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.




( A twenty-minute read)



More and more of us are seeing the world in a digital footprint, controlled by algorithms and the click of a mouse.

We need to rethink the objectives of Artificial Intelligence.Financial charts

Today, algorithms know pretty well what we do, what we think and how we feel—possibly even better than our friends and family or even ourselves.

In fact, we are being remotely controlled ever more successfully.

The digital revolution is in full swing.

How will it change our world?

Every minute we produce hundreds of thousands of Google searches and Facebook posts.

The amount of data we produce doubles every year. In other words: in 2016 we produced as much data as in the entire history of humankind through 2015.

We are in the middle of a technological upheaval that will transform the way society is organized.

Data Mining. Heuristic Algorithms, Genetic Algorithms that promote “survival of the fittest” Police officers guided by algorithms, Filters that elect governments and Trumps, Drones that decide who, when, and where to kill.

It is estimated that in 10 years’ time there will be 150 billion networked measuring sensors, 20 times more than people on Earth. Then, the amount of data will double every 12 hours.

Many companies are already trying to turn this Big Data into Big Money.Image may contain: one or more people

Artificial intelligence is no longer programmed line by line, but is now capable of learning, thereby continuously developing itself.

Algorithms can now recognize handwritten language and patterns almost as well as humans and even complete some tasks better than them.

Today 70% of all financial transactions are performed by algorithms.

All of this has not just got radical economic consequences in the coming 10 to 20 years around half of today’s jobs will be threatened by algorithms.

40% of today’s top 500 companies will have vanished in a decade.

We need to know more about what technology is doing and how we are going to control its use before it is too late.

We need  to harness algorithms that contribute nothing to the world except exploitation for profit.

People may interpret technology in our time to be primarily about smartphones, social media, GPS, and the plethora of electronic gadgets that have become popular in the last decade.

But technology is a bigger subject than that.

The most common definitions of technology typical of some modern dictionaries run along the lines of defining it as applying scientific knowledge for practical ends.

So a smartphone is a piece of technology because it is an application of electrical circuit theory, electromagnetic field theory, computer science and such for the practical purpose of communication.

Technology can also refer to a body of knowledge and techniques used to build things. Technology enables us to make the stuff of our imagination real—at least partially. Technology itself does not tell us what to do. We use technology to bring our imagination to life. Technology lets us do and achieve more than is otherwise possible.

As a whole, technology is subservient to our collective desires. 

The above may be true in its original sense, but should we allow ourselves to become so reliant on them – and who, if anyone, is policing their use. (Google’s search algorithm is now a more closely guarded commercial secret than the recipe for Coca-Cola)

If you ask me nobody has a perfect definition of technology. This is common to all definitions of technology.

The supreme value of all this technology is information resulting in increasing amounts of personal information being collected.

Where is all  of this information being stored and by whom?‘

The unpalatable truth is the Cloud owned by monopolies, under term of agreement that  “Nobody reads.

Amazon has 11 cloud regions across the world.’s cloud is so vast and complex that it basically operates the largest computer on the planet. Amazon Web Services has a 27 percent share of the global cloud infrastructure market, followed by Microsoft at around 10 percent, and then IBM and Google.

There are two types of data that are stored in the many clouds that presently exist. The first category is the data that is created by the user before uploading it in the cloud and the other category is data that is created on the cloud platform itself.

Data that is produced prior to any upload into a cloud platform may be governed by the appropriate copyright laws depending on the cloud server while the data that is generated after storage brings about a whole new dimension of ownership.

To date, there are no regulations set for cloud computing (which by the way is unstoppable) and all that has partial governance over the cloud providers are the local set rules.

Do you have a Yahoo e-mail account? Maybe a Gmail account? Do you put up pictures on Flickr? Perhaps you’ve started keeping your schedule online. If so, then you are using cloud computing — that’s what tech companies call it when people work and store information on the Internet.

Are you plagued by suggestions because you looked at something on E Bay or pressed the like button Flipboard, or opened a link on U Tube, or bought on Amazon, or posted on Facebook, or twitted.  They are all governed by nudging Algorithms.

In the end it all boils down to whoever owns the capital will benefit as robots and artificial intelligence inevitably replace not just jobs, but the way we live our lives.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI"

So the obvious question is whether all this rapid advances in automation and digital technology is provoking social upheaval by eliminating the livelihoods of many people, even as they produce great wealth for others?

The Answer is an undoubtedly (with us all losing visibility as to what can be done about it)  <  YES >  Or Yes > it is, but in the future far more people need to “own the robots. Machines are tools, and if their ownership is more widely shared, the majority of people could use them to boost their productivity and increase both their earnings, their leisure and understanding of the world they live in.

If only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of ‘intelligence amplification,’ the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity.

We at the beginning of an economic transformation that is unique in history, wonderful for what it could do in bringing us better medicine, services, and products, but devastating for those not in a position to reap the financial benefits, the medical benefits, educational benefits etc. 

In other words, it would be smart to temper our expectations about the future possibilities of machine intelligence.

The reality is that governments worldwide are corralled by staggering debt, and with rapidly depleting income tax sources due to automation, the question becomes….Who will foot the bill!

