, ,


( A six-minute read)

The idea that humans will always have a unique ability beyond the reach of non-conscious algorithms is just wishful thinking.

The fact is, as time goes by it will be easier and easier to replace humans with computer algorithms, not because they are getting smarter and smarter but because humans are professionalising.

One would have to say are we all such naive bonkers that we are going to allow algorithms dictate our lives.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

The answer so far appears to be yes. We are going to become militarily and economically useless.

Technical difficulties or political objections might slow down the algorithmic invasion of the job market but while the systems might need humans, it will not need individuals.

These systems will make most of the important decisions depriving individuals of their authority and freedom.

They are already assembling humans into dividuals ie. humans are becoming an assemblage of many different algorithms lacking a single inner voice or a single self.

Its time we realized that if we continue down this path allowing large corporations platforms to introduce algorithms willy nilly with no overall vetting as to whether they comply with our values we will be replacing the voter, the consumer, and the beholder.

The Al algorithm will know best, will always be right, and beauty will be in the calculation of the algorithm. Individualism will collapse and authority will shift from individual humans to autonomous networks.

People will not see themselves as individuals but as collections of biochemical mechanisms that are constantly monitored and guided by a network of electronic algorithms.

We are already crossing the line. Most of us use Apps without any thought whatsoever.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

You might say that every age has its organizing principles.

The nineteenth century had the novel, and the twentieth had TV; in our more modern times, they come and go more quickly than ever—on Web 1.0 it was the website, for example, and a few years later, for 2.0, it was the app.

And now, another shift is underway:

Today’s organizing principle is the algorithm. (Though you could productively argue that our new lingua franca will either be artificial intelligence or virtual reality.)

Algorithms rule the modern world, silent workhorses aligning data sets and systematizing the world. They’re everywhere, in everything, and you wouldn’t know unless you looked. For some of the most powerful companies in the world—Google, Facebook, etc.—they’re also closely held secrets, the most valuable intellectual property a company owns. 

Perhaps it is naïve to believe algorithms should be neutral? but it’s also deceptive to advance the illusion that Facebook and the algorithms that power it are bias-free.

They are not neutral.

Facebook is intended to be the home of what the world is talking about. Their business model depends on it, even if that’s an impossible goal. As such, with now well over a billion users, and still growing, it’s worth asking:

What role should Facebook play in shaping public discourse? And just how transparent should it be?

After all, Facebook is mind-boggling massive.

It accounts for a huge portion of traffic directed to news sites; small tweaks in its own feed algorithm can have serious consequences for media companies’ bottom lines.

What can be done? ( See previous posts)

Evolution will continue and will need to do so if we humans are to exist.

We therefore should welcome all technology that enhances our chances of this existence in as far that it equates to human values.

All Algorithms that violate these values for the sake of profit or power should be destroyed.

After all if humans have no soul and if thoughts, emotions, and sensations are just biochemical algorithms why can’t biology account for all the vagaries of human societies.?

If Donald Trump is the best that twitter Algorithms can produce it appears to me that there is a long way to go and it’s not too late to change course.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the beauty of the earth"

All human comments appreciated. All like algorithms clicks chucked in the bin.








This is the first post to this blog .

 The purpose of this blog is to start a world mobile phone movement to effect change by Uniting the combined Communication Powers of us all into one world voice that will have to be listened to by World Organizations  and World Corporations.

These days we are  served up doom and gloom daily with the last decade leading us down the path to disillusionment. 


September 11 tragedy now turned into a convenient Excuse for any anti-people legislation denying civil liberties worldwide. The Arab Spring is a quagmire>The Euro a nightmare >The Afghan War a needless lost of life>The Israel Palestine Question a dark cul-de-sac>NATO a war machine>The United Nations a gum shield between the west and the rest>China a supermarket>Climate change a trading commodity>Football a religion>Austerity a goal>Economic Growth an aspiration that no one seems to know how to achieve.


By the year 2030 there will be 50% more of us-6 million a month.

Humanity will have to put aside the deep divisions it has maintained for thousands of years.

Find a new spirit of human co- operation. Stop spending trillions on arms. One-fifth of the world’s present days population live in the “rich world” consuming 86% of the world’s goods. While over half the people on Earth live on 2$ a day with the absolute  poor on a !$ making up billions. Where is the justice that the gross domestic product of the poorest 48 Nations is less than the wealth of the World’s three riches people.

You don’t have to look far to see why we have Terrorism. Poverty and lack of Education spawns it.

While we turn back the evolutionary clock pumping 8 billion tons of Carbon into the Atmosphere each year wiping out 50,000 species a year in collective denial.

There can be no trade-off between economic development and the protection of the Environment Even if it is possible looking back from the Moon and see no trace of human activities that show up.

Our Democracies seem unable to achieve any progress such as mitigating climate change, better managing ecosystems, creating a fair global trading system. However we have the knowledge, the data and the technologies to do all of these things.

The question is not so much ” How could we have learned so little in all these years after two World Wars? But ” How could we have learned so much and done so little?

So it’s time to stop supporting large World Corporations and the like that don’t show a corporate social responsibility and use the power of getting Smart with our smart phones.

Any comments, suggestions, are welcome.  My next blog posting will out line a plan to create a World Aid Tax to be applied on all World stock Exchanges.



, , ,


(Thirty-five-minute read) 

” Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” John F. Kennedy

If you ask Google how many wars have they been in the world.

Here is the answer:

” Early humans could have fought wars that went unnoticed. Sources range from 100,000 to 300,000 WARS.”

Then if you look at and ask how many are current wars, on top of the list of the 40 active conflicts/ wars around the world at the moment, the Afghanistan conflict is number one, because of the letter A. 

You could not be blamed for wondering that after so many wars why it is in these modern days of interconnectivity other than the insanity of one or more leaders that causes wars. The boundary between rational and non-rational is fuzzy. There must exist incentives for conflict and some barriers to the ability to reach an enforceable bargain. 

The ideological change is both the most common cause of conflict and the root of most wars, but there is rarely only one cause of dispute.

Not only do we go to war we supply arms to the potential adversity. 

War is a better-known word in England that Afghanistan.

(According to Wikipedia,) The Kingdom of England has fought conflicts in 171 of the world’s 193 countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all countries. So it is not surprising to learn that the British invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1830s. 

You could say England has been at war from the Battle of Edgehill (October 1642) 

What do you define as a war? What do you define as the UK?

Take the nicely named Troubles in Northern Ireland – 30 years.

(The leftover of the Irish War of Independence 2 years has its origins in the 12th century when England invaded to create its first colony.)

As with all wars once they start the original reasons are eventually forgotten in the devastation inflicted. 

World war one started in 1914 after four years it left over 15 million people dead and set the stage for World war two six short years.

The Holocaust alone resulted in over 11 million people killed, 6 million of which were Jewish. Somewhere between 22 and 26 million men died in battle during the war. In the final act of the war, between 70,000 and 80,000 Japanese were killed when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years and 5 months.

The Falklands 10-week. 

The Gulf War six months was a war waged by coalition forces from 35 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait arising from oil pricing and production disputes.

The ongoing war of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with Israel established in 1948 continues to the present day on various levels.

Or the ongoing Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen now 22 years.

So here is what I have learned about the Afghan wars.

