CAPITALISM CONTINUES TO PRIVATIZE THE PLANET.

Featured

Tags

 

 

 

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. 

DEMOCRACY ERODED, LIVELIHOODS DESTROYED.  WITH GOVERNMENTS EVERYWHERE BETRAYING THE MANDATES THAT BROUGHT THEM INTO POWER.

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.

IF WE ARE ALL HONEST WITH OURSELVES THE WORLD IS GOING WRONG:

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.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT SHOULD THE EU SEEK IN THE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

Tags

,

 

(A six minute read.)

Philip Hammond urged EU countries to “think very carefully about what they want” before hanging Britain out to dry in any post-Brexit settlement.

The fact that even the process for conducting these negotiations is not fully covered by European law his advice although cloaked in threatening rhetoric should be heeded by the EU.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of eu brexit negotiators"

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the only formal structure for the negotiations but offers no more than a broad framework for the negotiations. More detailed guidance will largely depend on legal interpretation and political bargaining, and will only be issued after the UK activates article 50 and begins exit proceedings.

To date I have only heard in vague terms what the UK wants.

It seems to me at the moment that there is no consensus on how the UK should approach negotiations on its relationship with the EU. In particular which parts of its current relationship with the EU the UK seeks to preserve and which it has to either renegotiate or walk away from.

This post asks what from an EU perspective what will the negotiations mean.

The European Council’s main role is to define the general political direction and the priorities of the EU.

Although it has no formal legislative power, it has an influential strategic role and provides a final escalation level for discord among member states at the ministerial level.

For the negotiations on the exit conditions, the formal role of the European Council is limited to the beginning of the negotiation process.

It will then set out the guidelines for the withdrawal agreement, without the UK’s participation, through unanimous agreement.

These guidelines will provide general directions and key conditions for the Union negotiator, the European Commission. They will also define the role of the other institutions, the time path and sequence of the negotiation process.

The European Commission is ultimately responsible for negotiations related to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In addition to this, the European Parliament has voted in favour of having the Commission led the negotiations.

Out of all the EU institutions, the role of the Parliament is, in legal terms, the least clearly pronounced. Although it has to sign off, by simple majority, on both the exit proceedings and the any future trade deal, its involvement throughout the negotiations will remain uncertain until the European Council issues its guidelines. Nonetheless, the possibility that the Parliament can block the deal(s) gives it significant power over the negotiation process and the content of the agreement.

The European institutions that are involved in the negotiations each cater to different interests.

The Council represents the Member States, the Parliament the European citizens, and the Commission stands for the EU as a whole.  For that reason it is crucial that the European Parliament gets a strong role in the negotiation process. It would be difficult to think of a better way to show the benefits of European citizenship, for the British and for Europeans alike.

In a bid to maximise the benefits of the negotiations for European citizens, national governments and for the EU as a whole it is essential:

That the European Council issues negotiation guidelines that serve the interests of European citizens and Europe as a whole, and not just those of the Member States.

That the Parliament’s role is defined by the recognition of its political input and the citizens that it represents, rather than by its mere power to block an agreement.

That the European Parliament, as the highest democratic body of the European Union, be involved in all steps of the negotiation process. This is to be achieved by: setting up a special committee to formalise interinstitutional contacts between the Brexit negotiators from the Council Task Force, the Commission and the Parliament; and by making the European Parliament’s lead negotiator part of the Union’s negotiating team.

It is quite obvious that there is going to be not just one deal, but probably two or more.

So to date on the European side we have only rumors of  a massive exit fees in the billions and little else. ( see previous post)

A pretty core question is whether the UK is prepared to concede even the principle that it has liability for any EU expenditure, beyond the pensions of UK citizen employees of the EU.

My guess is that will not be conceded per se, but that one could imagine some notional payment being made, for purely political presentational reasons, to secure a trade deal. I’m thinking of something like £7bn under some pretext-or-other, plus an annual agreement to participate in this or that research funding programme and some pan-European anti-crime-and-terrorism fund.

It also seems to me that the EU is going to have to re-negotiate some of its own terms of international trade due to a downsizing of its market.

Will the UK be paying the cost of these negotiations.

Unfortunately the English don’t seem to understand that the decision to join the EU was irrevocable.

The people of England listened to a bunch of charlatans promising a “Global Britain”, rubbish; Britain has nothing to sell. Yes, the City of London , due to its peculiar legal status will remain the world center for money laundering and financial manipulation, aside from that what have you got?

You just had to hire the Chinese to build a power station! The apparent prosperity of the last 25 years has been built on a mountain of debt, which means that if BofE is forced to defend the pound by raising interest rates the whole economy will come crashing down.

Expect the GB pound to hit 50cents US within months. And don’t think you have any credit left with the old empire, after the stab in the back of Australia and particularly New Zealand nobody is interested in your BS.

If you had any sense at all you would all ask May to admit that voting to leave was a big mistake and please take us back.

The EU is perfectly within its rights to take into account any repercussions to their union’s stability in the way they approach Brexit. Britain can leave anytime they want – they just can’t expect to receive all the privileges that came with membership.

Britain will find out soon enough that leaving the EU is like the spoiled teenager who runs away from home because their parental units won’t buy them the latest iphone. All of a sudden they are cold, dirty, wet and hungry.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of eu brexit negotiators"

Theresa May has said she intends to trigger this process on 29 March, meaning the UK will be expected to have left by the summer of 2019, depending on the precise timetable agreed during the negotiations.

She wants with a “comprehensive free trade deal” giving the UK “the greatest possible access” to the single market  to reach a new customs union deal with the EU without the free movement of people.

No matter what, on both sides there are now massive vested interests under threat and hence they will stop at nothing to protect the machine. Nothing.

In the end it is the people on both sides that count. In or Out.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: OUR SEAS AND OCEANS ARE BECOMING MUSEUMS.

Tags

,

 

( A fishy Tale of two minutes) Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of fishing trawlers "

By the end of this century we have for all intentive purposes if we keep dumping greenhouse gases into the air we will have destroyed our seas and oceans.

Why?

Because our seas and oceans suck up these gases making their waters deadly to their inhabitants.

The other day in the market I stood at a fish stall looking at dozens of species gleaming pink and grey on mounds of ice.

I thought to myself that this is not a display of the ocean’s bounty it’s a museum.

In twenty years from now it will be very different as most of the clams, oysters, mussels, scallops, will be gone. They use calcium carbonate to make their shells which is dissolved by acidifying water.