When I say this I am saying that more and more computer-guided automation is creeping into everything from manufacturing to decision-making. We are at this moment, and for the past many years, having the wool pulled purposefully over our eyes by government itself regarding the disappearance of jobs and how we fund future public services.

If you believe that the rapid advance of technology could eliminate the need for most workers, government  policies do little to directly address that scenario. While we are in the early stages of a transition from the failing old system to a new one, it’s impossible to accurately predict the effects of future advances.

It is particularly difficult to isolate the specific impact of technology from that of, say, globalization, economic growth, access to education, and tax policies.

The future of autonomous machines designed to feed humanity is real and technological disruption is beginning to quietly transform many aspects of the millenary agricultural industry.

But advances in technology offer one plausible, albeit partial, cost saving to governments unshackling nations from the staggering costs of civil servants.

Will robots and software replace most human workers?

It is obvious that they will.

Take Agriculture for instance. The Agri Tech revolution is already under way, data and analysis the market for robots and drones for agriculture runs 3,000 million dollars annually. Triple to 10,000 million in 2022 and double again in 2026.

How do you assess just how specific technologies like these will affect the total number of jobs in the economy?

No one knows the answer.

In a globalized, increasingly automated economy, what can we do about this?

Wholesale reform is needed—far beyond the usual prescriptions of raising the minimum wage and spending more on education.

If advances in technology are playing a role in increasing inequality, the effects are not inevitable, and they can be altered by government, business, and consumer decisions.

The reality however is that none of the above will make a difference.

All this Technology and yet we humans have not learned to treat each other decently.

With the aid of a smart phone and app, we now have greater opportunities to stop rising income inequality by providing fairer access to quality education and training programs for people throughout their careers and lives in order to relate to the real world around us. Otherwise the world will face a new social eruption.

One thing is clear:

The solution is not to hold back on innovation, but we have a new problem to innovate around:  The way in which we organize the economy and society will have to change fundamentally.

Today, Singapore is seen as a perfect example of a data-controlled society. What started as a program to protect its citizens from terrorism has ended up influencing economic and immigration policy, the property market and school curricula. China is taking a similar route.Image associée

Every Chinese citizen will receive a so-called ”Citizen Score”, which will determine under what conditions they may get loans, jobs, or travel visa to other countries. This kind of individual monitoring would include people’s Internet surfing and the behavior of their social contacts.

It is also increasingly clear that we are all in the focus of institutional surveillance.

The more is known about us, the less likely our choices are to be free and not predetermined by others.

But it won’t stop there.

Some software platforms are moving towards “persuasive computing.” In the future, using sophisticated manipulation technologies, these platforms will be able to steer us through entire courses of action, be it for the execution of complex work processes or to generate free content for Internet platforms, from which corporations earn billions.

The trend goes from programming computers to programming people.

Regardless of this, criminals, terrorists and extremists will try to manage to take control of the digital magic wand sooner or later—perhaps even without us noticing. Almost all companies and institutions have already been hacked.

A further problem arises when adequate transparency and democratic control are lacking: Search algorithms and recommendation systems will be more than influential:

Companies can bid on certain combinations of words to gain more favourable results. Governments are probably able to influence the outcomes too. During elections, they might nudge undecided voters towards supporting them—a manipulation that would be hard to detect. Therefore, whoever controls this technology can win elections—by nudging themselves to power. This causes social polarization, resulting in the formation of separate groups that no longer understand each other and find themselves increasingly at conflict with one another.

Personalized information can unintentionally destroy social cohesion, so that political compromises become almost impossible. The fact that manipulative methods change the way we make our decisions. They override the otherwise relevant cultural and social cues.

At least temporarily.

The result is a fragmentation, possibly even a disintegration, of society.

In summary, the large-scale use of manipulative methods could cause serious social damage, including the brutalization of behavior in the digital world.

Who should be held responsible for this?

But which laws, if any, might be violated?

First of all, it is clear that manipulative technologies restrict the freedom of choice. If the remote control of our behaviour worked perfectly, we would essentially be digital slaves, because we would only execute decisions that were actually made by others before.

The right of individual self-development can only be exercised by those who have control over their lives, which presupposes informational self-determination. This is about nothing less than our most important constitutional rights. A democracy cannot work well unless those rights are respected. If they are constrained, this undermines our society and the state.

Last but not least there is the question of the legality of personalized pricing. It is questionable, because it could be a misuse of insider information.

We urgently need to impose high standards, especially scientific quality criteria and a code of conduct similar to the Hippocratic Oath to all Technology in particular to Algorithms. If not our thinking, our freedom, our democracy is being hacked for the sake of profit.

It is already clear that the problems of the world have not decreased despite the recent flood of data and the use of personalized information—on the contrary!  World peace with the rise in inequality is fragile. States and terrorists are preparing for cyber warfare.

Furthermore, there is a danger that the manipulation of decisions by powerful algorithms undermines the basis of “collective intelligence,” which can flexibly adapt to the challenges of our complex world.

For collective intelligence to work, information searches and decision-making by individuals must occur independently.