During the nineteenth century, two large European empires vied for dominance in Central Asia. In what was called the “Great Game,” the Russian Empire moved south while the British Empire moved north from its so-called crown jewel, colonial India.

Their interests collided in Afghanistan, resulting in the First Anglo-Afghan War of 1839 to 1842.

This resulted in a series of unsuccessful wars for the British to control Afghanistan, Bukhara, and Turkey. The British lost at all four wars — the First Anglo-Saxon War (1838), the First Anglo-Sikh War (1843), the Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848) and the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878) — resulting in Russia taking control of several Khanates including Bukhara.

Following this great victory over the British, Afghanistan maintained its independence and continued to play the two European powers off of each other for three more decades.

Soviet-Afghan War.

Afghanistan is not called the “graveyard of empires” for nothing.

The Soviet-Afghan War lasted over nine years, from December 1979 to February 1989. Insurgent groups are known collectively as the mujahideen, as well as smaller Maoist groups, fought a guerrilla war against the Soviet Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan government, mostly in the countryside. The mujahideen groups were backed primarily by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, making it a Cold War proxy war. Between 562,000 and 2,000,000 civilians were killed and millions of Afghans fled the country as refugees, mostly to Pakistan and Iran.

More than nine years of direct involvement and occupation.

On April 27, 1978, a Soviet-supported communist government took over the country with the first Soviet deployment into Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. They had President Amin put to death because he was talking to the Yanks and installed their own leader, President Babrak Karmal.

The Soviets resorted to using napalm, poison gas and helicopter gunships against the Mujahideen – but they experienced exactly the same military scenario the Americans had done in Vietnam. 

In the years that followed, more than 870,000 Afghans were killed, three million were maimed or wounded, a million were internally displaced and over five million were forced to flee the country.

It became a source of embarrassment for the Soviet Union as the Mujahideen (a guerilla force on a holy mission for Allah) would come down from the mountains in the summer with US-supplied Stinger missiles and after around 13,000 Soviet troops were killed the Russian had had enough with the country becoming one of the poorest nations in the world. 

By 1982 some 2.8 million Afghans had sought asylum in Pakistan, and another 1.5 million had fled to Iran. The Soviets suffered some 15,000 dead and many more injured. 1988 the Soviet Union signed an accord with the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and agreed to withdraw its troops.

Mikhail Gorbachev took the U.S.S.R. out of Afghanistan.

Men start growing beads and destroy all non-islamic idols and statues- al-Qaid. 

By the end of the 1980s, the Mujahideen was at war with itself in Afghanistan with hard-line Taliban fighters. The word Taliban means “students”

By 1982, the Mujahideen controlled 75% of Afghanistan despite fighting the might of the world’s second most powerful military power.

On 25 April 1992, a civil war had ignited between three, later five or six, mujahideen armies, which escalated into another full-blown conflict. By mid-1994, Kabul’s original population of two million had dropped to 500,000. In 1995–96, the new militia Taliban, supported by Pakistan and ISI, had grown to be the strongest force.

On September 2001 the 9/11 terrorist attack which the USA believed that Osama Bin Laden head of al-Qaida was the behind the attacks. The United States began bombing Afghanistan and 10 years later kill Osama.

As of August 2016, about 104,000 people have been killed in the war in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 31,000 being civilians.

With the rising of ISIS in Afghanistan, the country was plunged into a new humanitarian emergency and Afghans into a new internally displacement and the refugee crisis.

Since invading in 2001, the United States has poured more than $117 billion into Afghanistan.

The war has enjoyed bipartisan support from the beginning. Bush launched it. Obama began his administration approving a “surge” of 30,000 troops for what he called the “good war.”  

The United States went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks to get bin Laden, quash Al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for harbouring them. Bin Laden is dead; Al Qaeda has metastasized across the region; the Taliban have been hunted for 16 years.

Now there is no clear vision of where we’re headed.

A blank check to wage war anywhere, any time, for any length, 

To me it is quite clear with Trump “where we’re headed”—to more years of endless war without victory, wasting more lives ensnared in a war with no exit. 

So the situation isn’t complicated:

The origins of opium date as far back at 3400 B.C

There is enough opium production in Afghanistan (something the US was never truly capable of controlling or suppressing.) to ensure that the current war ends in a dream-like state and armed nation-building does not work.

Forty years might seem a long time but its nothing compared to wars back in the days when wars lasted from anything up to 700 years.

So here are few brewing for the future. 

The U.S.A. vs. Iran.


Because of Donal Trump re-election. His inability to learn from Vietnam or Afghan that military power will mean little when drawing into a decades-long guerrilla war with factions of the Iranian regime.

Egypt vs. Ethiopia.


Because the Ethiopia Blue Nile dam is 60% completed…

Iran vs. Saudi Arabia.


Because the collapse of Lebanon, the Arab Spring, the Yemen civil war, and the Qatari blockade are all significant global geopolitical events spawned by tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are already engaged in numerous proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and as time goes on this list is only set to grow in size. 

North Korea vs. the U.S.A.


Because North Korea operates as a military dictatorship,

Russia vs. NATO.


Because Nato needs to justify its existence. 

The Irish have always been noted for a complete disregard for time.

Venezuelan Civil War.
Because it is safe to say things are not going too well in Venezuela.

South China Sea War.


Because it is home to 10% of the world’s fisheries and tens of billions of barrels of oil.

Amazon Apps ves Humanity 


Because we were too lazy and gave away all of our data. 

Climate War.


Because this could very well be the catalyst to end all wars. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 
















, , , ,



(Thirty-minute read)


It is widely assumed by the general public that humanity is “progressing” and that we are better both physically and mentally than our predecessors were. Of course, this is true for some of us but for 6 billion of us on 2$ a day I doubt they would agree.

A person’s conception of truth is deeply intertwined with their conception of reality and truth isn’t actually divorced from reality. Science is dependent on truthfulness.

Few of us these day’s has the time or resources to check all of the news we confront on a daily basis. Instead, we rely on other methods of assessing truth, but can we or should we trust the source?

As the saying goes, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

In a world where facts are under siege, credentialed sources are proving more important than ever.

We are getting our news from platforms, run by Facebook, Google, Twitter, Messanger,  etc including other social media sites and search engines, but can we place our trust in those platforms.

The profession of undermining truth has been in existence for decades. For much of recorded history, the truth was rooted in scholasticism now it’s rooted in a capitalist haze where political correctness and social justice including warfare have descended from the ivory tower of the rich infiltrating tech, business, healthcare, and governments.

The quest for facts these days is now governed by disinterested Google algorithms that trade us, accuracy for efficiency, creating a “spiral of silence,” in which everyone believes that everyone else believes something but no one actually believes it.

It seems that we accept truthiness instead of requiring truth.

As a result, humankind is losing mental capacity to know the truth and we are living in an era of rationality inequality.

For example, voters act on issues that don’t affect them personally and are under no pressure to inform themselves or defend their positions.

People vote as if rooting for sports teams, encouraged by the media, which treat politics as a horse race, encouraging zero-sum competition rather than a clarification of character and policy.

So what is happening?

History is littered with the bending or inverting of truth by people in power has long been consequential, so the recent prominence of “fake news.”  is not a new development. The belief that fake news is displacing the truth itself needs to be examined for its truth.