The prawns, crabs, lobsters, shrimps, use a polymer called chitin to make their shell so they won’t dissolve as quickly, but dissolve they will like teeth in Coca-Cola.

My eyes moved along the stall to dozen kinds of finned fish many of them already on the European at risk lists because of overfishing: such as monkfish, hake, sardines and tuna. All loved by the Spaniards.

I could not help thinking that they are more at risk from the changing ocean biogeochemistry which is causing large areas of dead zones the emptiest places on the planet where there is little or no oxygen causing vast blooms of algae that thrive on acid as do jelly fish.

You might say that with time the sea living creatures will adapted but this is all happening at a pace to fast for evolution.

Even if they did there will be nothing to eat as Foraminifera the tiniest shelled plankton is having trouble growing , it is the food base of every animal in the sea.

As my brother a fisherman would tell you the answers to all of this is not easy.

But this is not the main purpose of this post.

Its main purpose is a warning to the People of Ireland.  

Brexit is going to be a grave threat to Irish Coastal Waters, as you can rest assured that the European Fishing quotas will go out the window in the forthcoming negotiations.  Recently on a BBC report they were lamenting that Haddock which replaced Cod was now in short supply leading to the demise of Fish and Chips.

It will be of paramount importance that the Irish Government declares all of its territorial waters a protected area, and that it builds a fleet of protection vessels to oversee it protection.  

IT’S TIME FOR THE BROTHER SITE:  FISHY TALES TO START A PEOPLE’S CAMPAIGN.

HERE IS HIS LINK: https://www.facebook.com/louis.dillon77

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE’S: OPEN LETTER TO WORLD LEADERS.

Tags

, , , , ,

Seeing green such a cool idea for a painting :):

20/March/2017.

Dear Sirs and Madams.

I am soon to be seventy, so I thought, looking at the state of the world I would write you all a short note.

I fully appreciate that like your predecessors you are all very busy with False News, Conflicts, Famines, Economics and the like, so I will try to keep this short and to the point, as it is gloomy reading.

If like me you look honestly at ourselves (no matter what colour, religion, G8, United Nations resolution, or cultural heritage) the world is going wrong.

In the meantime:

Technology to wipe out civilization is getting cheaper by the day, while we turn back the evolution clock by pumping 8 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year wiping out 50,000 species each year in collective denial.

Looking back from the moon human activities on earth do not show up.

By 2030 there will be 50% more of us – 6 million a month.

One- fifth of the present day population live in the ” rich world” consuming 86% of the world’s goods while over half the people on earth are trying to live on 2-5$ a day.

This is not going to change.

The last decade has led us down the path of disillusionment, with democracy been eroded by Artificial intelligence which is on the threshold of destroy the livelihoods of thousands.

Capitalism continued unabated to privatize the planet, with Corporate globalization Algorithms, Sovereign Wealth Funds, Data Farming, Machine learning,without any regulation.

September 11 has now been turned into a convenient excuse for any anti-people legislation denying civil liberties worldwide. The Arab Spring is a quad mire > The Palestine Question a dark cul-de-sac > Nato a war machine> The United nations a begging gum shield between the west and the rest> Chine a supermarket> Climate Change a trading commodity> Football a religion> Austerity a goal> Economic growth an aspiration that no one know how to achieve.

Governments everywhere are betraying the mandates that brought them into power.

We left with what if anything can be done to stop the rot.

It’s easy to say, that humanity will have to set aside the deep divisions it has maintained for thousands of years and find a new spirit of co-operation. Stop spending billions on arms and start spending on removing Inequalities of opportunity.

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

If you have got this far I fully understand that you are not in a position to change the world but with some vision you could support the establishment of a New World Organisation to vet all technology to ensure that it comply to human core values.

This Organisation has to be totally independent of all Political pressure, Capitalist greed, and be self financing by charging a vetting fee.

Without such an Organisation we are looking at a greater disaster than Climate Change, Current conflicts, Brexit, or Donald Trump.

A digital divide world whether it is run by Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Amazon, will result in unattainable aspirations, fueled by social media.

There will be no self correct.

As smart-phones proliferate and more people have access to the internet it will be impossible to ignore the world voters wishes.

I thank you in anticipation of your support. Please feel free to forward this letter.

Robert de Mayo Dillon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: DEMOCRACY IS RAPIDLY BECOMING OUT OF DATE.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Four to Five minute read.)

Technology is transferring society and the way it is organised.

The Internet and social media have ended the monopoly of information previously enjoyed by authoritarian governments.

In 2017, over half of humanity will be online – one of the biggest societal shifts in history. Citizens expect their governments, political parties and civic groups to keep up.

The amount of data we produce doubles every year revealing how we think and feel. In another ten years there will be sensors measuring everything and the amount of data will double every 12 hours.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of democracy in ancient greece"

Hope disease will be all that is left.

To day 70% of all financial transactions are performed by Algorithms.

News content is more and more automatically generated.

Half of to days jobs are threatened to disappear.

It is beyond a doubt that the world economy and society will change fundamentally.

Smart artificial intelligence is learning to recognize patterns.

Take the wrong decisions now and we are all Fucked.

To day Algorithms know pretty well what we do and what we think and how we feel with the resulting decisions feeling like they were our own.

We are on the threshold of being remotely controlled.

Individual monitoring will lead to citizen score.

And it won’t stop there.

Mark my words:

Persuasive computing is just around the corner. Data – empowered  “Wise Kings” with manipulation technologies used by Google Facebook Twitter Amazon Snapshot and the like will be nudging us and our governments without Democracy to do things in their opinions and not ours.

We already have a world where Hope disease is rampant and by the time technology can win elections it will be too late for a vaccine.

Manipulation will be the rage and undesirable side effects can be expected.

Social polarization is only just beginning destroying social cohesion.

Brexit- Donald Trump.

The question is:  Why are we and our elected representatives so blind to this come age.

The reason is because it is happening at a pace of digital slavery. Slowly enough that there is little resistance from the population, who are loosing their freedom and fast enough to be unstoppable.

Its time to sit up and pay attention.

The right of individual self-development can only be exercised by those who have control over their lives. A democracy cannot work unless these rights are respected.  If constrained, this undermines our society and the power state.

The current collecting and processing of personal data is certainly not compatible with the application data laws.

A single click to confirm that we agree with the contents of a hundred page ” terms of use” agreement is woefully inadequate.

Without transparency, legal responsibility and ethical constraints Algorithms for profit are replacing thinking of all citizens. Computer cluster will control our lives.