If our judgments and decisions are predetermined by algorithms, however, this truly leads to a brainwashing of the people. Intelligent beings are downgraded to mere receivers of commands, who automatically respond to stimuli.

It’s the next step that we need to keep an eye on.

Advances in quantum computing and the rapid evolution of AI and AI agents embedded in systems and devices in the Internet of Things will lead to hyper-stalking, influencing and shaping of voters, and hyper-personalized ads, all creating new ways to misrepresent reality and perpetuate falsehoods.

The long-term change in the climate will lead to the greatest loss of species since the extinction of dinosaurs the long-term changes to human thought will achieve the same result. Cyber-crime is estimated to cause an annual loss of 3 trillion dollars.
Image associée


This the Age of Algorithms and predicting that the future of algorithms is tied to machine learning and deep learning that will get better and better at an ever-faster pace.  The greedy algorithms are well on the way to advancing  Post-truth politics in many parts of the world.

They put too much control in the hands of corporations and governments, perpetuate bias, create filter bubbles, cut choices, creativity and serendipity, and will result in greater unemployment As society becomes more wedded to technology.

It’s important to consider the formulas that govern our data. 

“It is not too soon for social debate on how the fruits of an AI-

dominated economy should be shared.”























, , , , ,

( A Six minute read)

It’s easy to pick the dominant environmental issue of the last decade. It has been the issue of climate change and what—if anything—the countries of the world can do to limit, or reduce, carbon dioxide emissions.

It took hundreds of millions of years to create the world’s oil reserves.

It took less than a century before oil became the commodity on which world power turned and it was little more than a century before fears were raised that we would run out of oil.

Day in, day out, human beings are dependent upon it more than any other resource—and yet most rarely think about it.

For instance, most plastics are derived from oil. The medications taken by millions of people requires oil to produce.

Today, producing, distributing, refining and retailing oil is the single largest industry, in terms of value, on earth!  Yet, like most, you probably give little if any thought to the black liquid.

So the world needs to come to a common understanding that:

  1. The alternative energy is not mature enough to replace fossil sources any time soon.
  2. Energy security means a diversified and balanced portfolio inclusive of every bit of resource, fossil as well as renewables, just to meet the projected demand. No single form of energy will be able to entirely replace it.
  3. Real “green” energy is easier said than done.
  4. Gold and Oil are the commodities most heavily invested in by Hedge Funds.

Now consider.

Oil is a nonrenewable, finite resource.

What if there were no more oil?

What if the lifeblood of modern civilization stopped flowing?

The global economy would collapse in a heap of ruin—and fast! Life as we know it would come to an end. All the everyday items made from oil would no longer be produced. Virtually all transport would stop, and so would nearly all manufacturing. Scores of millions would be unemployed. Millions in colder climates would freeze. Food production would come to a grinding halt. Scores of millions would starve to death because 99.99…% of people don’t have the faintest grasp of the historical technology required to revert to a pre-oil era.

So where there used to be a strong link between economic growth and the increasing demand for oil, is that link now being broken by alternative energy sources.

Many are touting a number of alternative forms of energy as potential replacements to oil.

The key rationale for reducing petroleum consumption lies in the fact that the market price does not account for its full social cost: the negative externalities or consequences associated with petroleum use-such as greenhouse gas emissions and national security issues-are not incorporated in the market prices.

But is all of this true.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "biofuels images"

Biofuels: Corn-based ethanol.

A biofuel-gasoline mixture is already being used in many automobiles. Making biofuels requires large amounts of land. If these fuels were to become the “new oil,” nations would face a choice between growing crops for food and growing crops for fuel, as there is not enough cultivable land on earth to satisfy man’s need for both.

More carbon dioxide is actually released through biofuels than gasoline.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour ":Hydrogen fuel cells:"

Hydrogen is a non-polluting alternative fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells directly convert the chemical energy in hydrogen to electricity and release water and useful heat as by-products. Hydrogen fuel cells are pollution-free and have greater efficiency than traditional combustion technology.

The most abundant element in the universe but, it does not occur naturally as a gas in the Earth it is quite expensive to produce.

The systems used for delivering gasoline from refineries to gasoline stations cannot be used for hydrogen.

NASA is the primary user of hydrogen resources for its space program.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are currently very expensive than conventional vehicles or any hybrids.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Nuclear energy :"

Is efficient and clean, but the more reactors that are in use around the world, the more likely a nuclear disaster will occur.

Nuclear fusion: Résultat de recherche d'images pour "what is nuclear fusion"

Is an atomic reaction in which multiple atoms combine to create a single, more massive atom. The long allure of nuclear fusion is simple: clean, safe, limitless energy for a world that will soon house 10bn energy-hungry citizens. But despite 60 years of research and billions of dollars, the results to date are also simple: it has not delivered.

The world record for fusion power – 16MW – was set in 1997 at the JET reactor in the UK. The longest fusion run – six minutes and 30 seconds – was achieved at France’s Tore Supra in 2003.

The world needs to know if this technology is available or not.

Solar and wind power:

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Solar and wind power:images"

Are unlikely to produce enough energy to match that of oil.