The implication is that we may as well give up on reason and truth and just fight the bad guys’ lies and intimidation with lies and intimidation of our own.

“Social media.”

Not long ago many intellectuals deplored the lack of democratic access to mass media.

Now a few media corporations, in cahoots with the government, “manufactured consent” with their oligopoly over the means of production and dissemination of ideas.

We used to say, freedom of the press belongs to those who own, one no longer true.

Social Media with it’s like algorithms are now fueling, accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia that can be weaponized: since everyone reviles these bigotries, they can be used to demonize adversaries, which in turn spreads a terror of being demonized. It has become the place where one can express heterodox opinions without fear of being silenced or fired.

A network of pluralistic ignorance enforced by denunciation mobs.

So when it comes to intolerant repression of non-leftist ideas, don’t blame the Millennials or the iGens because unregulated Social Media is now blazing out of control abetted in part by government subsidies and lack of will to regulate.

People gravitating to people who are like them.

Social media held out the promise of giving a voice to the people, unfortunately, is making us dumber.

It is true to say that the network dynamics of social media are still poorly understood, but they do not yet host the mechanisms of vetting and reviewing that are necessary for true beliefs to bubble up to prominence from the turbid pools of self-presentation, group solidarity, and pluralistic ignorance.

We project the best sides of our lives through social media but revile real vulnerability.

So we are living in a post-truth world” true?

If your answer is “yes” then the answer is “no” because you’ve just evaluated the statement in an evidentiary manner, so evidence still matters and facts still matter.

But humans are fundamentally irrational – No.

If humans were truly irrational, who specified the benchmark of rationality against which humans don’t measure up? How did they conduct the comparison? Why should we believe them? Indeed, how could we understand them?

We did not evolve with the truth-augmenting technologies that have been invented in recent millennia and centuries, such as writing, quantitative datasets, scientific methodology, and specialized expertise. We evolved with the reality of the thought of what is true.

We don’t believe in reason; we use reason but as soon as you try to argue that we should believe things by any route other than reason, you’ve lost the argument, because you’ve appealed to reason.

That is why a defence of reason is unnecessary, perhaps even impossible. The very fact that one is examining the validity of reason shows that one is committed to reason.

This is the point where it gets somewhat complicated.

We build mental models of the world around us that allow us to explain, predict, and control things to our advantage.

Algorithms know this by monitoring our lives and consultancy firms that specialize in defending products from tobacco to industrial chemicals that harm the public (that have and are with us since the dawn of Capitalism) are manipulating the market place for profit while ensuring that the truth stays buried.

So our reasoning is contaminated by false news.

Social media is a major source of these falsehoods coupled with peculiarities in human behaviour on social media, make it easy for fake news to spread. Twitter, Facebook you name them.

“Political” fake news spread three times faster than other kinds, and the top 1 per cent of retweeted fake news regularly diffused to at least 1,000 people and sometimes as many as 100,000.

Out of all of the news you see reported, how much of it do you believe is made up or fake news?

Around 40% with 70% per cent more likely than true news to receive a retweet.

While the political repercussions of fake news are quite obvious, the phenomenon it depends on how the information is presented and how rationality is defined.

The powers of inference for example.

Rational inference, scepticism, and debate are in our nature but set against false news that is normalizing the production of alternative facts are a project long in the making.

Politicians—two in particular—lies a lot. But politicians have always lied. They say that in war, truth is the first casualty, and that can be true of political war as well.


Why is the truth important?

We all need to know the truth if we want to be able to behave rationally.

Spreading disinformation here, hiding evidence of harm there, undermining authorities evidence can change people’s minds. Internet discussion groups, in which these ideas harden and grow more extreme in the absence of critical engagement.

Group loyalty is an underestimated source of irrationality in the public sphere, especially when it comes to politicized scientific issues like evolution and climate change.

Forecasting is no longer the dark art of pundits, gurus, it is big data and everyday fact-checking with Google has and is been revolutionized.

When people are confronted with their own ignorance of the facts, they become more epistemically humble about their opinions.

Unwelcome news is automatically rebranded fake news.

In the end, we are mere mortals but has the day of rationality-promoting norms and institutions passed?

The causes are complex, but it’s exhausting to live in a society where asking for help equals failure.

“Life before Google.”

Nothing can reverse the damage that has been done during our own generation, and some of this regression in truthfulness in the last 50 years is a paradoxical byproduct of the fantastic progress, we have made inequality.

From climate breakdown to air and water pollution, Co2 emissions, natural disasters,  the spread of the coronavirus virus, ongoing wars, our media watchdogs that don’t know what they are watching only using them to boost their viewing ratings.

Something important about the way we conceive of truth in our daily lives is needed if we are to tackle the difficulty assessing the reliability of the information that we find on the internet.

To achieve this these platforms with profit-seeking algorithms need to put their money where their mouths are.

Considering the technological boom are humans becoming smarter or more stupid?

The art of creating scientific disinformation is now at a new level of the tricks reanalysing results to reach different conclusions and hiring people prepared to rig methodologies to produce funders’ desired result.

The truth of history constitutes its whole value.

Enriching a favoured few at the expense of the great majority of mankind will be the last lie. The inconvenient truths will inevitably come to light.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.


The films served to both promote products and a vision of America undergirded by chemicals and synthetic materials. We learn the industry was proud to produce insecticides, PCBs, vinyl and other materials and toxins later identified as environmental toxins.



, , ,



(Fifteen-minute read) 

We may die out as a species for one reason or another, but evolution is inevitable so there will be a change in the future. We are not done evolving yet, so it begs the question of what could Homo sapiens really become – and what is forever beyond our reach?

We were fish once, and now we eat fish for dinner!

Humankind has come a long way from a single cell floating in the ocean waters, we have managed to become the multi-cellular wonders of nature that we are today.

However, evolution doesn’t have a direction, it’s confined are of this ecosystem called Earth which decides in the long run which direction if any it goes in. 

Skull D2700 discovered in 2001 at Dmanisi in Georgia is held by museum staff as they prepare it for an exhibition in Netherlands

Future humans might be very different from people today but not in the way science fiction movies would lead you to think.

Combining knowledge of our past with current trends, we are entering a new phase in human evolutionary history—one that makes the future less predictable and more interesting than ever before.


Evolution and natural selection are not the same things.

Evolution refers to the relationship between a species (a breeding population) and its ever-changing environment. Evolution does not concern what individuals may think it is the gradual genetic change of a species over time.

Natural selection is the phenomenon that rewards certain advantageous traits and punishes others through better or worse survival or reproduction. Medical science and public health measures have enabled the developed world to escape most natural selection.  

Right now most of us are the sacrificial generation.

In nature, natural selection is the most powerful evolutionary force, but other factors may take over when technology grants a second chance to those who would have died. 

Consequently, even with a complete lack of natural selection, it doesn’t mean that humans will not evolve. It is a selective force that clearly has shaped human evolution in recent centuries and may still be doing so today with the Coronavirus.

 With the Viruses, natural selection may not be “over for humans.”

This set aside we are more than likely going to have to adapt to climate change’s, to technologies like Biotechnology involving living systems and organisms to develop or make products.