This is to be avoided at all costs.

But there is little outcry that decisions by powerful algorithms are undermining the basis of ” Collective intelligence” Big Data, artificial intelligence, cybernetics, and behavioral economics are shaping our society for better or worse.

If we do not put in place a New World Organisation that exams all technology to be fit for purpose, to be compatible with society’s core values we will be living in a digital prison, under a digital dictatorship that sooner than later will cause extensive damage.

An automated society with totalitarian features owned by Google and its Tech buddies.

Collective intelligence requires a high degree of diversity.Image associée

The current moment confronts us with a paradox.

The unprecedented advance of technologies that facilitate individual empowerment and the overall lack of advance of democracy worldwide?

Many democracies, both long-established ones and newer ones, are experiencing serious institutional debilities and weak public confidence.

The next decade or two may well produce a different overall picture of global democratic change as technology-enabled patterns of political innovation spread to high-density urban environments, making mayors and local councils the spearhead of broader democratic change.

Moreover, new technologies are empowering individuals in many facets of their lives not directly related to politics, for example by giving the poor access to previously unattainable banking services and helping map the property rights of the poorest communities.

These slow-burn socioeconomic forms of empowerment will likely also have significant larger political effects in the years immediately ahead.

Facebook and Twitter exchanges will not automatically create a democracy or an economy.

Ask yourself why with all the technological development of recent years, which seemed to promise all sorts of economic leaps and bounds, has coincided with economic slow growth and rising inequality, especially in the countries most enjoying this technology.

It’s because of Hope Disease.

All comments appreciated. All Like clicks chucked in the Bin.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR BREXIT.

Tags

,

 

( A TWO MINUTE READ: THAT WILL SAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION BILLIONS)

Button 50 might not be nuclear but it will have collateral damage to revile one.

It is the greatest disaster to befall the European Union in its 59-year history.

Theresa May vows if EU tries to ‘punish’ Britain we will walk away WITHOUT a Brexit deal (Photo: Getty)

The economic consequences for the UK from leaving the EU are complex.

You don’t have to be a genius to recognise THAT to unscramble 40 years of European integration is going to cost sheds loads of loot – euros and sterling. 

The total bill kicked around at the moment is estimated to be between €40 billion (£34 billion) and €60 billion (£52 billion).

We all know what happens with estimates.

All 28 member states have to unanimously agree to the terms of a deal meaning the negotiations could take years.

In the meantime Britain is still bound by the obligations and responsibilities of EU membership.

ARE THEY INDEED.

Theoretically, there is nothing to stop a British Government unilaterally withdrawing from the EU by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Article 50 compels only the EU to seek a negotiation, not the withdrawing member state.

Triggering Article 50, formally notifying the intention to withdraw, starts the clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain.

At a glance | What is Article 50?

  • Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon gives any EU member the right to quit unilaterally, and outlines the procedure for doing so
  • There was no way to legally leave the EU before the Treaty was signed in 2007
  • It gives the leaving country two years to negotiate an exit deal
  • Once set in motion, it cannot be stopped except by unanimous consent of all member states
  • Any deal must be approved by a “qualified majority” of EU member states and can be vetoed by the European Parliament
  • In November 2016, the High Court ruled that the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without MPs voting on the matter first. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling in January 2017

Under the Vienna Convention, the termination of a treaty “releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty”.

Furthermore under EU’s own laws mean there is no “legal obligation” to cough up any cash if no deal is struck.

THERESA MAY can walk away from the EU without paying a penny of the Brussels’ £50-£60 billion divorce bill.

European Union and the Union flag sit on top of a sand castle

The EU will lose more than just economic and political strength — it will also see billions of euros disappear from its budget. Net revenues that flow into the EU from Britain each year range from 14 to 21 billion euros. If you subtract the money Britain gets back from Brussels, the EU budget would shrink by up to 10 billion euros per year.

Of course, there is a lot of money at stake.

HOWEVER THERE IS ONE THING THAT IS FOR SURE.

THE EU MOST INSURE THAT IF THE UK LEAVES OR NOT, ENGLAND MUST FOOT ALL THE BILLS THAT ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE PENDING NEGOTIATIONS. 

AFTER ALL: NONE OF THE COST INVOLVED ARE A RESULT OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE EU.

Not to demand so would be act of calamitous self-harm.

Ongoing spending commitments -Being without legal precedent, there is no simple answer to whether the EU Treaty, to which all members are signatories, or the secondary legislation arising from it, would apply to a state that is leaving.

 Legally, the UK’s obligation to these payments or others is unclear.

IN THE MEANTIME IT IS THE DUTY OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE EU.

We all know that the EU is in need of radical change.

ONCE MRS MAY ENACTS ARTICLE 50 BEFORE ANY NEGOTIATIONS OR TRANSITION DEAL THE EU MUST PUT IN PLACE A TOTALLY TRANSPARENT COSTING AND REMUNERATION PACKET.

Agreement on this WILL be needed before talks over trade deal negotiations begin.

The member states will be forced to negotiate the bloc’s finances at the same time they begin Brexit negotiations. But how will Brussels be able to determine its budget without knowing how much the British government will be paying into it?

Britain needs to define its position concerning the direct costs before any kind of future relationship the British will seek with the EU.

That, though, will determine the price of future ties NOT THE COSTS OF SEPARATION.

The main thing, in my opinion, is that Brexit is an opportunity to reform the Union in a way which will make it more effective and stop countries wanting to break away.

On March 25, 2017, European leaders will mark the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the EU’s founding document. It will be a fraught celebration.

The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU.

Life goes on,

EU and GB flag face paint kiss

It is almost certain that we will end up with no deal.

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

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: NO ONE HAS EVER REALLY SEEN AN ATOM.

Tags

, ,

( A Fifteen minute read with a lot of head scratching)

Let me from the off state that I am no Scientist, so don’t expect this post to make much sense, what you read here comes from the following unanswerable questions.

1.Why did the big bang happen?
2. Why does something called energy, space and time exist in the first place?
3. Why do bodies follow a gravitational law that is proportional to their masses and not the square of their masses????
4. Why does the zero point energy exist in Quantum systems even at Zero Kelvin, when all is supposed to be static at rest (zero energy)?

None of which I am going to attempt to answer.

It’s sufficient to say that everything you see around you, from your own body to the planet you’re standing on and the stars in the sky, are made of atoms but no one has ever really seen an atom.