New motor technologies:

Electric or Fuel cell cars to expensive.

So where are with energy.

Here’s the bottom line:

Renewables will remain niche players in the global energy mix for decades to come. The past—and the foreseeable future—still belong to hydrocarbons. And we can expect natural gas, the cleanest of the hydrocarbons, to garner a bigger share of the global energy pie in the near term and in the long-term.

Most alternative technologies rely on rare earths for efficiency.

However, the radioactive waste produced by rare earths mining process makes oil sands look like a green energy. This overlooked (or ignored) fact just now received some attention due to the sudden shortage caused by China’s embargo and export quotas on rare earths.

It Will Take 131 Years To Replace Oil, And We’ve Only Got 10.

Carbon dioxide emissions will continue rising because hundreds of millions of people are transitioning to a modern lifestyle, complete with cars, TVs, and other manufactured goods.

Renewable sources like wind and solar have their virtues, but they cannot compare with hydrocarbons when it comes to economics. If renewable sources of energy were dramatically cheaper than hydrocarbons, then perhaps we could be more optimistic about their ability to capture a larger part of the global energy mix. But even if that were true, a wholesale change in our energy mix will take a long time.

There is one thing all energy transitions have in common: they are prolonged affairs that take decades to accomplish.

If petroleum didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. Nothing else comes close to oil when it comes to energy density, ease of handling, flexibility, convenience, cost, or scale. Electric vehicles may be the celebrity car du jour, but modern batteries are only slightly better than the ones that Thomas Edison developed. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best lithium-ion batteries.

The entire global economic foundation is still built upon oil.

However China and India are among those facing major problems with urban air pollution.

We can talk about wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, and lots of other forms of energy production. But the question that too few people are willing to ask is this one: Where, how, will we find the energy equivalent of 25 Saudi Arabia’s and have it all be carbon-free?

The hard reality is that we won’t.

We need a simpler measure for global energy use, which now totals about 241 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. That sum is almost impossible to comprehend, but try thinking of it this way: It’s approximately equal to the total daily oil output of 29 Saudi Arabia’s.

Furthermore, over the past decade alone, global energy consumption has increased by about 27 percent, or six Saudi Arabia’s. Nearly all of that new energy came from hydrocarbons.

Scientists and policymakers can claim that carbon dioxide is bad but here is no urgency for an accelerated shift to a non-fossil fuel world: The supply of fossil fuels is adequate for generations to come; new energies are not qualitatively superior; and their production will not be substantially cheaper.

The supply chain required to run a modern society is oil.

The inability to lubricate moving parts to have no power the Internet and most technological development based on it (the “Internet of Things”) would cease to exist.

Most world currencies would collapse. Over 90% of

U.S. dollars exist electronically;

with no electricity to power the computers that track

these financial transactions and balances, most

records of ownership would be unavailable for the

foreseeable future.

Within a couple of weeks all the food in the cities would

be exhausted. Mass unemployment,

all the trees will probably be chopped down to

make coal to make energy.


Energy is too important for its development to continue in such a random manner. Thus society seems to be caught in a dilemma unlike anything experienced in the last few centuries.

Despite many claims to the contrary—from oil and gas advocates on the one hand and solar advocates on the other—THERE IS  no easy solution to these issues.

If any resolution to these problems is possible it is probable that it would have to come at least as much from an adjustment of society’s aspirations for increased material affluence and an increase in willingness to share as from technology.

Unfortunately recent political events do not leave us with great optimism that such changes in societal values will be forthcoming. With Donald Trump the debate over whether climate change is for real, and why it might be happening, has not gone away.

It’s less clear than ever how much oil is left but thanks to technology and changing climate change which is pushing car manufacturers towards more hybrid and electric cars, is seen as less of a threat than even ten years ago.

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






( A ten minute read)

Too often technology is discussed as if it has come from another planet and has just arrived on Earth.

I have dedicated quite a few posts to the need for a New World Organization to vet all Technology, Software, AIs, prior to their release into the world, to ensure that they all complied with our core human values. (see previous posts)Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of tech machines and humans"

So where do you fit into all of this TECHNOLOGY:

The ways that we as users and consumers experience devices will change greatly; every touch, scroll, pinch, zoom, tap, click and so on will be rich with unique animations and feedback – attention devoted to the most minute of interactions may well  create far more engaging experiences for us all but the whole notion of an organized professional ethics is an absurdity when it comes to AI.

This is why it is so vital to think about humanity’s new agenda. 

No one is an expert on seeing the full picture. Different fields of technology are now effecting other fields. Artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, big data, genetics, you name it.  No one understands the System any more so no one can stop it. Nobody can can absorb all the latest scientific discoveries.

Nobody has the slightest clue where we are heading in such a rush.

Never mind the expense of loosing our identity, or privacy, the world around us is changing – there is no doubt about that – yet the inexorable march of time and technology is at times so profound, so alien, and so overwhelming, that we often retreat to our safe spaces – of comfort and ritual and practice – rather than embracing those changes head-on as they come.