Technology is already affecting the way our memory works and humans may eventually reach a point where they can force evolution upon themselves through the use of technology.Will our descendants be cyborgs? © Daniel Haug/Getty

We now have genetic samples of complete genomes from humans around the world, and with geneticists are getting a better understanding of genetic variation and how it’s structured in a human population environmental factors are no longer the driving force for evolutionary change.

We’ve all heard of designer babies, perhaps in the future, it may be seen as unethical not to change certain genes.

The human race will one day split into two separate species one more advanced than the other.

Races, as normally understood, would still be a thing, but with two separate species that will probably still call themselves human, even if they are technically different from those before them.

Of course, we don’t know this for sure but consider it’s not really a biological question anymore, it’s a technological question it is not beyond conceptuality that humans will not evolve into a single, ubiquitous ethnic group.

However, there is also a risk that current society collapses and some new society arises with ideas of eugenesy or breading races of superhumans and slaves.

One species with hi-tech machine implants, growable limbs and cameras for eyes even with different facial features and skin colour and external aids entirely responsible for survival.

A collective thought consciousness. Thought could be converted into instant gratification, and consequences to misusing it controlled by AI.

Computers will punish you! 

The human brain, being a machine striving for maximum efficiency, typically remembers where information is stored, rather than the information itself but as technology becomes more and more advanced, our brains will adapt in order to maximize efficiency – perhaps to the detriment of our memory.

Nanomachines would be part of the human form.

People could download their being into a computer system and be a part of the AI collective.

We will no longer operate within the confines of survival of the fittest. 

There is still going to be selection but artificial selection, so its no surprise that much technological advancement is currently aimed at the human body.

Up to now, sexual selection has defined evolutionary paths.

This will become less and less with gene editing with many of our internal functions becoming obsolete and what we might see is differentiation along lines where people live.

And what about space?

If humans do end up colonising Mars, what would we evolve to look like?

With the lower gravity, the muscles of our bodies could change the structure. Should we spend too long as galactic explorers, it’s likely that we’d eventually lose most of our muscle mass?

“What once use to be a magic flute will become a water carrier.”

So if we survive climate change humans will not evolve just for reproduction.

Whether it is genetically enhanced humans, bionic men, or uploaded beings, technology and its advancement with our decisions will shape the future of Earth and its inhabitants, including ourselves.

It will certainly be shaping human development. Bio to Artificial transmission with no inoculations.

Google Brain / Health or Microsoft Health vaults.

However, the future might be a lot slower than we think. It will take thousands of years for us to develop technologies that allow us to colonize the solar system.

If we do manage to move to other worlds, it’s likely that we’ll need to adapt to them using a combination of genetic engineering and technology.

All these changes may mean that Homo sapiens will speciate, or evolve into multiple new species. It will mean that our progeny have survived, even if they are nothing like us.

If we consumed most of the planet’s resources in doing so that is not evolution; that is the road to extinction.

CNBC Tech: Apple Watch  2

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin 




























, , , , ,


(Eighteen-minute read)

The word came from the “prairie populists”, a 1890s movement of US farmers who supported more robust regulation of capitalism.

“But no one is clear what it is.”

We can’t really talk about populism without talking about our conflicting conceptions of democracy – and the question of what it truly means for citizens to be sovereign.

So is it an ideologically portable way of looking at politics as a forum for opposition between “people” and “elites”?

Or is it simply part of what it means to do politics?

Or is it a lens for looking at our politics?

Or a mode of talking about politics, rather than a set of beliefs?

Or is it an emerging political movement driven by technology, spread by social media, the smartphone and ruled by algorithms.

There is one thing for certain populism is inherent to democracy.

So it would be in the first place a massive mistake, considering the hollow, undemocratic mess we are in, with algorithms making decisions about our collective fate – outside the reach of politics, to ignore its power.

If one looks at the state of liberal democracy today it is becoming more and more a sham.  A nice-sounding set of universal principles that, in practice, end up functioning as smokescreens to normalise the exploitations and inequities of our capitalist system.

Nothing can stay depoliticised forever. The questions of populism would have little urgency were it not for the widespread agreement about the shortcomings of the political status quo: About the abyss between the shining ideals of equality and responsive government implied by our talk about democracy and the tarnished reality of life on the ground.

Populism is supposed to explain: Brexit, Trump, Viktor Orbán’s takeover of Hungary, the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, even Putin.

However, neither Trump nor Brexit should be regarded primarily as populist phenomena.

His election and Brexit shows that every status quo – however sturdy – is only temporary, and can always be challenged by a movement that seeks to replace it with something new.

Populists consider themselves as victims of economic exploitation, anti-austerity movements – such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, and Occupy these movements are obviously animated by a sense of opposition.

From this perspective, populism is just another word for real politics.

On the other hand, what most people knew about these parties, at first, was that they were openly nativist and racist. They talked about “real” citizens of their countries, and fixated on the issue of national and ethnic “purity,” demonising immigrants and minorities.

But I say that there are no real populists in politics – just people, attitudes and movements that the political centre misunderstands and fears.

The question of populism, then, is always the question of what kind of democracy we want.

The only inherent connection between rightwing and leftwing populist movements is that both embrace the same fundamental truth about democracy: that it is an ever-shifting contest over how the default “we” of politics is defined and redefined, of which no one definition can be guaranteed to last.

When populism appears in the media, which it does more and more often now, it is typically presented without explanation, as if everyone can already define it.

It sounded less alarming than “extreme right” or “radical right”.

It will always live in the shadow of the muddled media and political discourse and there can no longer be any doubt that we are going through a populist moment, so which type of populist you want to be.

A liberal democracy populism that is forced by rightwing populism to make good on its promises of equality. That needs to reacquaint with the need to construct a democratic “we” – a people – around their demand to protect liberal institutions and procedures, in opposition to radical rightwing parties who are happy to see them discarded.

Liberal democracy, in this context, has almost nothing to do with contemporary distinctions between left and right. It refers, instead, to the idea that government should facilitate pluralistic coexistence by balancing the never fully attainable ideal of popular sovereignty with institutions that enshrine the rule of law and civil rights, which cannot easily be overturned by a political majority.


A populism that can never be disentangled from the concept’s pejorative baggage.  An ideology runs the risk of making effective and worthwhile political strategies seem irresponsible, even dangerously promoting nativisms and short term gains.

Obviously, there are leftwing and rightwing populisms both are motivated not by passion for populism’s core ideas, but by other ideological factors best described as a fuzzy blanket to camouflage nastier nativism.

We are now living through a time when familiar webs connecting citizens, ideologies and political parties are, if not falling apart, at least beginning to loosen and shift and old theories of populism that defined it specifically as rightwing, racist or anti-immigrant is insufficiently wide to describe these new developments in populist politics.

It seems to me that Populists deal in “simplicity,” in “glib, facile solutions” while liberal leaders have been “oblivious” to the sufferings of their people.

So why are the traditional parties of the left in the western world being defeated?

Because the other side doesn’t play fair any more with conflict an inescapable and defining feature of political life.

The juvenile incapacity of both to bring their preferences to the political arena and engage in the complex give-and-take of rational compromise is with Social Media now fraught with a political examination and association accusation and assassination.

With the impersonal forces, of “globalisation” and “technological change voters are deciding that mainstream political parties have done nothing for their static incomes or disappearing jobs or sense of national decline these past two decades.

The “many, not the few.”

