, ,


( 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.





Dear Sir,

I write as a man from the land of the Green.

In my life, I have had the great gift of travelling the world both by land and sea.

Today we are celebrating the first man on the moon some fifty years ago.

Then as a much younger man, I watched Armstrong place his foot with now the famous words ” A small step for man, a giant step for humankind.

Never did I think that our world so full of life might become the dust that his boot stood on.

Every human being has a relationship with plastic but unfortunately not ever one has a relationship with nature that is now facing a crisis that requires an International recognition of the Unity of the Globe.

This is where Ireland has a moral duty to call on all nations of the world to attend a Unity of the global conference, in the Emerald Isle.

For every participant in attendance plant a tree to offset their travelling carbon footprint.

The Paris Climate change conference achieved shallow unbinding promises.

The clock is ticking until the next US election starting in November 2020 with the winner inaugurated on Wednesday, January 20, 2021.

Just think of the influence of such a world meeting would have on the election of new USA president and its policies re Climate Change.

This gathering should have not just world leaders but leading Industrials, representative from world organisation and the young that are going to inherit the earth.

Its sole purpose is to present the facts from all side and recognize the need for the world to act as one and achieve a just climate change program that is binding, and fully financed. 

The venue could be at Croke Park.

I Robert De Mayo Dillon are humble available to discuss why Ireland should be the birthplace of a new begging.

Yours a Cara.








(Ten-minute read)

The honest answer is nobody knows.


It’s no longer an academic question or a question to be arguing from a position of hope.

Dealing with the impact on the environment requires concerted action, not just by a few, but by everyone.

With increasing frequency, evidence of global warming and climate change are making headlines around the world. Politicians, while giving lip service to the dangers that lie ahead for the planet, lack a fundamental understanding of either the dangers or the solution to the problem.

They all promise a technological solution but fail to grasp the social context which makes the problem difficult to solve.

The urgency and complicated nature of a solution put humanity at a distinct disadvantage and many scientists involved in the study of our planet concur that if we act now, we would only be able to make a difference in what is happening by the end of the century.

The problem is that the situation is growing more desperate and yet those in power are not.

Why are these issues so difficult to address?

Because the crisis looms because of the power of money of the oil companies. They have a vested interest in not developing other forms of energy to compete with oil.

Because the present shifts we are experiencing are not global.

At present, there is no chain reaction around the world that pushes Earth into a terrifying new hothouse state from which there is no return.

Because of the diagnosis of climate change is still a scientific issue, the response to it is not.

Because the world, after 30 years of warnings, has barely got to grips with reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Leaving fossil fuels in the ground is, for example, a question of regulation, while investing in renewable energy is a policy choice, and modernising our housing stock to make it energy efficient is about overcoming the lobbying power of the building industry the energy industry.

Because while extracting new fossil fuels continuing, we are on course for another 2C or 3C to transform Earth this century. At best we are flatlining, with investments in Green energy.

Because none of this climate change will be smooth, gradual and linear changes. It may be fast, abrupt, and dangerous surprises may happen.

Because climate migration is already happening.

Europe is not coping well with even modest numbers of migrants, and future flows look likely to increase substantially as migration itself is an adaptation to rapid climate change.

How will the cooler, richer parts of the world react to tens of millions of people escaping the hotter, poorer parts?

Because if we throw into the mix long-term stagnating incomes for most people across the west and climate-induced crop failures causing massive food price spikes and we have a recipe for widespread unrest that could overload political institutions.

Because we now have inward-looking nationalists that will move us further away from the internationalism needed to ensure the continuation of stable global food supplies and to manage migration humanely. And without cooperative internationalism serious carbon dioxide mitigation will not happen, meaning the underlying drivers of the problems will exacerbate, leading to a lock-in of a deteriorating, isolationist, fascist future.

We are facing the same three choices in response to climate change as we did before this scorching summer:

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), make changes to reduce the adverse impacts of the new conditions we create (adaptation), or suffer the consequences of what we fail to mitigate or adapt to.

So what can be done?

In order to alter the direction of climate change, an effective strategy, based on a consensus between developing and industrialized nations, is essential.

This agreement must address the social factors inherent in the system- inequality.

Politicians will need to understand the real issues involved in technology and its social aspects and adopt plans which will have long term goals.

Can the damage done be reversed? Only time can tell, but climate change is certainly becoming increasingly apparent, and immediate action is necessary if irreparable damage is to be averted.

Given the colossal wealth and the scientific knowledge available today, we can solve many of the world’s pressing problems and all live well.

Given that our environmental impacts are so long-lasting, the future is the politics we make today. The future is up to us if we act collectively and engage in politics.

As I have suggested in previous posts all activities that are profit for profit sake should be made to contribute to a world aid fund. ( See previous posts) Market forces are really important — and that they could be harnessed to fight climate change.

No governments,no countries, no companies, no forms of taxation, no non-binding promises, no tree planting, no electric cars, no world organisations , no one person, no protests, no declaration of an emergency, no extensions, no amount of warming, no amounts of warnings, no natural disasters will make any financial contributions to the trillion that are going to be needed.

We all know our world is in a state of crisis but we have seen nothing yet that is going to accompany climate change.

I am sure that there is no need to draw the picture.