It is becoming abundantly clear that humanity’s relationship both with nature and technology needs to be undertaken by cooperative, collective action at all levels – local, regional, and global.  

Our products are becoming increasingly anonymous, autonomous, automated and homogenous, but we’re still to see a push back from the users. The significance of trust in digital products has yet to be fully realized. With growing concerns over security and data we are loosing sight of what Technological AIs are doing to society and the world as a whole.

Dozens  if not hundreds of virtual machine brains are making decisions inside AI Algorithms for you, and every other facet of your daily lives. 

Artificial General Intelligence is still the stuff of science fiction — but lesser, more practical AI’s, virtual assistants and digital concierges are right at our doorstep — most notably Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Echo, Alexa, Cortana, Google Now, Jibo, M, Clara, Amy and S Voice.

These personal “intelligent” assistants are entering our lives at a staggering pace — everyone that owns a smart phone has access to at least one of these AIs, and the world is coming to terms with the reality that AI is here to stay. As we begin to welcome multiple AIs into our lives, we’re beginning to find that our intelligent helpers aren’t being so “helpful” with one another.


Because these smart helpers are not designed to negotiate any division of labor amongst one another, leading to redundancy, contradiction, and overall dysfunction when their original purpose was to simplify things.

The world of apps and services is becoming increasingly more granular with us the users left in the dark — powerless and confused — caught between seams.

Are we going to be forced to interact with content in a fixed order along a linear path or are going to see the intelligence of the user being given more paths to navigate through, more decisions to make throughout each process, and more divergent ways to complete each touchpoint other than LIKE.

Every time we open Facebook or visit LinkedIn, we are subconsciously engaging in dozens of microinteractions—many invisible, too small to even notice.

We’re moving towards further atomization of microinteractions, where individual interactions are being broken down into even smaller segments within a greater interaction.

Over half the world’s population is now online and the enormous influx of new users will bring about a disproportionate amount of digital-novices, such as the elderly and the Global South. Unfortunately, the people of these nations also bear the brunt of some of the greatest challenges facing the international community in the next millennium: poverty, environmental degradation, human and civil rights abuses, ethnic and regional conflicts, mass displacements of refugees, hunger, and disease.

It won’t be long before we’ll be passively engaging in thousands of micro-mini interactions every time we take out our phones: with conflicting messages exist for us to truly communicate our message and see it implemented in the workforce. Even worse, our message is becoming abstracted, reduced to bullet points and slide shares, our ideas included solely for the benefit of others’ SEOs.

Designers will find new ways to capitalize on newfound user-engagement, both in terms of designing new features around these “interactions within interactions”, as well as devising new interfaces for the abundance of new interactions that the apps of tomorrow will bring!

Where the real paradigm shifting trends of tomorrow lie in wait, is anyone’s guess. It is not enough to look in front of you—you must look ahead to the future.

All of this is giving  birth to a new era of mobile friendliness and device agnosticism, and the web as a whole experienced. A shift in consciousness as sites became easier to use, apps became more intuitive to navigate, and services became all the more delightful and engaging to interact with.

You could say that we live in a time of exceptional opportunity, a time of rapid scientific, medical and technological advances.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of tech machines and humans"






That social media is mobilizing citizens to take political action while technological advances are driving down the price of solar power and creating new market opportunities THAT WILL DEVASTATE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

Reality is that Extreme global poverty persists, with 702 million people (9.6 percent of the world’s population) estimated to be living on less than US$1.90 a day.

Of the world’s poor, 72 percent (960 million) live in middle-income countries, where they do not experience the benefits of growth and lack access to opportunities and resources, including education, health care, financial services and formal employment—all of which limits socio-economic mobility.

Inequality is fueling violent conflict and political instability. Today’s conflicts are increasingly complex and harder to resolve, and they have a disproportionate impact on civilians.

Current patterns of economic growth are unsustainable and contribute to the acceleration of climate change, posing huge risks for the planet, including its people and their prosperity.

It is increasingly likely that the combined effects of rapid population growth in high-risk areas, environmental degradation and the impacts of climate change will increase the frequency and scale of environmental migration and displacement.

Worldwide, one in every 122 persons is now either a refugee, internally displaced or seeking asylum.

This is a staggering statistic.

In Jordan, for example, one in every 13 people is a Syrian refugee. In Lebanon, one in five persons are refugees.

For millions of people in developing countries, the effects of climate change, such as changing weather patterns and rising sea levels, directly jeopardize their livelihoods, health and security.

The United Nations’ global humanitarian appeal has almost quadrupled in the last 10 years, rising from US$5.9 billion to US$20.1 billion.

We will soon HAVE TO LOOK at the world in a whole new—and much more accurate—way.  A future born of new ideas as to how we create a world that is peaceful, prosperous, just and inclusive—a world where human rights are protected for all. We must urgently address climate change and support inclusive clean growth, including through support for clean energy and sustainable agriculture.

We must protect human rights, including for women and refugees, while promoting accountable governance, peaceful pluralism and respect for diversity.

We must generate new opportunities for youth, so that their despair does not become a risk for global stability and security. And we must continue to respond to human suffering and instability brought on by crisis and disaster, including the hardships facing refugees and displaced populations.