As you know, An atom has 3 subatomic particles called electrons, protons, and neutrons. The exception to this rule is the hydrogen atom which only has 1 proton and 1 electron.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of space eye"

What I am interested in is where in the first place did they come from.

We have seen so much evidence of their existence that most of us believe in them.

It is estimated that the there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable universe.

In layman’s terms, that works out to between ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms. This estimate accounts only for the observable universe which reaches 46 billion light years in any direction, and is based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed.

It appears that they were not formed during the initial development of our universe (sometimes called the big bang) but were formed afterwards in large stars by synthesising more complex atoms.

Stars evolved after the Big Bang.

Density fluctuations left over from the big bang could have evolved into the first stars. These stars altered the dynamics of the cosmos by heating and ionizing the surrounding gases. The earliest stars also produced and dispersed the first heavy elements, paving the way for the eventual formation of solar systems like our own.

The big bang also produced hydrogen and helium, but most of the heavier elements are created only by the thermonuclear fusion reactions in stars, so they would not have been present before the first stars had formed.

What this means for the atom is anyone guess other than before the big bang there we no atoms. 

If they were not around, what were large stars made of?

Were they just collection of energy released by the Big Bang?

If so.

What was holding the energy together to form stars that are estimated to have been between 100 and 250 times as massive as the sun.

According to Hernquist Dark matter provided the first gravitational impetus for hydrogen and helium gas to start clumping together. The gas began releasing energy as it condensed, forming molecules from atoms, which further cooled the clump and allowed for even greater condensing.

So is it dark matter (Dark Matter the putative elementary particles that are believed to make up about 90 percent of the universe’s mass) or gravity or the small-scale density fluctuations—clumps in the primordial soup that created the atom.

But it seems to me if there were no atoms in the first place none of the above appears possible.

It might seem that star formation is a problem that has been solved.

But nothing could be further from the truth. We don’t really know how the very first stars were actually formed. We need to go back to the drawing board because our present understanding of this subject is still primitive.

Jason Silva who likes to articulate the theory that everyone and everything on earth contains minuscule star particles. In other words we are made of star stuff, atoms from the stars, is pie in the sky.

Cosmic dust forged inside stars turned into interstellar dust — dust formed by the deaths of an earlier generation of stars a key building block in the formation of stars, planets and complex molecules; but in the early Universe — before the first generations of stars died out — it was scarce.

Neutral Atoms did not come from the stars, stars came from electrically charged atoms.

The chemical and physical properties of an atom change as ions are created. When two ions with opposite charges come into contact, they are attracted to each other. They may begin to share electrons in either covalent or electrovalent bonds.

Here is a picture of exploding star.Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, Acknowledgement: Judy Schmidt

 

Credit: NASA/ESA/HEIC/Hubble Heritage Team.

So, all life on Earth and the atoms in our bodies were created in the furnace of now-long-dead stars.

Is this true?  It seem to me to be very dubious.

Pretty much everything we know about atoms is indirect evidence.

The physics which works here is the same physics which works elsewhere. If this were not the case, physics would somehow be a local phenomenon, which simply seems wrong. It is not true that everything in Solar system is build of atoms.

Light is not made up of atoms.

We’re probably looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place as there’s no point of reference in our universe.

Atoms are themselves made of subatomic particles which in turn are made of sub-sub-atomic particles. In fact no scientist worth its salt can claim that we and everything in the universe made up of Atoms.

There is no experimental confirmation about structure of universe.

Who told us everything was made up of atoms?

Democritus came up with the idea that something could be cut into its smallest piece and it would still be the same object. He was also the first person to write the word atom down. He came up with an idea, but it took 2,400 years before anyone figured out that he was right!

Or did they?

Current hypotheses suggest that four-fifths of the universe’s mass consists of a mysterious material that scientists can’t observe directly, which researchers call dark matter.  The substance makes itself known by the way galaxies rotate and bend light around them, suggesting those celestial structures have more mass than observers can see.

We don’t yet know what dark matter is.

The Universe is enormous and our planet is but a small, pale blue dot that makes up a fraction of the matter in our Universe. The rest is something else, a material that nobody on Earth has ever seen.

Fritz Zwicky came up with the term  “dark” matter.” He was some crazy theorist who couldn’t get his forces to add up, and so invented an entire new form of matter.

Astronomers now believe that dark matter has been fundamental in creating the Universe as we know it. There is a lot of it: about 25% of the Universe. Billions of dark matter particles pass through us every second.

Atoms are the smallest pieces of matter; they are made of particles (protons and electrons). When atoms are grouped together, these groups are called molecules.

While atoms are the tiniest bits of matter, they are made of the sub-atomic building blocks of matter—protons and electrons—revolving around a nucleus. The “atomic number” of an element, as seen on a periodic chart, refers to the number of protons contained in one atom of that element.

Confusingly, it’s sometimes said that dark matter makes up about 80% of all the matter in the Universe. That’s because only 30% of the Universe is made up of matter, and most of it is dark matter. The rest is energy. Dark matter is the skeleton on which ordinary matter hangs. Billions of dark matter particles pass through us every second.

We only know about a small fraction of the matter in the Universe. The rest is a mysterious substance known only as dark matter.

Now the most popular suggestion is that dark matter is made of a new kind of particle, predicted by theory but never detected. They are called WIMPs: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. When these particles hit anything they pass straight through.

WIMPs have a lot of mass, although they are not necessarily large.

“WIMP” is just a catchphrase, and could include many different types of particles.

Below is a picture of Dark matter. (Credit: Yannick Mellier/IAP/SPL)Dark matter (red), light (yellow) and galaxies (blue) (Credit: Yannick Mellier/IAP/SPL)

Where is it?

At this point you may be throwing your arms up in frustration. “First they decided there’s all this invisible matter, now they’ve decided it’s made of some new kind of stuff that they can’t detect!

Dark matter doesn’t exist at all. We’re back where we were.

The challenge is to find dark matter when we don’t know what we’re looking for.

Instead, the laws of gravity as we know them must be wrong, and that’s why galaxies behave so oddly. This idea is called MOND, short for “Modified Newtonian Dynamics”.

The problem, says Massey, is that the MOND supporters have not come up with a viable alternative to dark matter: their ideas can’t explain the data.

Dark matter particles usually pass through normal matter. But the sheer number of them means that, very occasionally, some will collide with the nucleus of an atom.