We do know some incontrovertible facts, however. CO2 concentrations, temperatures and sea levels are all rising.

Why are we being such idiots about climate change?

Climate change deniers say nothing is certain. True, we don’t know if the planet will be two degrees or ten degrees warmer in 2100. Yes, humans may be causing climate change, but trying to do anything meaningful would collapse the economy and send us back to the Dark Ages.

The sobering truth is that the planet has already been responding faster than expected. It’s crushingly obvious that fighting climate change should be one of the world’s top priorities.

What gives?

It’s not that they are stupid or blind. Instead, they seem to firmly believe that climate solutions inevitably mean more government, higher taxes and less freedom — and thus are threats to their core values and identity. Dire warnings of the looming climate disaster may just make people throw up their hands in despair, sink into denial, or dig their heels in deeper against government action.

So here’s where we now stand.

We have a pretty clear understanding of the threat climate change poses to us, our children and our grandchildren. We are already being forced to cope with more droughts, more floods, more extreme storms. At the same time, we have in our arsenal effective policies that are difficult for rational people to demagogue as crippling to the economy or as a subversion of our cherished way of life.

We thus face a stark choice. Do we let future historians excoriate us for our failure to act in time? Or do we step up to meet the challenge?

So it’s really up to you.

Insist that climate change be a key issue in elections and all future elections.

Combat the lies and deceit from the Koch brothers/ Donald Dump Presidents and other deep-pocketed climate deniers. Push for a reasonable fee on carbon and for incentives for renewable energy (and energy efficiency steps) at all levels of government.

Make Greed Pay:

To day we celebrate man landing on the moon. In not the so distant future we could be celberating the last man on earth.

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






Social media, smartphones and the resulting digital cacophony have pretty much seen off the possibility of “silent” anything.

It Britain leaves the EU without a deal we will hear the screams for years.

The UK decided in June 2016 to follow the path to departure from the European Union; that the voters were lied to and electoral law was broken in the preceding campaign; and that, after nearly three years, the path has led Britain to the edge of a cliff.

With their parliamentary system now becoming so fixated by what they see as her historic duty to deliver Brexit no matter what the cost no one on either side is capable of seeing that they are not serving democracy but upholding the falsehoods of a Referendum which in its self was not legally binding.

Noise is not the same as democracy and there is no distinct parliamentary solution to this conundrum.

To shrug off the chains of tribalism is impossible because of first-past-the-post elections – which do not truly represent the voting citizens.

That a government has to face elections every five years and could be turned out is important but is it enough.

The last two elections make plain that British politics is no longer dominated by just two parties. More proportionate distribution of parliamentary seats would inevitably mean coalition government.

The electoral system is often seen as unfair, making votes effectively unequal • The monarchy and House of Lords are unelected • Government is not bound by a superior, entrenched constitution • Citizens don’t take a full part in the democratic process (voter apathy) • Referenda is used infrequently in the UK • Representative process is flawed in key respects (‘Elected dictatorship’) • House of Commons doesn’t reflect social composition of the UK • Party system offers voters a limited choice (two-party system)

Imagine a country where fundamental rights and liberties were enshrined in law and could not be ignored by a government.

Oh, wait, sorry that’s not Britain, that’s how the European Union works.

This idea that the EU is undemocratic and/or unelected has to stop.

Laws are approved, amended or rejected by the directly elected MEP’s using proportional representation in the EU Parliament and elected government Ministers in the EU Council from the 28 member states.

The Commission President is now elected in the similar method of the UK Prime Minister, he or she campaigns during the European election and is the leader of the largest party after the Parliamentary election. The other 27 Commissioners are appointed by the 27 elected governments and the entire Commission is approved or rejected by the directly elected Parliament.

EU treaties are ratified only with the consent of every 28 national parliaments and government approval.

European protesters, for example, have exercised their democratic right to put pressure on elected officials, as is the case with TTIP and the French government is threatening to veto the agreement in the EU Council. That is a representative of just 12% of the EU population able to defy the will of the other representatives of 82%. That would be like the London Assembly led by the Mayor of London, representing roughly 12% of the UK population having a veto on UK trade deals. Unimaginable (and impossible) in a British context.

Evidence suggesting proportionally citizens can influence the decision of the EU better than in the UK.

We need to educate all European (especially British) people on how their vote in the European election can kick out the EPP led Parliament and Commission. That they by voting in left or centre governments in their national elections can kick out the EPP led EU Council.

It’s time our education system, national politicians and media gave the knowledge to the citizens on how to use them.

The EU is unelected/democratic is a myth, it’s the UK that has the problems.

There is no direction to history, no implacable force of providence driving England towards an act of irrevocable, collective self-harm.

However with no entrenched Bill or Rights Referendum and General Elections simply do not offer the choice that the nation needs.

Elections are about consent but also about enabling citizens the opportunity to express their political convictions.

A great deal of uncontrolled (prerogative) power lies in the hands of the prime minister, who is not directly elected • There are few controls on the Prime Minister’s extensive powers of patronage • Pressure groups can also reflect the interests of privileged groups rather than the public at large.

Indeed the present Conservite elections of a new leader without a mandate from the people to be Prime Minister shins a light on just how out of date English Politics is.

