"The Good Country Index doesn’t make moral judgments: it simply reports on each country’s external impacts, positive and negative, outside its own borders, using the most reliable data available.
The Good Country Index is one of many projects Simon Anholt has devised to start a global debate about what countries are for. Should they exist only to serve their own interests, or do they have a wider responsibility to humanity and the planet?"
I'm not saying Anholt's claims here can't be disputed (positive and negative are very much debatable) or that the topic isn't controversial, but I do think that from a quiz perspective it's an interesting puzzle to think about. There's even room for debate in the comments if people have opinions.
This is the new ranking, released January 2019
https://www.goodcountryindex.org/results
Regarding the topic, here's an excerpt from the site:
"The Good Country Index doesn’t make moral judgments: it simply reports on each country’s external impacts, positive and negative, outside its own borders, using the most reliable data available.
The Good Country Index is one of many projects Simon Anholt has devised to start a global debate about what countries are for. Should they exist only to serve their own interests, or do they have a wider responsibility to humanity and the planet?"
I'm not saying Anholt's claims here can't be disputed (positive and negative are very much debatable) or that the topic isn't controversial, but I do think that from a quiz perspective it's an interesting puzzle to think about. There's even room for debate in the comments if people have opinions.