This collision should create gamma rays: extremely high-energy light. On these rare occasions, “dark matter can shine,”

Here is one (Credit: NASA Goddard/A. Mellinger, CMU/T. Linden, University of Chicago)

In 2014, using data from NASA’s powerful Fermi telescope,researchers claimed to have detected the gamma rays from these collisions. They found an area of our Milky Way galaxy that seems to be glowing with gamma rays, possibly from dark matter.  But the jury is still out on whether the gamma rays are really from dark matter. They could also have come from energetic stars called pulsars, or from collapsing stars.

As well as colliding with normal matter, dark matter might occasionally bump into itself, and there’s a way to see that too.

Although we can’t see it directly, dark matter does do one thing to give itself away.

It bends the light that passes through it.

Is there two types of dark matter one interacting with other?

So a second way of detecting dark matter would be to create it first. Physicists hope to do just that using particle colliders, like the Large Hadron Collide in Geneva, Switzerland.

If the LHC does create some dark matter, it would not actually register on its detectors.

If WIMPs do make up the dark matter and they discover them at the LHC then we are in with a good chance of working out what the dark matter in the Universe is composed of.

How much of an atom is empty space?  Very nearly all of it.

The space inside the atom is just that, empty space, i.e. vacuum.

Vacuum, by definition, is the absence of matter. Matter, of course, is something that has mass and occupies space, it’s really a space with very little matter in it.

Many modern devices (like the integrated circuit chips that make everything from cars to computers work), have to be fabricated in a vacuum.

Even outer space, which is considered a vacuum and has less matter in it than anything mankind can reproduce, still has some atoms bouncing around.

Here is my top ten list of “Things That Are Not Matter”:

1. Light 2. Sound 3. Heat 4. Energy 5. Gravity 6. Time 7. A Rainbow 8. Love

9. Happiness 10. A really good joke

When two atoms approach each other, their electron shells push back at each other, despite the fact that each atom’s net charge is 0. This is a very useful feature of nature. It makes our lives a lot easier.

When you sit on a chair, you are not really touching it. You see, every atom is surrounded by a shell of electrons.

If atoms push away from each other, why doesn’t the entire universe just blow away from itself? The answer is that some, actually most atoms’ electron shells are not full.

Electrons really do go back and forth between atoms and they do so pretty fast.

Electrons tend to be kind of mobile, which is also a very nice feature of nature, since without it your walkman would not work. Once both atoms’ outer shells are full due to this electron sharing, they go back to their usual repulsive behavior.

This, by the way, is how we get molecules and the secret to understanding Chemistry. It’s all about the electrons!. It describe the nature of atoms.

We are much more than what we perceive ourselves to be, and it’s time we begin to see ourselves in that light.

The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

It’s quite the conundrum, isn’t it?

Not really, when you enter the world of Quantum it’s totally bonkers.

With quantum physics.

One of these potential revelations is that “the observer creates the reality.”

As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality.

We are all energy, radiating our own unique energy signature.

Feelings, thoughts and emotions play a vital role, quantum physics helps us see the significance of how we all feel. If all of us are in a peaceful loving state inside, it will no doubt impact the external world around us, and influence how others feel as well.

At our subatomic level, does the vibrational frequency change the manifestation of physical reality? If so, in what way?

We know that when an atom changes its state, it absorbs or emits electromagnetic frequencies, which are responsible for changing its state.

Do different states of emotion, perception and feelings result in different electromagnetic frequencies? Yes! This has been proven.

If we are made of atoms, then a scientist studying atoms is actually a group of atoms studying themselves.

The relationship between physical things and mental/spiritual ones is a huge one in philosophy.

Anyone who wants to invent a new theory of gravity has to go one better than Einstein and explain everything he was able to explain, and also account for the dark matter.

Yes, cosmology is really weird.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the universe and planets"

Some day humanity might have sufficient knowledge and tools to truly understand the origin of the universe, but currently we’re only a tiny baby step closer than when “Let there be light” was written.

Philosophically, no matter what you want to believe about the beginning of things, you need to get comfortable with the idea of infinity. Either infinite time, or an infinite deity that exists outside of time; really, both accomplish the same thing by explaining how things exist, and neither can be proven or disproven.

All we know is that there is something infinite going on and if energy couldn’t have been created, then there were no Universe in the first place.

Most of our Universe is still a black box, its secrets waiting to be unlocked.

How a dark, featureless universe formed the brilliant panoply of objects that now give us light and life remains very much a mystery.

Does it matter that there are things in this universe humans are not meant to understand.

All comments welcome. All like clicks chucked into dark matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: GOOGLE IS MAKING OUR KNOWLEDGE VALUELESS.

Tags

, , , ,

( A five-minute read if you don’t want to be Googled)

Artificial intelligence is changing the world we live in but are we all going to end up scratching our behinds wishing we were dead. Turned into “‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.

Our thoughts and actions scripted as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm.

Image associée

As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.

The perfect coordination and optimization of our day- to – day lives controlled by Google Monopoly inc.

Google is draining of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,”

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of people using google"

Why because we will be in a state of constant Google observation with the entire world connected to the world they wish to present.

At the moment Google control over 65% of all searches, ( WHICH NO ONE KNOWS HOW IT WORKS)

Google is not required by Law to serve everyone nor for that matter is Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Snapchat, or Twitter.

Nearly every iPhone operates on its Android operating system.

WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SENTENCED TO A GOOGLE DIGITAL DEATH.

They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought.

For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.

The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.

The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.

Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.

Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism.

Taylor created a set of precise instructions—an “algorithm,” we might say today—for how each worker should work.

Taylor’s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well.

Google, is “a company that’s founded around the science of measurement,” and it is striving to “systematize everything” it does.

Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data it collects through its search engine and other sites, it carries out thousands of experiments a day, according to the Harvard Business Review, and it uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it.

What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.

The company has declared that its mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

It seeks to develop “the perfect search engine,” which it defines as something that “understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want.”

In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.

Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling.

It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.

And because we would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” we would “be thought very knowledgeable when we are for the most part quite ignorant.” We would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” This is not good, as the world is in need of wisdom more than ever.

I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”

If we lose  quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in ourselves but in our culture. In a recent essay, the playwright Richard Foreman eloquently described what’s at stake:

As Richard Foreman so beautifully describes it, we’ve been pounded into instantly-available pancakes, becoming the unpredictable but statistically critical synapses in the whole Gödel-to-Google net. Does the resulting mind (as Richardson would have it) belong to us? Or does it belong to something else?

Will this produce a new kind of enlightenment or “super-consciousness”? Sometimes I am seduced by those proclaiming so—and sometimes I shrink back in horror at a world that seems to have lost the thick and multi-textured density of deeply evolved personality.