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





, , ,


(Seven-minute read)

The term ” Human capital” suggests that we create ourselves as social beings, and then society recognizes the outcome of our self-making by assigning them values. This value is then exchanged for commodities and services of equal value.


No discussion of human capital can omit the influence of families on the knowledge, skills, health, values, and habits. But when we become a risk, a drain on society, a problem of a life gone on too long we reflect the political and economic goals that the notion of human capital was designed to fulfil – profit.

When we assign value to human life it means different worth including negative value – to the lives of different people. Life subsequently came to be valued according to its ability to foster the national economy – its potential contribution to GDP with nil contribution deemed a surplus to manage.

This has become the bedrock of modern capitalism – persons and profit with the smartphone transferring its owner into an asset of significant value.

Profit-seeking Algorithms that are now embedded in our societies making it seem natural to be monitored and to allow access to every moment of our days.

Assigning life a market value is no way to guarantee that this value will be high.

Everyone is able to help themselves but information technologies are fastening individuals to prefabricated categories ( Age, gender, religion, ) solidifying us as persons of a certain kind.

Even if we consider ourselves to be so much more than our data or human capital, we cultivate, display, and leverage, our socially recognized arsenal of valued traits—no matter how worrying the manner in which they were consolidated—whenever circumstances call for it.

Human capital, then, is something other than the sum total of our ambition.

Like other kinds of capital, its value is set by market dynamics that support a larger process of accumulation.

We are unable to determine how much we are worth to our society.

There is no stopping this form of unattachment to reality, to politics, to nature, to others and it is destined to become worse. We have world leaders Twittering, governments pandering to populism, androids apps grabbing your data even if you block them.

Indeed it would be fair to say that Capitalism is disappearing underground.

The idea of human lives as surplus—superfluous to society rather than being its building blocks—offends our robust sense of self.

However, in designating selfhood unique yet classifiable, a personal project of self-creation yet a collective subject of political policy, we end up with human capital.

We feel oppressed by constantly having to demonstrate our worth in a matrix of investments and returns.

Is there any solution to this detachment?

Not with Social media that is putting a protective net around people with this net actually becoming a limiting cage.

A vote every five or ten years will not do it.

Countries must enable their citizens to become involved directly in the economy by offering non-trading but inheritable Participation Bonds with guaranteed returns in order to make the economy serve the people rather than the other way around.

In a world of universal and instantaneous communication with robotic technology now treating our abilities to earn a living the coffers of the state are diminishing.

Some will say that Participation Bonds is a form of Socialism.

It might well be but it is not the state owning the assets of a country but its people have a vested interest.

The current relationship between the balance sheet value of human capital and the operating costs of the human capital is not realistic. Successful leaders want to know how their people are deployed and new technological advances clearly are of little value to countries that don’t put their people first.

Therefore, economists regard expenditures on education, training, medical care, and so on as investments in human capital. They are called human capital because people cannot be separated from their knowledge, skills, health, or values in the way they can be separated from their financial and physical assets but tangible forms of capital are not the only type of capital.

No matter what colour, creed or status you are if you are not attached you cannot reap the rewards.

Other words if you are on a sailing boat crossing the Atlantic there is no point in being pushed over or jumping overboard if you want to arrive.

The old adage of “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves no longer applies.

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




, , ,



(Five-minute read)

Humanity has not yet learned how to live in harmony with nature.

With coming climate change just how humanity and nature can co-exist in a period of insurmountable capitalist contradiction, especially when humanity takes the form of small business people hoping to exploit natural resources under duress is yet to be answered.

The planet will and would heal itself in a mere 5,000 years, probably. And that’s the blink of an eye in the lifetime of our planet. Earth can shrug off humanity without breaking a sweat.

Perhaps we got it wrong.

It’s not global warming but global dimming that is going to do the damage. It might be getting warmers because of Co2 but it is also getting dimmer. Less light is reaching the surface of the planet today than at any time since the last great volcanic blowout.

Both, in turn, affects ocean water temperature, which alters water currents, which alters water evaporation, which alters weather patterns, which leads to unnatural variation in those weather patterns (i.e. natural disasters).

One way or the other if we continue to destroy the environment and terrorize the ecosystems of this planet, there are going to be consequences and these consequences will, one way or another, ultimately bring the planet back into balance.

It is humanity’s decision whether that balance will include the human race.

It doesn’t even count how we’re poisoning rivers and streams, obliterating the rainforest, destroying ocean ecosystems, and now we’re even poisoning our own water supplies with traces of prescription drugs. How stupid is that?

We even poison ourselves. So much for “advanced civilization.”

Forget about bioterrorists — nature is the biggest threat to human life as we know it on this planet, simply because modern human life is largely a threat to nature.

Unless we learn from our lessons and find a way to honour and respect the very planet that has given us life, this planet will take it away from us.

It’s frightening but true:

Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals.

It would be long before we’ll be struggling to mitigate the effects of climate change, which means we’ll be running out of land to grow crops, fresh water, our coasts will be disappearing, and anything edible in the sea is probably going to cook by the rapidly rising temperatures.

We could soon be sparring with the kinds of enemies were not even close to knowing how to deal with.

Take temperatures for example.

As a species, we have endured the heat of re-entry into our atmosphere, about 2,000 degrees Celsius. And yet people have died at temperatures around 20 degrees Celsius from Hyperthermia.