The challenges are clear.

Our collective challenge lies in giving practical expression to this fundamental understanding. For better or worse, weather is an integral part of our world. It impacts our every experience, however subtle, and is thus an omnipresent variable in the way we experience everything else in our lives – including the apps on our phones.

Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and resilience. Widening inequalities of wealth and income.

The world-wide disruption of the physical climate system and the loss of millions of species that sustain life are the grossest manifestations of unsustainability.

We must find ways to protect and conserve as large as possible a fraction of the tens of millions of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms that make up the living fabric of the world.

We depend on them for the maintenance of the sustainable properties of the earth and for virtually every facet of our existence, and yet we have recognized only a very small fraction of them up to the present date.

If we don’t save them now, we clearly will not be able to save them later.

Up to now we’ve had a very fixed view of ourselves but globalization has expanded a country’s presence beyond its physical borders. No developing country has been able to reduce poverty without sustainable economic growth.

AI for Profit is going to ensure that they remain so.

This is where we fit into technology by developing an algorithm that can translate information culled from depth maps of virtual surfaces into dynamic tactile experiences. Another words real-time maps on our flat screen that show the state of the world.

The dramatic climate shifts of the near-future will bring about extreme environmental conditions that necessitate the need for ever more vigilant weather tracking maps.

In view of the persistence of poverty, the widening of economic and social inequalities, and the continued destruction of the environment is it not sensible that we get a handle on Technology before it condemns us all to slavery.

The evidence is that technology is destroying jobs and indeed creating new and better ones but also fewer ones.

Only through the empowerment and education of women and children throughout the world will we be able to attain a world that is both just and sustainable. We have a clear moral obligation to do this, and will benefit greatly by succeeding in this goal.

This will not be achieved by AI or technology.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of tech machines and humans"

So I leave you with these two further questions:

Who Will Own the Robots?

If the rewards of new technologies go largely to the very richest, as

has been the trend in recent decades, then dystopian visions could

become reality. The rapid advances in automation and digital

technology provoke social upheaval by eliminating the livelihoods of

many people, even as they produce great wealth for others?


How can we get better at sharing the wealth that technology creates?

No one knows the answer.

As Algorithms become more intelligent and more powerful it is not only the the financial industry that will require safeguards against exploitation and risk, we all will.

But the machines are tools, and if their ownership is more widely shared, the majority of people could use them to boost their productivity and increase both their earnings and their leisure. If that happens, an increasingly wealthy society could restore the middle-class dream that has long driven technological ambition and economic growth.

If you want to get your head around any of this I would recommend that you read: Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari ISBN 9781910701874.

All comments appreciated. All like click chucked in the Bin


















, , , , , , , ,

( A Seven Minute Read)

Planet Earth is dying all around us on a scale not seen since the annihilation of the dinosaurs thanks to one species and flat screensRésultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of earth from space high resolution"

It is a story that is both a world away and yet deeply personal because of our flat screens

Humanity could soon be living on a planet stripped of much of its biodiversity — and that’s not even considering the potentially devastating effects of global climate change, which has only recently started to really kick into gear.

Our Screens provide shocking proof that we humans have to change our behaviour.

You would think irrevelent of our different belief, political and religiously, we would all recognise the value of our planet. Instead we are preoccupied with satisfying our short-term greed or power to fuel a world of globalisation that is reflected in the stock exchanges which are run by Artificial Intelligence that also runs our flat screens.

Nothing is real, it’s all entertainment.

It strikes me even if (when) we fall prey to artificial intelligence, nuclear war, GMO viruses, climate change, or an array of other disasters, that we might be better off using our massive resources, technology, and brain power to save the planet we’ve already got rather than trying to colonize others.

Science may well have the power to redeem and inspire, and indeed with the power of flat screens we are sharing the wonder of science, exploration and adventure but it is an antidote, in some small measure, to suffering and destruction going on about us.

There will be around 6.1B Smartphone Users Globally By 2020. Those 6.1 billion smart phone users works out to some 70 percent of the world’s population using smartphones in five years’ time.

In the USA there are 14,728 full power radio stations: 1,774 full power TV stations: with unofficial global figure of approximately 15,000 channels. earning around 400 billion in revenue.

 We are now on the breaking tip of a sixth great wave of extinction.

It is the kind of bad news that makes historical catastrophes like World War II or the Black Death look like picnics.

If the currently elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity benefits.

The principle culprits are human “reproduction, consumption in general and especially agriculture, leading to habitat destruction, burning of fossil fuels [and] spreading of toxic chemicals.” The world economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the planet’s environment with us being a byproduct.

The Zoological Society of London, has found that the number of vertebrates – mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish – on earth has fallen by more than half since 1970. In all, the report concludes, there are 52 per cent fewer vertebrates alive on Earth than there were when someone now in their forties was born.

It is the number of animals in an ecosystem that decides its health and functionality. 6.5 percent of all people ever born are alive today. Preventing a sixth great dying requires a rapid return to equilibrium.

The number of insects worldwide had fallen by 45 per cent since the Seventies, while human populations had almost doubled.