Reading, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is.

The media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains.

Circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.

The tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities—we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies.

Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today.

Where does it end?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of people using google"

Mr Page of google said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.”

The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements.

The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought.  It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.

There’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine.

Google as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.”

I know that Google will argue the toss and indeed other than they becoming a monopolizing influence I would have great praise.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: HOW WOEFUL HEINOUS,UNPARDONABLE, DISTASTEFUL,TO SEE ANTONIO GUTERRES THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL HAVING TO BEG FOR FUNDS.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( A three-minute read that could save millions of lives)

If you ever wanted proof that Capitalism is driven by greed just watch what can only be described in the above words the recent plea made by António Guterres to the International community for funds to tackle the declared famine in parts of Nigeria, South Sudan, and looming in Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen.africa

The estimated number of affected children is now 450,000, with 14 MILLION PEOPLE needing humanitarian assistance across the region.

Five years ago, more than a quarter of a million lives were needlessly lost, 130,000 of them children. We simply cannot have a repeat of that tragedy. The only way to prevent this devastating loss of life is for donors and international leaders to act now.

Global hunger levels are at their highest for decades. There are currently 70 million people in need of food aid. The reality of life for a fifth of the world’s people, on a planet which produces enough food to satisfy everyone is that humanitarian aid to Africa has been shrinking.

Rich countries have been giving money to poor ones for many decades and for many reasons — from geopolitics to post-colonial guilt to altruism so there is little point here in reiterating the reasons why the world is in such a mess.

What is needed in the long run is a fully funded Humanitarian Affairs United Nations.  Not a begging Institution.

Rather than boasting our compassion with wasteful foreign Aid there is only one course of action:

To make the Greed / Profit for profit’s sake segment of Capitalism system Pay.

This can be achieved with modern-day technology by Placing a World Aid commission of 0.05% on all. High frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange transactions over $ 50,000. on all Sovereign Wealth Funds acquisitions, on all gambling winnings.

This would create a Perpetual fund of billions.

The real question, though, is (with climate change and technology) is whether aid will remain relevant, and if so how.

The answer boils down to this: solutions.

Governments in developing countries will seek assistance only when they have a problem that they cannot solve by themselves.

They know how to build schools, hospitals or ports, and can pay for them. But they will look for other countries’ experiences when reforming educational curricula, designing health insurance systems, or regulating private suppliers of infrastructure.

They will want to avoid the mistakes of others, and learn from their successes.

At times, they may ask for support in implementing particularly tricky projects, mostly as a way to keep graft, pollution or displacements at bay.

This can only be achieved if the United nations see themselves more as partners than as donors. This will stop Aid countries of exporting their own way of thinking.

Donors would be sought after, rather than just accepted.

They will be those that can deliver ideas, experiences, expertise, lessons, evidence, and data.

In other words, what will make future aid relevant will be knowledge, not dollars.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of aid of the future"Development aid will be a more difficult business — for you will need to operate at the technical cutting-edge — but a more useful one.

To the extent that there are internal leaks in Africa–As a first order of priority, the leaks should be plugged to ensure that the little aid that comes in, stays.

In politics, no good deed ever goes unannounced.

It’s is very hard to feel hungry and not to be able to do anything about it.

Contributors to United Nations aid and development programs have provided slightly more than half of the $800 million requested in 1999 for African countries suffering from “complex emergencies”–the term applied when war and failed institutions, often combined with a natural disaster, leave vast numbers of people homeless and starving.

The reasons for the decline are not hard to find.

Donor nations are and will be more so under pressure to attend to problems at home rather than foreign assistance that is wasted by bloated aid agencies pouring money into the pockets of corrupt African governments, senseless civil wars, wasteful military expenditures, capital flight, and government wastes–Pouring in more foreign aid makes little sense.

However if asked we all want a more prosperous and equal world that will serve everyone’s best interests.

To create a less threatening world beyond our borders we must tackle inequality head on. 

We are on track for a tipping point of Inequality with the web only speeding up this process through digitization and universal access. We’ll be postulating about social media’s impact on the more long-term future of the world.

Aid can be fearful of the future – but it can also be a force for good.

No transformation will occur overnight.

The debate on aid comes down to lack of imagination. We have cemented in our minds the idea of a hierarchy in the world’s nations: the developing world is below us and we need to help them, preferably to our advantage. But we do not want them to rise above us.

Catastrophe evokes a human response to help fellow creatures.

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

Here is who to donate to:  UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha), Care, Oxfam, British Red Cross, Cafod, Tearfund, Christian Aid, World Vision, WFP, Unicef.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ENACT THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

Tags

, , , , ,

( A Ten Minute read that might open your eyes to the Obvious)

I am sure like me you often wonder why it is that when something is obvious we humans are unable to react.  It is obvious that Technology is changing the world and us but nothing hides like the obvious. The obvious is best disguised into itself. One obvious hides another. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the blatantly obvious"

Intelligent reason should visit its basic assumptions, regularly; but it doesn’t.

We all know that an own goal is an accident when it comes in sport unless there is some ulterior motive.

In the course of our own lives we have many own goals, some obvious, some accidental, but when it comes to collective action on one hand we cannot bear to notice our children becoming strangers and our parents growing senile. However on the other we are less concerned about Nations heading to war, companies going bust, greed and technology ruining our civilisation.

The obvious turns perverse.

We have too much stake in them to see clear and hear change ringing.

Is this the reason we cannot enact the obvious.?

We do not see what we do not wish to see, hoping that it will go away or solve itself. We grow blind to things we cannot cope with. We see and hear but we keep forgetting at once as if under a spell of neglect.

Our attention is so easily diverted… we just move on with inertia and sleep-walk unable to draw the undesired conclusion and to do something.

We do not grasp the incommensurable, out of proportion with us, with which we have no common standard of measurement: the trillions of billions, the hazy dots shown by the electronic microscope in a cell, or all the same, the blurred dots being huge stars of the infinite, mean nothing to us, exactly like the hypocrite warnings of cancer and death on cigarette packs. Is this because the things smalled below our threshold or amplified huge – in proportions or in meaning – we do not grasp;

If this is so we have a narrow human window of perception and judgement with limited parameters in wavelength, amplitude, intensity and nature.

However we are the measure of all things we conceive.

Whether it be demographic and social change, shifts in economic power, technological breakthroughs or natural resource scarcities, climate change – the world, and those of us in it, need to be more adaptable than ever before.