We can tolerate the condition up to 50–55-degree Celsius above that our body will either die of dehydration or due to core body temperature fluctuation no one will survive if core body temperature rises above 40–41-degree Celsius…(sweating and shivering) that lets us maintain a temperature of about 36C.

Since higher pressure makes it harder for sweat to evaporate the lower the humidity, the higher the temperature needed to kill a person.

Like a modern Adam and Eve, we ass individuals might be trying to set the example for a new Garden of Eden but we are headed down a path of certain self-destruction when looking at the world as a whole.

One only has to look out the window to see the effects of temperature and humidity in our daily activities.

Our world behaviour is simply not sustainable.

Either we learn how to respect nature, or we’ll be wiped out and nature will make the adjustments for us.

The vast majority of species that will be affected by climate change in the short term are insects.

As a result, immense shifts are predicted in population dynamics, abundance and geographical spread of insects.

Some people say that we urgently need to build our understanding of how climate change will affect health, especially through insect-borne disease. Bugs thrive in warmer climates,

There will be little point if we are all fried or drowned.

But here is the good news.

One area of particular concern is how climate change will affect the spread of insect-borne diseases. These include dengue fever, malaria, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, Rift Valley fever, chikungunya and yellow fever. They are spread through the bite of ‘vectors’ such as mosquitoes, ticks and flies.

Adult cat fleas die in temperatures colder than (8°C), and hotter than (35°C). Fleas can’t survive outdoors when temperatures surpass 35c for more than 40 hours a month.

How much we must cut emissions remains unresolved.

In August 2003, Europe’s summer was about 3.5 degrees Celsius above average and an estimated 45,000 people died over two weeks.

The lag between growing emissions and the corresponding increase in temperature means that we can expect at least another 0.6-degree Celsius global temperature rise over the next few decades.

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
















, , ,


(Seven-minute read)

Earth will survive Global Warming because it couldn’t care less.

We will be recorded as a minor perturbation in the Earth system.

The Earth will go on.

The question is: Will we?

This is a tricky question because even starting the conversation is a point of

no return.

No matter how high humans cause the mercury to rise and how much damage we do to the planet, Earth and life will survive but not us.

Humans are the most common large animal to ever walk the planet but the notion that human activity, or the activity of an organism, can affect Earth on a planetary scale is still a hard one for many people to swallow.

However, the idea that biology can alter the planet in broad and dramatic ways is now widely accepted. It just might no longer be in the form we prefer or the form that allows us to thrive.

So what will?

Though it might seem as if humans are mere fleas along for a ride on the back of an immense animal called Earth, our intelligence, technology and sheer numbers mean our species packs a punch that can shake the world in wild ways.

The highest populations aren’t strictly on Earth at all, but floating in its atmosphere. Tardigrades.

WHAT IS AN TARDIGRADE?Illustration for article titled Just another reason why tardigrades are the best micro-animals

Micro-animals, so small that they can be visually observed only under a microscope.

They are able to survive temperatures of close to absolute zero (−273 °C (−459 °F)), temperatures as high as 151 °C (304 °F), and radiation that would kill other animals, including all humans.

They can go almost a decade without water. They have the ability to dry out until its body is less than 3 per cent water, and then come bounce back once they’re rehydrated.

Since 2007, tardigrades have also returned alive from studies in which they have been exposed to the vacuum of outer space in low Earth orbit.

There are around 1,000 species, all capable of outliving any of us.

They don’t have to eat for 30 years and if necessary can turn to cannibalism.

Tardigrade fossils have been found as far back as 520 million years ago evolving with their own unique genes over that protracted period of time.

They can clone themselves.

Tardigrades are nearly see-through but you can see them under the right light with the naked eye.

Their entire genome has been sequenced with roughly one-sixth of the tardigrade’s genome stolen from other species. 1.2 per cent of the tardigrade genome comes from other organisms, including plants, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. Another words “proprietary,” and not the result of horizontal gene transfer.

Their genomes contain more copies of an anti-oxidant enzyme and a DNA-repair gene than any other animal.

Instead of thinking of the tree of life, we should be thinking about the web of life.

Genetic material crossing from branch to branch.

Basically, they are nearly impossible to kill.Osos de Agua puede sobrevivir sin comida ni agua durante m s de una d cada3wodo1 400


They oxygenated the Earth’s early atmosphere as they began to harness the power of sunlight through photosynthesis.

We don’t consider them as part of the Earth system right now in our calculation about what’s going on, and we don’t consider them in terms of how the Earth system will move forward into the future.

These microbes anchored soil to the ground; We owe them everything.

Earth might still be frozen today if not for the appearance of new life forms.

As organisms evolved, many developed the ability to breathe oxygen.

In the process, they exhaled another greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, which eventually thawed out the world.

They are capable of mobilizing things beyond there own biology.

They will inherit the earth that they made in the first place.

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








It’s no secret that our planet is in a pretty dire condition. 

The Earth’s importance is self-evident.

Over the past 250 years, the activities of humans have caused enough harm that they may lead to dramatic environmental changes.

It is now unbelievable that we are being told that if we continue with the status quo our way of life could come to an end within the next fifteen years.