Populism is a new, consensus-smashing thing that is now secondary to nativism. Ultimately, they are disputes about which types of politics make us suspicious, and why.

To conclude that the two camps are simply talking past each other would be to miss the extent to which they are in agreement –and what, taken together, they tell us about the current political moment.

We can never know exactly where democracy is going to take us – not this time, nor the next, nor the time after that, but political parties must come to terms that the elephant in the room is that we no longer vote once every five years we vote on Social media ever five minutes.

Unless politics is not achievable, or rewarding, it obviously is sowing the long-term seeds for discontent.

It’s great to see politicians with Twitter accounts but there’s only so much you can do with that. Online participation in local decision-making is possible.

Failing to practice what you preach has ethical and political costs. E-voting is the next step.

Here below is what they are voting on and its not Fifty Shades of Grey Popularism.



Capitalist greed has and is poisoning political life.

Unregulated Algorithms will ensure it continues to do so.  Combined with the new realities of the portability of populism’s ideological movements spread by social media it is no wonder that liberal democracy is crumbling around the world.

To keep up with algorithms and their lavishly detailed position papers, their leaders,  Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Mircosoft, and their inc have little personal sympathy any longer with the travails of working people.

We can only hope that the fear of populism on the left will enable the victory of populism of the right.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.



, , , , ,


 Twenty four-minute read.   

We have no idea how the world will look in twenty years never mind fifty when most of this generation will be in their seventies but it is now becoming clear beyond any doubt that AI and its algorithms are drastically changing the world we live in both for the good and bad.

There is one thing for certain artificial intelligence will have and is having a more profound effect than electricity or fire. 

It will not just hack our lives our brains, it will hack or very existence.

It might well warn us about climate change, the coronavirus but it will as it is manipulate our needs and wants and beliefs. It will effectively be controlling people for both commercial and political purposes. 

Given the force of this technology to have any control left we need meaningful regulations, if not we might as well just surrender to the algorithm, which is becoming so complex that no one will understand them.

The reality is that most of us are giving rivers of free information to Big data to an extent that we will soon be unable to think for ourselves.

If we don’t get a grip by the time you reach the seventies your futures and the future of the next generations will be decided at random by nonelected platforms.  

If this is so, the decision-making process for us all become a thing of the past.

The outlook for Ai is both grim and exciting. 

Already we see data collected affecting elections, with our ability to know what is fake and what is true at the mercy of Social Media run by algorithms.  

We all know their faces: Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Baidu in China, Twitter, Alibaba, to name a few who are already transforming the basic structure of life.

Taken together they form a global oligopoly.

These unregulated platforms are competing for dominance all with a conflict of interests. Hence their algorithms.

The chances of self introducing regulations that will affect or stop their development is pie in the sky. 

Its time we stopped thinking about AI in kind of scientific terms.


Because algorithms are making critical decisions about our lives and the tech-driven approach to governance is growing. Because any particular scenario will be far from what we think is true today and we are running out of time to do anything about it.

If we are to call a spade a spade there is no or little understanding as to how to regulate these emerging technologies.  Even if there were governments and world institutions that could do so they are largely unequipped to create and enforce any meaningful regulation for the public benefit.

 The problem is how does one regulate an Algorithm that learns. 

You might happy ceding all authority to algorithms and their owners if so you don’t have to do anything they will take care of everything.

If not algorithms are watching you right now to ensure that you do not read this post and if you do read this post they will use one of the most powerful tools in their arsenal of big data – split and divide – False News and repetition thereof for example. 

It won’t happen overnight since development cycles often take years but our collective past will become a less reliable guide and we will have to adapt to the unknown. 

Unfortunately teaching the unknown without mental balance is a disaster in waiting. 

It might be easy now to laugh at this but unless we make our voices heard instead of like clicks it will not be climate change that changes us but race bias that is already programmed into Tec world.

We’re starting to see money examples where these algorithms are prone to the kinds of biases and limitations that we see in human decision making and increasingly we are moving towards algorithms that are learning more and more from data.

 I say, learning from this data almost institutionalizes the biases.


Because they are trying to personalize the media they curate for us. They’re trying to find for us more and more of the kinds of content that we already consume.  

So what if anything can be done?

Even if we do eventually introduce regulations they will have little effect unless we find a way of sharing the benefits of AI.

The problem is that our institutions, our education models are not able to keep up with the developments in Artificial Intelligence. We are becoming more and more detached from and in decision making, contributing, and rewards.

So our governments are leaving it to the market, to the big Tec companies themselves.

If you are expecting some kind of warning when AI finally get smarter than us then think again.

I say our algorithms are hanging out with the wrong data, profit for profit sake. 

In reality, our electronic overlords are just getting started with the smartphone, the I.Pads, Alex etc taking control.  We have to think about other measures, like is there a social contribution, and what is the impact of this algorithm on society?

This requires transparency.

But how do you create transparency in a world that is getting so complex?

Here is my solution.

Pharmaceuticals are considered as the most highly regulated industries worldwide and every country has its own regulatory authority when it comes to the drug development process.

(World Health Organization (WHO), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are some of the international regulatory agencies and organizations which play essential role in all aspects of pharmaceutical regulations related to drug product registration, manufacturing, distribution, price control, marketing, research and development, and intellectual property protection.)

Why not put in place a new World Governing Body to test and control Al algorithms. To act as a guardian of our Basic Human Values.

If this is not done it will remain impossible to truly cooperate with an AI or a corporation until such entities have values in the same sense that we do.


All Companies already using algorithms should be legally required to submit the software programs running their algorithms for audit, by an independent team to ensure that our human values are complied with.

This audit could be done by a United Nation’s programme that is agreed to world wide.

The audit process (Because algorithms are constantly evolving as they gather more data.) has to be somewhat continuous like every ten years similar to Control technique. We might also need an algorithm to monitor the auditing algorithm to ensure it is not contaminated while it goes through its refresh-cycle of the Algorithm it is auditing. 

Then they must be made transparent with a certification of acceptable behaviour.   

Transparency for end users actually is very basic.

It’s not like an end-user wants to know the inner details of every algorithm we use.

But we would actually benefit knowing what’s going on at the high level.

For example, what kinds of data are being used by the algorithms to make decisions?

Recommend transparency measures.

Keeping in mind that these algorithms are being deployed and used by humans, and for humans, anyone impacted by decisions made by algorithms should have the right to a description of the data used to train them, and details as to how that data was collected.

The public, have little understanding or access to information about how governments are using data, much of it collected quietly, to feed the algorithms that make decisions about everyday life. And, in an uncomfortable twist, the government agencies themselves often do not fully understand how algorithms influence their decisions.

Having more and more data alone will not solve the problems, gender bias, race bias.

Perhaps the notion of control may only be an illusion.

It won’t be long before they are latching on to life forms.  For example, there’s a type of machine learning algorithm known as neuro labs, and these are modelled on the human brain. What’s happening in these algorithms is they’ve taken lots of data, and they learn how to make decisions like humans have made.

I think this field hasn’t yet emerged.

Humans aren’t changing that much. But the algorithms, the way they’re created, the technological side of it, continues to change, continues to evolve. And trying to keep those things in sync seems to be the greatest challenge.

In a world where algorithms are deciding who gets what, how machine decisions are made, and how the two, can work together.