But how long does it have, and what will it take to sterilise the entire planet? There’s no shortage of potential apocalypses.

Which of them will finally render the Earth barren?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of earth from space high resolution"

Researchers can hypothesise almost no end of threats to life on Earth.

Today we worry about the destructive power of Super Volcanoes like Yellowstone. Asteroid that could wipe out all life on Earth, the Earth’s core mysteriously stopping to rotate, the Earth’s magnetic field deflecting ionising particles from the sun, intense waves of radiation called gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), genetically engineered viruses, artificial intelligence and robots could be the end of us all, the Sun exploding in 6.5 billion years time or the arrival of an Alien life form.

All of which would be very unlikely to wipe out all life except the Sun.

Forty per cent of the planet’s forests, for example, have been felled since the 18th century, while 60 per cent of the globe’s “ecosystem services” have been degraded in the past half century alone.

In fact, the take-home message from all of this is that there isn’t a plausible catastrophic agent from outside the solar system that could wipe out life on Earth within the next few billion years.

Life’s biggest threat will come from within.The Sun will expand, and eventually swallow the Earth (Credit: AlgolOnline/Alamy)

The sun is getting hotter as it ages, and as a consequence the Earth will warm up. That means the chemical reaction between rocks and atmospheric carbon dioxide will speed up – a process that’s accelerated even more by the action of plant roots.

Eventually, so much carbon dioxide will have been removed from the air that plants can no longer perform photosynthesis. All plants will die, and animal life won’t be far behind. This could happen surprisingly soon, perhaps in just 500 million years.

Beginning around 5 billion years from now, the Sun will expand, becoming a swollen star called a red giant. By 7.5 billion years in the future, its surface will be past where Earth’s orbit is now. So the expanding Sun will engulf, and destroy, the Earth.

If that’s true, the only hope lies with us. If any humans are still around, they might have the technology to move the Earth to safety. Otherwise, life on Earth has a maximum life expectancy of 7.5 billion years.

Alien forensic scientists might well conclude that life on Earth had a hand in its own demise.

But we also can have a hand in stopping what is destroying our planet. That does not mean living less well, only less wastefully.








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




Certainly Britain cannot be rewarded and it will not be allowed to pick and choose at will policies that it wants to participate in or abstain from.

SO WHAT IS THE HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE OF ENGLAND OUTSIDE THE EU?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of europe after britain leaves"


Reality Check:

It is obvious that there is going to be a political ‘price’ to be paid by the UK.  Significantly less political influence compared to EU membership.

It is obvious that England exit from the EU will inevitably affect the future of the EU.

It is obvious that there will be costs in the way of replacing  trade with the EU with trade with other, more distant countries due to the gravity law in international trade.The PM wants to guarantee the rights of EU citizens already in the UK

It is obvious that if the Conservatives secure a landslide victory in the forthcoming general election in July the UK will descend into one-party statehood in a vortex of economic failure.

It is obvious that it will impose immigration quotas on individual EU countries. Discriminated between the different EU member states. As of 2014, there were 5.3 million non-UK nationals resident in the UK, of whom EU nationals accounted for 3.3 million. Of those, 2.2 million currently work in the UK. Around 84 per cent of them already have the right to stay post-Brexit. Those advocating the exit of the UK from the EU as a solution to unwanted intra-EU immigration do not seem to have grasped the unpalatable nature of the alternatives even in the terms of their own anti-immigration agenda.

It is obvious that a reciprocal deals on emergency healthcare like the ones it already has with a number of non-EU countries around the world can be arranged.

It is obvious that the byzantine complexity of withdrawal negotiations and harsh trade agreement terms dictated by the EU will sent the pound into a corkscrew spin, unstabilizing stock markets worldwide.

It is obvious that it will make futile efforts to protect sterling.

It is obvious that interest rates will raise to prevent a falling pound leading to higher inflation.

It is obvious that the knock on effect of this will increase the price of exports and imports, plus tariffs will lead to the privatize the NHS.

It is obvious that there will be a reduction in in tax receipts resulting in higher government borrowing, large tax rises or major cuts in public spending.

It is obvious that the form of subsidies and grants that British farmers get from the Common Agricultural Policy along with various economic development and scientific research projects get from the EU ( £6 billion a year. Taking account of the money that comes back and the aid spending, Britain in 2015 gave almost £6.5 billion to the EU) will change.

In 2015, the UK’s full membership fee was £17.8 billion. However, Britain doesn’t pay that full fee it receives a reduction making its contribution  £12.9 billion.

It is not so obvious that it will need an IMF loan.

It is obvious that any special relationship with the USA will not be worth the paper it is written on. America’s $45trn debt prohibits a loan.

It is obvious that any financial settlements will have to be met on the never-never.

It is obvious that such an arrangement will have to be agreed under both English law and EU laws.

It is obvious that Britain will have to start negotiating with the people you turned our backs on. 

It is obvious that if there is any default in payments it will affect any trade agreement. Weakening any trade deals outside the EU.

It is obvious that the Scots will voted decisively for independence.