So why is it unbelievable that we, (and we mean all of us) cannot take a stand to stop our present course.

If we don’t protect the planet we and all that are on it can kiss our collective ass goodbye.

The reason is we are unable to see beyond greed. Climate might do it subtly or brutally but we are doing it by encouraging profound inequity.

Wealth in the hands of a few.

As the world heats up we will see more ecological degradation, scarce resources and even scarcer opportunities, which will lead to great swathes of people moving.

Right now, right at this very second, you are aligning yourself with a particular version of the world. You’re creating it around yourself with every breath, with every thought so you think, but a belief is an assumed truth.

We hear Scientists warnings, Paris Climate change promises, countries declaring an emergency while the main themes of the 2019 G20 meeting were:

President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia with other leaders at a photo shoot at the G20 summit meeting in Osaka, Japan, on Friday.Global economy

Trade and investment.


Environment and energy.


Women’s employment.



For me the issue is clear. The current version of capitalism is a disaster. Worse yet, it is unsustainable.

Knowing what we can have, is just as important as knowing what we no longer want.

Tinkering with the current version of shareholder capitalism simply won’t do.

The connective tissue between business and society needs to be ripped apart.

Look back at some of the most tragic episodes in human history and you will find words and images that stripped people of their basic human traits. It’s hard to see the good in anything anymore when you see what is happening to our world.

Dehumanising of the planet continues unabated with Algorithms, Machine Learning, Data Mining, Face Recognition, the invasion of the human body, removing the need for a working memory, Donald Trump anti-Mexican/Muslim rhetoric, digitally manipulated by virtual reality, Suicide bombers and terrorists who don’t care if the other side lives or dies.

Governments and business must get off the shelf and face reality.

Its time to take positive action like banning cars from the city centre a least one day a week, like clearing our skies one day a week, banning flights, like offering non-repayable green energy grants, like planting on unproductive land with trees, like banning consumption advertising, like financially supporting the phaseout of combustion engines, like stop fooling ourselves that we have fifty years for technology to come up with a solution.

Lip service is no longer acceptable.


Because we know that Greenland is melting and no human has ever seen the collapse of an ice sheet. There is nothing in recorded history.

We know the climate is warming. Look out the window.

Greenland is already contributed 200/300 billion of ice melt a year. Over the past years, it has lost a trillion tons of ice.

Unfortunately, Climate change remains so far from our imaginations we are unable to fully appreciate that it will determine our future.

However, people are starting to see the power they have if they get together but we continue to live our lives as if nothing is going to happen.


There is no point in reading the small print like hurricanes, droughts, flooding, wildfires, all put done to an extreme weather event.

There is no point in independent countries declaring climate emergencies.

There is no point in creating new forests of trees especially trees of one variety that will take years to mature.

There is no point asking Opec to stop the production of oil. They want to sell every last drop no matter what the cost.

There is no point appealing to the President Trumps of the world.

As the saying goes, “there is no point in crying over spilt milk”.

Based on the Universal Law of Cause and Effect.

The effects of Co2 emissions combinded with Methane as the permafrost melts will and is rising the temperature which is the essence of all laws in nature.

Our lives these days are filled with television, wasting time on social networks like Facebook and Twitter. But when you see something you like online, do you check to make sure that it’s true before you share it?

The climate change the final events are upon us.

“People’s lives matter more than any political game.

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






















, ,


(Twenty-minute read)

We all know or at least most of us accept that we will be the first chapter in a world that is going to need universal cooperation to battle climate change.

We all know that the world economy is dominated by Global capitalism that is running out of cheap resources and energy becoming more and more protective of its market share.

So just how bad will severing ties with the EU be?

Look at the small print.

We all have come across people who have next to no understanding of world events – but- talk with the utmost confidence and convection. So in this post lets look at the shallowness of their existing knowledge when it comes to Brexit.The EU has warned a no-deal departure from the bloc [File: Isabel Infantes/AFP]

At the moment, there’s still a ton of confusion.

We now have political arguments all basis on false premises with minimal understanding of the issues at hand.

What is completely overlooked is that the United Kingdom’s narrow vote to exit the European Union was as a result of a referendum that was not actually legally binding.

The government could have simply decided to ignore the result.

Instead, it activating Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty making the process irreversible unless it is revoked.

So what are the true facts around a no- deal?

A no- deal Brexit means there will be no 21-month transition period. It doesn’t stop the UK leaving but it means there is absolutely no clarity about what happens.

A nodeal means while Britain would no longer be bound by EU rules, it will have to face the EU’s external tariffs with WTO.

A no- deal means the UK would be free to set its own controls on immigration by EU nationals and the bloc could do the same for Britons.

A no- deal means Britain would no longer have to adhere to the rulings of the European Court of Justice but it would be bound to the European Court of Human Rights, a non-EU body.

A no- deal means England would not have to pay the annual £13 billion contributions to the EU budget. However, Britain would lose out on some EU subsidies – the Common Agricultural Policy gives £3 billion to farmers.

A no- deal means the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would remain unresolved. Northern Ireland is even at risk of blackouts because no deal would undermine the legal basis of the all-island electricity market it shares with the Irish Republic.