Because we are going to use these systems so much that we have to understand them at a deeper level, and we can’t be passive about it anymore because the consequences are very significant, whether we’re talking about a democracy or you know, I’m curating news stories for citizens, or we talking about use by doctors in medicine, or used in the courtroom, and so on.

It is going to be extremely important as we roll out algorithms in more and more important settings going forward we start understanding what drives trust in these machines. Understanding what are some socially important outcomes of interest, so that we order these algorithms against these socially important outcomes, like fairness and so on.

Given everything we know about the world and indeed the universe as a whole does anyone seriously believe that nationalism and popularism will help us with this technological problem. 

Let’s talk about what data are collected about us.

It is far too late to be talking about privacy that is what gets abused.

Let’s fight against everything that we can control that limits our freedom. Whether it’s an algorithm, hungry judge or greedy state backed the wrong econometric model…

We need to rethink how we do education, we have to rethink how we do regulation, and firms also need to stand up and do a better job of auditing and taking responsibility as well.

Of course, none of this will happen.

Humans are more likely to be divided between those who favour giving Algorithms and Ai significant authority to make decisions and those opposed to it with both justifying whichever position while Algorithmic logic drives greed and inequality to a point where we will lose control of transparency completely.

To stay relevant as Yuval Noha Harari says in his Book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century “we will need to be asking the questions -how am I where am I.”

There testing rarely go beyond technical measures which are causing society to become more polarized making it more unlikely that we can appreciate other viewpoints.

Just knowing that an algorithm made the decision would be a good place to start.

Was an algorithm used?

If so who does it belong to?

What kinds of data did the algorithm used?

Today, algorithms and artificial intelligence are creating a much more frightening world. High-frequency trading algorithms already rule the stock exchanges of the world.

Personally, I would neither overestimate nor underestimate the role and threat of algorithms. Behind every smart web service is some smarter web code.

So we need to make sure their design is not only informed by knowledge of the human users, but the knowledge of their design is also suitably conveyed to human users so we don’t eliminate the human from the loop completely.

If not they will become a black box, even to the engineer.

All our lives are constrained by limited space and time, limits that give rise to a particular set of problems that are being exploited by profit-seeking algorithms. 

There’s so much data out there to be analyzed. And right now it’s just sitting there not doing anything. So maybe we can come up with a solution that will at least get us started on it.

It is a fascinating topic because there are so many variables involved.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 






























































(Four-minute read)

We are all guilty of hypocrisy in our lives and will continue to be, but there is no excuse for practising it on a historical scale.

A ‘wet’ and overprice country situated on an island in North-Western Europe that was for over forty years a superficial member of the EU will now be eternally sorry about Brexit. (A word they invented, then voted for in the same way that one might knock over a milk bottle.)

“Mad dog and English men come out in the noonday sun” so today the 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT can only be described as one of those national “whoops” moments, so ironic and so painfully British.

The Bulldog runs with its tail between its legs.

Perhaps the only uniting element in the UK is the weather, useful only in that it influences every daily decision and can be blamed for just about everything, even 1066.

(Since most of them – the British – are foreign, particularly the aristocrats, many of whom owe their lands and titles to the events of 1066, the date at which foreignness began in Britain.)

If the British seems complex it’s because they don’t know each other too well. Things take a lot of time to be understood and actioned, upon, sometimes, decades.

Culturally diverse, great inventors, a nation is deeply divided, by region, country and class unless it is threatened (Ironically, the British love the nations that they invaded, particularly those that retain the Queen’s head on their stamps) are now after two world wars to create peace in Europe and the world turning their backs to return to 800-year-old book of democracy the Magna Carta which was recently saved by two Americans.

From the “Sunshine Empire to Shrinking Nation” a disunited kingdom, then, can seem a little obtuse with their national identity now on a weak wicket.

In a world that must come together to tackle its problems, its departure from the European Union can only be described as pathic.

In a world that is not immunity to external factors, that is “Paradoxical and contradictory” a stiff upper lip has no place nor does tea and crumpets with an American comes first.

In a country that invented the national lottery, enabling poor people (those who buy lottery tickets) to fund sportspeople where someone says and what he or she actually means is often the complete opposite or very difficult to decipher.

We can only hope that the 71% of 18-24-year-olds who voted to stay in the EU come of age to engage and actively reform the EU.

To realize that a Nigel Farage waving a tiny Union Jack plastic flag is all the man ever was.

He couldn’t quite make it to the end of the EU parliament’s debate on the EU withdrawal agreement. “There is a battle going on, in the west and elsewhere. It is globalism against populism. And you may loathe populism, but I’ll tell you a funny thing, it’s becoming very popular” he told them.

“Many people will argue that it is time to accept Brexit.

I disagree: now is the time, to tell the truth about it and populism which has short-term gratification at its heart.

As Remainers, we have an obligation not to fear the future, but to shape it.

The EU is a project that not only brings prosperity but also brings unity and peace through collaboration and intercultural dialogue. It has given us a common inheritance and common purpose and established a reciprocal obligation between all of its citizens.

It is a united Europe built upon, not only an economic market but also on shared ideals; a political space in which to strive for social and economic justice.

The EU will continue to be that beacon, even after the UK has left it.

“A politician thinks of the next election. A Statesman of the next generations.” Micheal Collins.

Unfortunately, the world is lacking Statesmanship.

Being fond of their myths British roots now belong to only monarchy and nowhere for themselves.

It is not the leaving or joining of anything that we need, it is regulation of who owns us- AI algorithms or us.

Footnote: Negotiations on a trade deal were helped inversely last night with a BBC program called Travels in Euroland with Ed Balls, a former cabinet minister, highlighting the Right-wing parties in Europe.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.







(Twenty-minute read)

When it comes to negotiating we all negotiate in notable different ways.

By definition negotiating involves conflict.

It would be complacent to think that either Mr Johnson or the EU will be pushovers.

However, the nature of Brexit will ultimately be decided by the governments of the 27 remaining EU nations and the UK.

So if we look at the present rhetoric on both sides what will be the tactics?

The Uk rhetoric is that because we have been members of the EU for the last four decades a new bilateral relationship with the UK should not be difficult to complete.

The signs of that happening are not promising with Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, setting out a sequence with the first phase of talks to include only goods and fishing.

Therefore it stands to reason that a trade deal cannot be concluded quickly for obvious reasons.

With no such thing fast-track deal, the negotiations on both sides will have to find a way to extend the transition period.

And the longer the negotiations go on despite Johnson’s wish to de-dramatise the negotiations, they will inevitably hit turbulence with a domino-like effect on both sides.

As for tactics the EU has hard power and will deploy it to pursue its interests and safeguard itself when faced with an existential threat like a tax haven on its doorstep.

These negotiations are for the UK to achieve a continuing relationship with the EU, not the other way around.

The UK will be accommodated but never prioritised above the collective

the interest of the EU.

So both sides will start with extreme positions, ignoring deadlines, making small concessions to establish a relationship.

Because the UK power position is lower relative to the EU it is extremely likely that the EU will set deadlines. Take it or leave it.

Without deadlines accurately communicating becomes more difficult across the European Union.

Why should the EU deploy a take it or leave timeline?

Because people from different cultures within the EU perceive, interpret and evaluate not just the EU but the world differently.