Overwhelmed by the creativity of Artificial Intelligence, our governments do not protect us anymore, so that the risk is now our own business.

Reason has become asks references, with a hidden price of selective blindness and thus freedom diminished.  It is easier to observe other people’s basic assumptions than yours.

 If that which is not there is difficult to see,  that which is obvious, plain and evident, is at times even harder to notice.

For instance:

Is it not blinding obvious that Twitter now holds unmitigated power when it comes to posting Donald Trump’s tweets.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of confused politicians"

Is it not bleeding obvious that Google wants to control all knowledge.  Very few of us spending an instant to examine Google Fraud answers.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "image of google logo"

It is beyond the obvious that in a world that is getting more complex and multipolar each and every single day the truth does not cease to exist when it is ignored.

Not missing the things right under our nose is our last protection against danger, loss and disappointment; it grants our judgement to be sound and wise, with feet on ground.

You will agree though that the obvious is the very face of reality.

Take notice of the obvious and suddenly, instead of nodding sheepishly “This is how things are.” you gain the power to make choices which you and most people around you ignored before.

The obvious known, comes alive for us to do something about it only when understanding turns it into personal image, vivid and simple enough to be of our size; otherwise we stay paralysed and dumb.

If you are like me, we need to let  people participate in democracy and get collective decisions that are reasonable.

I often think when it comes to politics and our governments that there are things that are so blinding obvious (when all the bullshit is set aside) to do.

For example to reform the European Union.

Is it not blinding obvious that we should stop the moving of  the £130 million travelling circus that sees MEPs decamp once a month from Brussels to Strasbourg.

Why should we all be held to ransom by France.  On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense. If France want it let them pay for it.  “Its madness.” Just think how many better ways there are to spend this money.

It boggles my mind as to why we put up with it.

God only knows what the cost of Brixit will be.

There is no doubt that seething resentment over widening inequalities in the wake of the financial crisis played a big role in boosting the Brexit vote but it is also blinding obvious that England is now facing a major realignment that will need the EU market and the free movement of people to survive economically.

There is NO simple solution – if there was it would have been done by now.

How do you know a politician is being dishonest? He blames something on “special interests.” What is a special interest? Why, it is an interest opposed to the “general interest” or collective will.  There ain’t no such thing.

That might not be possible.  The challenge for me – and you – is to sort out which is which.

 

 

But this is not the purpose of this post, rather to examine the broader question.

I am also all too conscious that there are any number of people out there who have deeply held convictions about what’s right and what’s wrong. I may just be right about some things, I may be wrong about others.

In a world predominated by power of a more self-interest nature, has the obvious being consigned to the rubbish bin of politics.

Without having read and understood the instructions book of life, algorithms are switching on an immensely complicated machine.

Once injected into to the political system they can develop a life of their own.

Politics stems from human misbehaviour, which clashes with the terms of modern democratic belief systems in which all adults are assumed to be entitled to behave as they feel inclined, at least within the scope of their income and the constraints of public law and insofar as they refrain from damaging the opportunities of their fellow citizens to do likewise.  Algorithms have none of these constraints.

” It is blinding obvious with the election of Donald Trump a man who revels in his own ignorance, racism and misogyny, that there is no single way of acting.”

Even if there was how would we set about determining what it is? Whom can we trust to do so?

Whom is to be judge? What is an advantage to one group of human beings and what is not to the advantage of another.

Until recent times politics and science usually managed to ignore each other.

Not any more:

Social Media which is riddled with algorithms are now blindly leading us down the road of Technological Inequality by turning the obvious into Fake News.

As a result politics appears where the main contours of collective and social life set the principal interests of groups of humans beings against one another.

Where they do not Conflict politics will not occur.

Social Media politics by Twitter will achieve conflict with a plum. Watch this Space.

So where does this leave us.

You would think that when something becomes blatantly obvious it would be common sense with no need for political input to enact or rectify it.

Isn’t that blindingly obvious to everyone except our politicians.

Contrary to popular belief, “the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition” and that “wrongness is a vital part of how we learn and change.” DONALD TRUMP’S LEGACY. Politicians and bureaucrats, naturally, don’t enjoy being criticised. But if the response is to shut out those who criticise then they are making their work even harder and setting themselves up for more criticism.

The view that to understand politics we first need to know what politics is has a certain immediate force.  BUT WHAT IS NEEDED is something which reaches beyond the tribe and doesn’t rely on conventional party politics within the existing structures. Instead of “to me” we need to change it “to us”.

I know that people drown in stats and often put their fingers in their ears when it comes to the blinding obvious. The fact of the matter is that all wisdom does not, and never has, resided in government’s. Changes must be initiated with Indigenous people’s informed consent, in ways that resonate with their views of what is legitimate and in ways that gain their support.

This will not happen by coercion and imposition.

Consider this:

The most incontrovertible long-range social observation ever made? Was the Galilean carpenter Jesus’ comment that “The poor will be with you always”

Governments have had 222 years to get this right. On any evaluation, governments have fallen seriously short. Every indicator says government is not capable of solving this alone.

The words that feature prominently in Politic confronted with the squalor are appalling, dismal, neglect, waste.

Without comprehending the magnitude of different cultural outlooks – and without often understanding our own – we make it artificially difficult to create the kind of society we think we are as a nation – or the one we want to be.

It’s blatantly obvious that to solve the world’s problems we need a renewed reformed United Nations that is fully funded. (See previous Posts)

I do speak as someone who gives a damn, I don’t share is any thought that nothing can be done. “ Not bleeding hearts, just the bleeding obvious”

Or will we dare create something that people can point to and say “Now that’s what justice and decently looks like?” The answer, I am convinced, lies with us working – together – for humanity. And that, to me, is just “bleeding obvious”.

Let me conclude by being so bold as to suggest the “bleeding obvious”…..

I avoid the word “solutions” We’ve got to look to the future.”

All Technology must be vetted by a new World Organisation that is totally transparent  to ensure that it complies to enhancing our lives, and that is has a source of responsibility.

We cannot have various visionaries tell us that the real world is not what we experience but the one they reveal and proclaim, so that we must follow them.

I invite government to let go of the idea of imposing universal solutions and support those programs that respect and honour the multiplicity of cultural differences.

The useless conclusion is that our senses and memories cheat us, our common sense is no good and our judgement false.

Science does almost the same in all good faith; it invites us not to believe our impressions and intuitive reasoning but to delegate all-knowing to its specialists, the knowers and witnesses of verified truth too-complicated- for- common- people- to-understand.