A no- deal means Britain could implement trade deals whenever the fine print is ready. But deals take years, not months or weeks, to broker. Therefore the UK is not going to gaining anything by having no transition period in this instance.

A no- deal means an emergency cut in interest rates to combat inflation.

A no- deal means Britain’s supermarkets, will simply pass on the cost to the farmers who in the short term to stay in business, won’t be able to do so without subsidies.

A no- deal means EU research and development funding could dry up.

A no-deal will chill investment in the UK, hitting jobs, and that manufacturers will abandon Britain for the continent.

A no- deal will throw the fishing industry into disarray. It is no exaggeration to say that the UK has done relatively poorly out of is membership of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

A no- deal means no matter from what angle England approached trade the lack of resources to renegotiate the dozens of deals already signed between the EU and third countries. It is a total fallacy to think England can copycat present EU trade deals. 50 at a time.

A no- deal means that that the EU may not be willing to renegotiate its rules of origin agreements with other countries for British benefit, especially because its own exporters might be able to take market share from British ones in countries outside Europe.

A no- deal means that all WTO trade deals include a “most favoured nation” (MFN) clause, which mean that if one partner signs a better trade deal with another country, all previous trade partners are entitled to the same upgrade.

A no- deal the UK cannot conclude binding agreements until it has left the EU, since it is still bound by the EU’s exclusive right to strike trade deals.

A no- deal means Britain would lose deeper access to services, as it would no longer participate in the 14 services agreements struck by the EU. (England currently has free trade agreements with EU’s 70 international trade deals, countries because of its EU membership.) You couldn’t get a bigger a contrast between the opportunities of EU membership and the emptiness of Brexit: the EU has reached a historic trade agreement with key emerging markets in Latin America while Tory leadership contenders brag about their plans for a no-deal Brexit.

Last Friday, the EU finally achieved a trade deal that has been 20 years in the making.

A no- deal means that the price of a trade deal with the USA will be so hight as to be unworkable.

A no- deal means there won’t be any money for farmers or anyone else if England crashes out because all the Treasury’s reserves will be needed to plug the hole left by Brexit in tax revenues.

A no- deal means wrecking the biggest trade deal England have already.

Most of the UK’s trade is with the EU or countries the EU has trade agreements with—about 57% of our exports and 66% of our imports. Countries aren’t exactly queueing up to do deals.

A no- deal means England can not set different rules for foreign and domestic products under WTO. The big exception is if countries have negotiated their own customs union or free trade area

A no- deal might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom with civil strife.

A no-deal could cut UK access to EU criminal databases.

A no- deal will empower the far right, with long-term implications for Britain’s democracy. Exacerbating populist pressures.

A no- deal means a Reality check for the EU.

A no- deal will inflict significant economic pain across Europe, no more so than on the Irish Economy.

A no- deal means the EU could be looking at a tax haven.

A no- deal means the EU budget will be reduced.

A no- deal means large EU subsidies to the Irish economy.

So where are we?

A free trade agreement will still have many negative consequences for both sides.

First, the devolved politics of Brexit are immensely complex and may turn out to be crucially important to what actually happens.

However ever as a matter of law, neither Scotland nor any of the UK’s other constituent nations can stop Brexit from happening. Because the UK Parliament is sovereign and can do as it wishes, the absence of consent from the Scottish Parliament would not legally disable Westminster from enacting Brexit legislation.

This is so because the “requirement” for consent is not a legal requirement at all: it is, ultimately, no more than a political expectation that the UK Parliament will respect the constitutional position of the Scottish Parliament by not riding roughshod over it in certain circumstances.

For present purposes, the Scottish Parliament’s powers are limited by EU law. And the argument is that if Brexit legislation enacted by the UK removes those limits — freeing the Scottish Parliament to make Scottish laws that breach EU law — then that alters the Scottish Parliament’s powers, so triggering the requirement to get its consent under the Sewel Convention.

There is no legal constitutional route for the devolved administrations to stall Brexit.

The only route is political rather than legal.

If Northern Ireland opted for reunification it would have the ability to rejoin the EU as part of the Republic of Ireland. Scotland would have to join the queue.

Where that leaves us?

It is all too easy to lose track of the amount of cash already poured into the British economy. So, goes the obvious question, where has all the money gone?

In some senses, the answer is relatively simple. Much of that cash has gone

into repairing a broken financial system.

So here, for any of you who might have forgotten, is a quick reminder: some £76bn from the Treasury to buy shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group ; £200bn worth of lender-of-last-resort liquidity support provided by the Bank of England to stricken banks at the height of the crisis; £250bn of wholesale lending guaranteed by the Bank through the credit guarantee scheme; £185bn of loans to banks through the Special Liquidity Scheme; £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Then, deep breath, there is the £200bn of liabilities taken on board from the Asset Protection Scheme, and the £200bn of cash poured into the economy through quantitative easing.

It is a stark reminder of why hopes of a quick recovery from the recession or a no deal are forlorn, and why both financial crises will cast a shadow over growth for years.

Add the cost of a no deal to the above and the list of consequences is not just long but beyond the pale.

If England wants the full reassertion of sovereignty, then that is going to mean setting new standards for things, and that is going to be economically damaging.