So we have a single-culture against multicultural EU. The very reason it took so long for England to join the EU in the first place and now the very reason its departure will also take time.

Self – Interest against collective interest.

Through the eyes of the UK asking for the moon, the EU will have to ask the following questions.

What do they want? What is important to them? Who has the power? What is at stake? What is the time frame? What is their bottom line? What is the best alternative to a negotiated solution?  Should the negotiations take place in a neutral location? Who should be present at the negotiations? Should the press be present?

Nobody known’s (or even now knows) what agreement, if any, will be reached.

The combination of uncertainty about the outcome with minimal time for adjustment is grotesquely irresponsible.

One way or the other in getting to yes the EU will end up with a more distant relationship with the UK with both sides inventing options for mutual gain.

Is the UK going to abandon current regulations over the environment, product standards, financial soundness and so forth?

If it is the strategic goal of US President Donald Trump to drive a wedge between Britain and the EU, this would be an ideal opportunity.

The consequences would be devastating for both the Uk and EU. The EU is then likely to be more inward-looking than it would otherwise have been.

Such discord could well take on a life of its own, driving Britain and the EU further apart.

If there is no trade agreement with the EU or one that proves disruptive, a blame game is sure to ensue.

In such a world, reliance on multilateral institutions is likely to prove futile.

Again and again, Britain will face choices over which side to choose in struggles, perhaps over technology or standards, that are occurring far over its head.

Already evident with 5G insulation by Huawei not to mention the ongoing evolution of the single market and EU trade and climate policies that will affect any future trade deals with grim implications for the Uk government revenue and spending.

It is deciding to go its own way in a world dominated by rivalrous superpowers.

It is doing so on the promise of greater control over its own destiny.

It is, not least, acting against the wishes of the majority of its own young people.

Brexit may eliminate many excuses but it will not solve any of these problems.

We can only hope that the separation will not endure? Nobody can know.

In my own view, it is a huge blunder.

But the moment is now upon us, a sad day.

We must all live with its consequences.

The direct influence of British political choices on those of the neighbours will also vanish.

Insisting that one should not have both a British and European political identity is for the birds.

Anyway in the days after Brexit Day, when the European Commission publishes its “negotiation directives”. These will be the commission’s proposals for the negotiating mandate that must be approved by the 27 member-state governments.

The European Council does not undertake negotiations itself.

The Brexit transition period is scheduled to expire at the end of 2020. At that point, Mr Johnson will still have four more years in office ahead of him, longer than any other EU leader maybe knowing what the cost of walking away he will have come to his senses.


As negotiations progress what concessions are likely to be given, and how will they be achieved?

Unfortunately, all negotiators spend the vast majority of their time on short term issues.

Any concessions have to be viewed as relative to the overall agreement.


All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.




, , , , , , , ,

(Twenty-minute read)

Technology is getting increasingly personal.

With algorithms becoming the masters of social media are we all just becoming clickbait?

Devices are providing immediate information about our health and about what we see, where we go and where we have been.

Our lives are being shaken to their very core.

With 5G technology what we experienced at the moment will pale in comparison to the vast array of possibilities carried under its belt by this new generation of wireless connectivity, which is being built over the foundations of the previous one.

It will allow millions of devices to be connected simultaneously.

All stakeholders – business, government, society and individuals – will have to work together to adjust so these technologies and rapid changes are harnessed for the development of all, not just profit.

Swathes of the globe will be left behind.

Regardless it is no longer just about repetitive factory jobs rather an increase in inequality globally.

It is not only a moral imperative to ensure that such a scenario does not happen as it will pose a risk to global stability through channels such as global inequality, but migration also flows, and even geopolitical relations and security.

We already live in a world that has been profoundly altered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Yet there is not much debate on the likely size of the impact.


Because there are such divergent views it is difficult to measure.

But within the next decade, it is expected that more than a trillion sensors will be connected to the internet. By 2024, more than half of home internet traffic will be used by appliances and devices that are connected to internet platforms.

With almost everything connected, it will transform how we live never mind how we do business.

If there is no trusted institution to regulate it we can kiss our arses.

Now is the time to make sure it is changed for the better.

The internet of things will create huge amounts of data, raising concerns over who will own it and how it will be stored. And what about the possibility that your home or car could be hacked?

The internet is great for ideas, but ultimately, the things that will amaze you are not on your computer screen.

Artificial Intelligence may well invent new life forms but if we as humans do not contrive and manage global acceptable ethical parameters for all its forms – (bioengineering, gene editing, nanotechnology, and the algorithms) that run them we are more than idiots.

As Yuval Noah Harari says in his most recent book ( 21 Lessons for the 21st Century) ” There is no such thing as ‘Christian economics’, ‘Muslim economics’ or ‘Hindu economics’ ” but there will be Algorithms economics run by big brother. 

The digital age has brought us access to so much information in just a few clicks of the mouse button or the remote control everything from the news, Tv programmes with the internet becoming somewhat glorifying sensationalism rather than giving us the truth.

The question is.

Are the technologies that surround us tools that we can identify, grasp and consciously use to improve our lives?

Or are they more than that:

Powerful objects and enablers that influence our perception of the world, change our behaviour and affect what it means to be human?

What can we do?

The Second Industrial Revolution and the Third Industrial Revolution have lead us to this revolution the Fourth Industrial Revolution which can be described as the advent of “cyber-physical systems” involving entirely new capabilities for people and machines.

Unlike previous revolutions, it is not the world as a whole that will see any of its benefits or disadvantages it is individuals and groups that could win – or lose – a lot.

Unfortunately, expanded connectivity does not necessarily lead to expanded or more diverse worldviews it will be the opposite with our increased reliance on digital markets.

At the moment it’s just not very evenly distributed nor will it be.

At best we can moan about it and hope that climate change shifts our reliance on biomass as primary sources of energy.

Back to Clickbait.

The issue with clickbait is that the reader or site visitor is being manipulated into clicking something that is misleading.

Clickbait is not one-dimensional. Each time you run a Google search, scan your passport, make an online purchase or tweet, you are leaving a data trail behind that can be analysed and monetized.

Most clickbait links forward a user to a page that requires payment, registration or a series of pages that help drive views for a specific site.

It can also point to any web content that is aimed at generating online advertising revenue.

We’re all guilty of being gullible of clicking links online but Clickbait websites are notorious for spreading misinformation and creating controversy in the name of generating hits.

Have you not ever felt that you’re being played as dumb individuals whenever you watch the news or scroll through a media site?

Thanks to supercomputers and algorithms, we can make sense of massive amounts of data in real-time. Computers are already making decisions based on this information, and in less than 10 years computer processors are expected to reach the processing power of the human brain. A convergence of the digital, physical and biological spheres challenging our notion of what it means to be human.

Today, 43% of the world’s population is connected to the internet, mostly in developed countries.

Cooperation is “the only thing that will redeem mankind”.

We can use the Fourth Industrial Revolution to lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny, and that’s until 6G comes along or living robots.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.



, , , , , , , , ,


(Ten-minute read)

Remember when people use to initially judge you by your handshake. It formulated a picture of a person we were meeting for the first time.

In the span of a few seconds, it lay the foundation for how others perceive and feel about us — and we about them.