Knowing our history is part of being human.

What are the seeds our common humanity? What right and decent? And so I ask will our final words be tragic, like those Henry Dunant “Where has humanity gone?”

The passion and commitment of so many decent people out there is constantly being tested. Keeping up the energy and the enthusiasm is a constant battle and it shouldn’t be obvious.

Liberty is not about thinking or saying or doing whatever we want. It is about exercising our freedom in such a way as to make a difference in the world and make a difference for more than just ourselves.

That should be obvious to one in all.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of confused politicians"

All comments obviously welcome. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am still pissed off.

 

We need Bottom up development. If Europe does not set social limits to competition then the market outcome will be exploitation of workers and not innovation. European social standards together with massive investment in skills are more than ever necessary.

The Syria crisis will only make things worse for Europe, which remains incapable of fixing its broken migration policy, and the chance for migration reform in the United States has faded away.

 

Globalisation-induced changes in the sharing of wealth in the world, combined with the demographic trends of the continents will soon generate new needs for regulation

All this is easy to say but what to do about it?

 

Detecting the obvious, the one which we do not notice any more, is a vital art of liberation; glimpses that can change the world.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: PERHAPS IT’S TIME FOR EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES TO HAVE TWO CURRENCIES.

Tags

, , ,

( A Seven minute Brainstorm read for all Europeans)

I have always thought that the introduction of the Euro without countries being in control of their money was and still is nonsensical.  That a foreign entity prevent two members of the community from exchanging among themselves is farcical in the age of electronic transfers.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union flags"

We are all aware that we are heading into an age of Automation with its consequences for Jobs and Taxation where money will become more than ever just  a system of signs recording who owes what to whom.

Money is one of the tools that a community bestows on itself for its common operations. That is for a Greek fisherman to pay his Greek baker.,

it should have nothing to do with the money of another one – unless they are not different communities.

ALL THESE ELEMENTS, ALONG WITH COUNTLESS OTHERS ARE RAPIDLY GATHERING TO TEST THE UNITY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION WITH THE PIG IN THE POKE BEING THE EURO.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "photos de billets de banque en euros"

Euro zone nations first thrived under the euro. The common currency brought with it the elimination of exchange rate volatility (and associated costs), easy access to a large and monetarily unified European market, and price transparency.

Now regional tensions within countries are being fueled by this monetary unification. Irrespective of how any individual nation’s economy performs, all euro zone nations are impacted by the common euro currency valuation.

IN THE LONG RUN THERE IS NO GETTING AWAY FROM: that the future of the euro will depend on how EU policies evolve to address the monetary challenges of individual nations under a single monetary policy.

In the last year, non-euro EU currencies have generally performed better than the euro.

There are currently 28 nations in the European Union and of these, nine countries are not in the eurozone—the unified monetary system using the euro.

EU nations are diverse in culture, climate, population, and economy. Nations have different financial needs and challenges to address. The common currency imposes a system of central monetary policy applied uniformly.

Since the European Central Bank (ECB) sets the economic and monetary policies for all euro zone nations, there is no independence for an individual state to craft policies tailored for its own conditions.

As we witness in 2011 several European countries were and still are mired in the problem of using a currency which they do not control: Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and soon Spain, Italy, France.

These countries all have an important trade deficit which leads each of them to a chronic dearth of money supply and to the nonsensical situation of needing to borrow money from abroad (Germany, Northern Europe, or directly the ECB) in order for their citizens to be able to exchange goods and services among each other.

The problem, is what’s good for the economy of one euro zone nation may be terrible for another.

So is it time to scrap the Euro and introduce a two tier monetary systems.

Electronic Euro and national currencies.  Electronic euro the trading currency and the National currencies the reserve currency.

The “reserve” currency entirely distinct from trade currencies. A separate and distinct difference between the currency being used in trade and the currency being used to store wealth.

This idea might well have being intractable when the money used for everyday expenditures was metal and paper based, but it is no longer the case with the advent of no contact payment systems with mobile telephones and very large databases systems like Google Adsense.

If the European Union is not to disintegrates it easy to foresee that countries will inescapably return to a domestic currency for their internal affairs, while they’ll keep the euro for their external trade within the Euro zone.

In other words, they will use a system of double currency: one internal and one external.

This would allow room individual countries losing price competitiveness for export to addressed by deliberately devaluing its trade currency in order to make its exports cheaper and more attractive.

The future evolution OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT FEDERALISM it will be in the opposite direction: toward smaller communities, enjoying some autonomy, and being able to have their own currencies.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union flags"

On a practical level, a multiple-currency system requires that payments be made no longer with paper banknotes and coins but with some convenient electronic devices. The new systems of no contact payment with our mobile phones provide a solution. In the background, our payments will be recorded and managed in large databases, just as they are today. Such complex databases are not a thing of the future, Google Adsense is one of them, arguably more complex than what we advocate.

Paper currency came into prominent worldwide use at the time of World War I, and has played a major role in shaping the global history of the last 100 years and despite huge and ongoing technological advances in electronic transactions technologies, it has remained surprisingly durable, even if its major uses seem to be buried in the world underground and illegal economy.

The monetary means were also kept in the hands of the central authority, with the justification that it was one of the fundamental pillars of power. In the XXth century attempts to make central banks independent of the executive ended in failures. For instance the US Fed or the European ECB have demonstrated that they cannot but do what they are told by governments.

With many central banks now near or at the zero interest rate bound, there are increasingly strong arguments for exploring how it might be phased out of use.

There is no good reason why a country could not use its own money for its internal operations (what economists dub its “sheltered activities”). In fact it happens here and there, it is called a local exchange trading system, and is “tolerated” by central authorities as long as it doesn’t become too big, and doesn’t shirk taxes.

Taxes are certainly necessary for a community to function. But they should indeed be in the several currencies used by that country.

Indeed every country with a monetary system with several currencies in the wallet of the citizens. Each currency will correspond to one of the communities to which he or she belongs: city, region, nation, economic zone, and world.

The world could be reduced to only a handful of monetary authorities, with some of them exercising monetary policy internationally, and with strong need for coordination.

This will represent a sharp change from the times when sovereign nations necessarily had their own unique currency; it was even a mark of their power.

All comments or suggestions welcome. All like clicks chucked in the BIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any attempt to eliminate large-denomination currency would ideally be taken up in a treaty that included at the very least the major global currencies.

In small and very open economies, the presence and use of international currency is unavoidable.