We are now witnessing a Conservative Party undemocratically electing a new leader who will defacto become Prime Minister with both remaining candidates insistent on Brexiting overturn decades of law giving Northern Ireland and Scotland (both of which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU) local control over their affair.

The leadership contest is only complicated Britain’s withdrawal from the EU by adding more uncertainty to the state of affairs.

Unless they call an election, the Conservatives are safely in power until 2020, and calling an election to get Brexit overturned would not just risk a Labour victory, it would probably only work if Labour won.

Scotland is already planning to hold another independence referendum, and seeing devolution curtailed would make its success much more likely. Northern Irish republicans would be emboldened to call for unification with the Republic of Ireland, which could occur, or they could just reignite the Troubles after decades of peace.

The cost of not listening to them would be to split the UK.

More than 2 million have signed a petition calling for a second referendum which at this stage will achieve nothing other than more division.

The Conservatives do not want another election, especially since they have yet to actually split. If they don’t split, their leader will probably be Johnson, who supports Brexit and whose election would not exactly be a mandate to overturn the referendum result.

If bye the end of October a no deal has been reached, the UK automatically exits the European Union without any special deal letting it retain trade preferences or other benefits.

The Brexit vote is proof that when emotions battle reason in a voting booth, emotions can win. Brexit had a very powerful emotion on its side — fear of outsider and loss of identity.

However, the anti-immigrant sentiment is itself somewhat irrational in a world where cultural integration is more common than ever before in human history. In prehistoric times, this is what kept us safe. In the modern age, it’s what nudges us toward bigotry. In recent years, politicians have gotten more effective at painting immigrants as dangerous outsiders. Look no further than Donald Trump. Or his UK counterpart, Nigel Farage, the politician who has stoked fears by asserting thing like Muslims “don’t want to become part of our culture.”

You can fight anecdotes with anecdotes we’re not doomed to succumb to them.

Trumpism or the Brexit is not “the ultimate manifestation of something that evolution has programmed England to do.

Britain can have an economically decent outcome from a Brexit vote or a democratically decent one, but it can’t get both.

The EU, on the other hand, could do something drastic like expel England for breach of the Lisbon treaty. This would be a nightmare divorce, where one partner decides to walk away with no idea of what they will move on to.

In short:

If the UK wants an exit from the EU to cause as little economic damage as possible, it has two choices.

Either to revocate Articular 50 and effect the reforms needed within the EU or be like Norway.

To do this England must first encourage receptiveness of simple facts that nationalism and isolation do not exist in the modern world which is now threatened by climate change that requires immediate collective worldwide action, which is a given if we want to see a living planet, not an immigration planet.

Politicians must make the case for more liberal policy not just on economic grounds but on future aspirations of a peaceful Europe.

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








, , , , , , , ,


(Ten-minute read)


Democracy is in the process of being hollowed out.

A lethal combination of a backlash against hard-won rights for women and minorities, and worsening economic and social insecurities are being exploited by rightwing demagogues.

The lights are going out – and if an alternative politics of hope fails, then darkness will consume us all.

Rather than insulting the voters Putin’s recent remarks at the G20 emphasize the emblematic of our broken politics.

We have a politics that’s is all breaking points and no bending, that may ultimately be headed where Putin says.


Look at Britain where the House of Lords is a broken, morally corrupt, anti-democratic institution. Where Parlement because of first past the post voting system does not represent the people as a whole. Where lies and farcical financial promises are driving it to isolation. Foreigner-bashing is all the current rage the kernel of Farage nationalism. Conservatives are a dying breed.

Look at Poland, whose authoritarian rightwing government has also seized the judiciary, attacked media freedom, attempted to undermine the right to protest and indulged in rampant migrant-bashing.

Look at Hungary where rampant corruption has led to Hungary being widely labelled a kleptocracy, and it has indulged in wanton antisemitism.

Look at Italy’s far-right deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini – whose Northern League has soared in polls – has every chance of becoming the country’s leader in the near future.

Look at France yellow jackets right wing populous Marie La Penn a country where a strong left-wing element and a strong right-wing element always take any opportunity they can to contest virtually any changes proposed by any government that is not of their own persuasion. As a consequence, moderate political movements in France regularly find themselves obliged to pay lip service to more extreme groupings on their own side of the political spectrum, to avoid being accused of weakness. It’s true on the left, and it’s true on the right. A country where revolution is seen as an exercise of democratic rights, protesters usually draw public sympathy, and temporary chaos is seen as part of the price to pay.

Look at Turkey, once described as an emerging democracy, but whose de facto dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who rules through a never-ending state of emergency, has locked up and persecuted journalists and opponents, and concentrated power in his hands.

Look at the EU which is in need of fundamental reforms. Confronted by the spectre of its former self, Europe seems paralyzed. A two speed Europe that takes decisions from on high, and then, if they don’t work, they use every economic excuse possible to justify them as necessary to maintain the unity and progress. I do not agree with the economic homogeneity that binds the EU together what is needed is for citizens to feel like Europe is closer, notwithstanding the sharing of pseudo-values and the currency. Unitary economics, so far, has penalised us. Unitary politics, for me, does not represent us, the citizens. The euro has us trapped. If its goal is to dismantle nation-states, that will be the end of European democracy.

The EU is one of the motors of capitalist globalisation, the rule that all decisions should be made on the basis of profitability alone.