“It was wet,” “It was creepy,” ” It was firm,” It was crushing,” “It a Mormon handshake,” “It a Mason probing handshake”, enthusiastic, vigorous, prolonged, high-fives to fist-bumping.

handshake was a globally widespread, brief greeting or parting tradition in which two people grasp one of each other like hands making impressions that have a very long shelf-life based on a brief but important meeting.

Your handshake is the business card you leave behind.

Believed by some to have originated as a gesture of peace by demonstrating that the hand holds no weapon.

It is a reassuring tactile touch that we as social animals share is essential for social interaction, social harmony, health, survival, and security, as well as for communicating our true feelings.

It serves as a means of transferring social chemical signals between the shakers.

What is even more startling is how long we remember those bad handshakes — sometimes we remember for decades.

Today we pay for items with the swipe of our phone or by inserting a small plastic card into a reader. The old handshake just doesn’t have its place anymore.

We can also spend thousands of hours clicking a mouse over a small image on a computer screen. Nothing is real, nothing is said – only ones and zeros racing around the globe in small packets of data.

The world of technology continues to tractor us into a world absent of looking at one another in the eyes the Art of the handshake is dead.

With, Social media, Face recognition, Instagram, Facebook, Smartphones, Emails etc our most valuable currency of the handshake is evaporating and being replaced by digital signatures or passwords, that are undermining our trust in each other.

It’s no wonder that so many people get something so simple as a handshake wrong. 

Take the Politician’s Handshake:Corporate-Image-Two-handed-handshake5

Two hands to cover or cup the other person’s hands twisting the other person’s hand so that yours is superior or playing hand jujitsu to let the other person know you are in charge is just rubbish.

In the real world-shaking a person’s hand allows you to establish your friendliness and accessibility. 

For example meeting your future in-laws for the first time, your first job interview.

It might be true that in the future daily and weekly media will be more and more electronic, but physical media will always exist.

Stand in front of the webcam and send a digital emoji and you could be shaking hands with the devil. 

You cannot reproduce a handshake with meaning electronically.

This is a part of the beauty and the freakiness of the internet no handshake required.

Its no wonder there is grooming.

There was a time that a person had to put on nice clothes and go out into the real world to meet a love interest.

Today, you can be “out there” without ever having to go out- online dating.

You can even engage in a virtual relationship by using email or instant messaging. It is possible to get to know a person on a relatively deep level without ever meeting at all.

Customs surrounding handshakes are specific to cultures and can offer some real benefits.  Take Brazilan negotiators they touch each other almost five times each half-hour where there is no physical contact between American negotiators. 

In postmodern society, superstitions don’t have much of a place, for most of history they have a played a huge role in shaping culture and society before the arrival of the handshake.

The internet cares not what you do. You miss out on real contact with people.

It is affecting our ability to connect with others as equals. Not being able to manage the normal tasks of adult living resulting in more and more limper handshakes. Which leads them to problems with society and unable to get along with others.

Although teens are staying in constant contact via the Internet and texting, these friendships do not foster trust and intimacy the same as face-to-face contact.

The century’s old practice to seal a deal may seem quaint but its importance in the future will tell us whether its a robot or not.

As the appreciation of small things disappears; nature loses its brilliance.

Our planet is in a tight spot lets shake hands on that.

As we know there can be no peace no universal action on anything without it. 

All the verbal diarrhoea in the world cannot replace it. 





All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 










, ,



(Ten-minute read)


We don’t know is the true answer.

So far, the so-called “education” has not been able to catch up with this fourth industrial revolution.

The irrelevance of the curriculum is becoming more and more evident.

Being able to Google is no substitute for true understanding.

What learning in the 21st century should look like is open to interpretation—and controversy.

It’s no longer enough to “know things.” It’s even more important to stay curious about finding out things.

Because once the technologies we are creating starts to create itself and really get going most of what they are learning today will be obsolete.

The future of life will be decided by Algorithms both personal and otherwise not to gain insight into timeless dilemmas and the human condition. They will reinvent themselves again and again so that the basic structure of life will no longer be accumulating information.

If you don’t except their decisions you will be a “clueless fossil ” as Yuval Noah Harari observes in this book of 21 Lessons for the 21st Century a must-read.

Is this true?

Developing skills will not be required in a world where all decision making is done for you from data collected and analyzed.

All they will need is to have the skills to find it and drive their own education.

Gone are the days of text-heavy textbooks and outdated subjects, visualisation will be the new educator.

Technology will have taken over every aspect of their daily lives so who am I will be the most pressing subject to learn because if you are not aware you will be left behind.

Technology won’t be bad if you know what you want. Another word it must serve you not you it.

To be able to think creatively and critically.

Because as machine learning, profit-seeking algorithms and biotechnology/engineering /nanotechnology all become ever more powerful they will need to know what they are and who there are, and what they want.

So education should include a greater focus on holistic wellbeing to help young people counteract mental health issues and deal with negativity.

Teachers must have the ability to move away from being the dispenser of information to someone who can guide them and prepare them for their future.

Self-awareness and interpersonal relationships.

You might think that all this is hogwash and indeed it will be if algorithms take control.

It remains true that skill isn’t simply one for the 21st century – it spans the ages, from the ancient Greeks to the present.

Without a deeper understanding of the history that brought them to where we are today, algorithms will take control.

So there may be some inherent folly in technological solutionism so readily embraced in our time.

Because the Internet apart from Tweets, Facebook, or YouTube is releasing intellectual energy that comes from our latent desires as human beings to have a voice, to create, and to participate – Wikipedia creates knowledge.

Giving what is coming and what we already know about our Planet and the Universe the next generation will need to see beyond money if there lives life are to have any meaning.

The 21st-century educator is a lifelong learner.

How are the students supposed to be interested if the teachers are not interested?

In view of the accelerating development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Cyber-Reality (CR), it becomes mandatory to define human uniqueness vs. intelligent machines and Cyber Entities.

The new reality requires a lifetime education model, which is truly future-oriented, and proposed to be based on four pillars: learning, research and design, development and deployment.

This will require.

1. Creativity (Which seems to die in school from the 4th grade on)
2. Communication (Fluency in writing, public speaking, and technology)
3. Collaboration: (Teaming in class as manifest in project-based learning, not just teaming after school in extracurriculars)
4. Critical Thinking: (Including the Internet skill of curating, evaluating, distilling information)
5. Character: The universal values of all major religions and cultures (honesty, empathy, justice, fairness, etc.)
6. Cosmopolitanism – Cross-Cultural Competency.

In view of the catastrophic situation of almost all ecosystems, world disasters needed to be taken care of in order to recreate a sustainable environment for life, not virtual reality.

The big challenge is how to maintain a level of comfort and prosperity, keeping a satisfactory quality of life in balance with the finite resources available and a biosphere with its life-friendly durable ecosystems.

Almost all areas of life have changed or are in the process of being changed.

There will be no point to Algroritm doctors replacing human doctors if there is nothing to analyse other than themselves.

So where are we?

As with all algorithms if we allow Algorithmic teaching without any regulation we will see all the biases laydown by historical records increase.

Without regulations, the only benefits to education will be digital leaders reaping first-mover rewards.

With the Virtual-Reality becoming seamless to Our-Reality, the boundaries between the different realities are increasingly blurry, the world has dramatically changed.

Virtual labs and future design centres will allow experimenting new solutions without causing real harm to the environment.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.