The people who really affect what happens must be democratically elected.

Join DiEM25.

Look at China with a population of around 1.404 billion one of the safest countries, with a low capital crime rate in the world. A concentration of never-married men, with little prospect of ever marrying, raises the potential for social instability.

Look at Russia acting as a traditional predatory nation-state. It’s trying to increase its wealth, expand its influence and maximize its power. It is a mess. It’s utterly corrupt. It represses any vigorous opposition and kills inconvenient journalists. Some, including US diplomats, have referred to the country as a mafia state.

Putin doesn’t care. He’s an autocrat and a nationalist it means holding the line against Putin’s expanding influence and waiting him out to see if his successor is more amenable to our interests and our values.

Look at the USA. Founded on the bedrock of freedom of expression, only about 1% of the actual population that lives in the US ever explores outside the USA. With 16 trillion dollars of debt, capitalism is slavery.  Donald Trump represents everything the rest of the world hates about America. It has created more wars that never solved anything.

It is now on a downward trajectory which could doom it to second-class status as a world power and will result in more autocrats such as Donal Dumps being elected.

Look at China the myriad problems within Chinese society comes from the behaviour, values and the beliefs of its people. The Chinese government is an embodiment of deliberative democracy, it stops short of allowing full freedom of expression and transparency. If the Chinese people spent as much time and energy learning about the world and publicly deliberating the problems that plague their society as they do playing video games, text messaging, watching vapid American sitcoms and shopping for trendy brands, China would already be a completely advanced country and moreover a genuinely democratic one.

Look at the World. We’re digging our own grave.

Algorithms for profit are plundering the world unregulated while we gladly hand over for free our every waking minute of life to be analyzed by a few world corporations that are disconnecting us from reality.

If our worldview resonates with the natural order and the laws that govern the Universe, then we are able to find harmony in life. Perception of the world and our state of vitality depends on how accurately we can interpret the information we receive from our senses.

About saving the planet should do more than sitting back and watch it happen. This is indeed a world issue! Not just a human one!

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





, , , ,



(Five-minute read)


Here we go again.

The right person to lead the country is being selected without any democratic scrutiny by the people of England.

It is no wonder that Brexit is tearing the country apart when so many are denied a voice.

Millions of voters go without a say in crucial national decisions – excluded not only from government but from holding the government to account.

In 3 of the last 4 general elections IN ENGLAND at least 50% of votes went to losing candidates.

First past the post.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of first past the post system uk"

A seat won by a 40,000 vote majority has the same outcome as a seat won by a single vote: both elect just a single MP.

Parliament in allowing an internal election of a new Conservative leader to become the Priminister is not only failing to reflect the people it is supposed to represent it is a form of Populous Dictatorship.

A minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy.

The latest developments to vindicate a New Primister for the country (who will, in fact, represent the choice of hundred thousand or so Conservervate members out of which 60% are over 50 years of age)  isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for politics and society.

First Past the Post is completely undemocratic severing the link between votes and seats.

Bipolar politics is designed to promote argument, not thought.

So it’s not surprising that we are now witnessing the election of a New Priminister with an out of date spluttering system that is unable to represent its citizens or to negotiate England’s withdrawal from the European Union without a mandate that represents the country as a whole.

Its no wonder England has politicians who most of you didn’t vote for and don’t agree with have the power to govern the UK however they like.

Its no wonder we see the construction/ imposition of one ideology for a period, followed by another, quite different ideology.

Its no wonder we see both main parties cling to their roots with extraordinary tenacity, even when confronted with the obvious fact: the conditions in society giving rise to these ideologies have long gone.

But First Past the Post keeps them in business and allows them to continue to indulge their emotion-based policies – with taxation paying for this indulgence.

Unchallenged by a more competitive electoral system, the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ parties remain trapped in their histories and beliefs, seeking differentiation through adopting the opposite of the other.

First Past The Post has many hidden direct and indirect costs. These are unrecorded, unstated and considerable, in taxes, wasted economic capacity, and wealth appropriation. The costs of all of these zigzags are borne by taxation.

First past the post is a non- linear system a dazzlingly stupid way to organize a modern democracy. It provides the bare minimum of democracy, is unrepresentative for the majority, and distorts the allocation of power.

Finally, First Past The Post is the best electoral medium for preferential lobbying.

This scourge of democracy is near universal.

Its elimination can only be achieved through a complete redesign of systems of government.



It may be simple to write an “X” next to a chosen candidate, but it’s incredibly difficult to know what that vote will mean. Millions of voters are forced to try to vote tactically by anticipating the decisions of other voters.

PR makes sure the share of seats each party gets matches the share of votes they receive. If a party gets 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. Parliament would accurately represent the people’s range of views and perspectives.

The opposition to PR Says:

We need the strong government that only first past the post can give’ and, by inference, not the namby-pamby government from coalitions and other inadequacies.

Sounds good, does it not?

Flutters the spine?

Makes one stand up straight.

I would say that the voting population of England is intelligent, much more has to change in all of these systems, including the EU.

Systems of government with PR suffer from many of the same failures and poor performance as the UK’s First Past The Post but,

does not allow the lending of votes to one candidate in order to knock out another to become Primisister  

The unseen consequences are about to be seen.

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