It is obvious that it will sour relationships with Ireland. An important part of the EU single market is that tariffs are not imposed on goods and services traded across national boundaries within the trading bloc.

It is obvious that it could destabilise the Northern Ireland peace process if border controls have to be reintroduced, stoking sectarian sentiment.

It is obvious that Scotland will rejoin the EU.

It is obvious that there will be an exodus from the City of financial services firms, to Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin.

It is obvious that the property market will be in decline.

It is obvious that any form of a continental partnership will not work.

It is obvious that wages in real terms will decline, exploited by firms freed from EU employment legislation.

It is obvious that the UK Parliament will face congestion as MPs unpick EU laws.

It is obvious that it could cause a constitutional crisis if pro-EU MPs, who are in a majority, carry out their threat to hold a vote to keep the UK in the single market.

It is obvious that the EU is by far the main market for UK products.

It is obvious that the UK leaving the EU will cause great damage, economic and otherwise, to both the Union and the United Kingdom.

At the end of the day the UK is up against 27 other countries, each of which will all have their own goals in these negotiations.

It is obvious that in the longer term England will find out if can prosper as an independent nation or it has inflicted a massive act of economic self harm.

It is obvious that there will be a growing divide between cities and rural areas, identity, and the future of the nation-state.

It is obvious that the UK has two years to negotiate its exit with the EU. If no deal is forthcoming it can ask for an extension but that would require the approval of all EU member states.

It is obvious that we are all going to have to Brace yourself for a lot of horse trading.

Britain does not just have to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU. It will have to re negotiate trade deals with 53 other countries currently covered by our membership of the EU.

It is obvious it will have to strike new agreements with Europe on policing, consumer rights, border control and the environment. These could all take years to resolve.

It is obvious that there are still a lot of unknowns.

It is not obvious if UK citizens will need to be given new passports that state if they live in the EU or in England or Wales.

Here are a few hard facts:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of europe after britain leaves"

With about €14 trillion in terms of goods and services, its economy surpasses the U.S. Brexit will be a watershed event for Europe and for the European process of unification and integration.

Apart from the EU, there is also the Council of Europe, which is an international organization in Strasbourg with 47 member states, including the UK. It’s Europe’s leading human rights organization and is known for its European Convention on Human Rights, which restricts the death penalty. It also makes judgments through the European Court of Human Rights.

To complicate matters further, there will not be one set of negotiations (between the UK and the EU27) but several: Its assembly is more convoluted than the U.S. federal government, because there are different languages, histories, cultures and different degrees of economic development among these countries.

Never mind the Article 50 procedure. An annoyance and a waste of time, it is ultimately inconsequential. The UK will withdraw the request to leave the European Union.

It can do this at any time until the end of the two-year period, whenever the government has come to its senses and found a better strategy to get what the British people want.

The intention can be reversed at any time over two years.

At present it is dragging its EU relatives along against their will, in chains made of unwritten constitution?

What if the departure causes pain to all others in the EU and destabilizes the whole neighbourhood? Then there is an obligation to speak up and recall that it is only England and Wales, that wants to leave the EU.

Some 63 per cent of the registered electorate did not vote for Brexit in the EU referendum on June 23, 2016; only 37 per cent did.

The UK is a federation by any definition.

It may be politically centralized, but the nations that share the British Isles have retained their clearly demarcated territories, identities, flags and their separate laws, institutions and customs.

They have everything that marks sovereign states and they even field separate national football teams.

The Swiss know that legitimacy of a referendum requires super-majorities of the people and the constituent parts of the federation. This lesson is applied in the voting rules in the EU Council of Ministers, but wilfully ignored by David Cameron when he set up the EU referendum.

The whole thing is a sham that is going to line the pockets of the rich.

The Big Bang of Brexit is only the start of a new era.

Let’s hope the thunder of 29 March doesn’t signal a storm to come.

What has been sadly and persistently lacking in all of this is the political will and ability to put its people first.

And we shouldn’t feel reassured even if the U.K. ends up still in the EU. At stake are the daily lives and interests of millions of people on both sides of the Channel.

The big question is: Is this merely a local British affliction, or does it portend a more global anger against the governing structures of our time?

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







, ,


( A one minute read)

The meaning of Brexit is yet to become clear.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations 2016"

However it is clear that a British exit from the EU will carry with it large economic and political costs.

It is also evident that none of the alternative relations with the EU presents itself as more advantageous compared to EU membership.

It is also clear that leaving the EU will be a historical mistake of paramount proportions and it will impact on the UK for many years to come.

It is also clear that they will become impossible.

These set aside the above and you don’t have to be a genius to know that it is going to be a money war with us ( by us I mean Eu citizens living in England and vice a versa English living in the Eu) becoming political footballs.

The signs are already out in the open.

Tough leaked documents say EU wants Britain to have to pay off obligations to Brussels for years after Brexit, remain subject to European Union courts and continue to let relatives of European immigrants settle in the UK, according to draft EU negotiating documents.

On the English side: Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations 2016"

Ending free movement of workers from EU states, budget contributions to Brussels and oversight by the European court of justice (ECJ) are central to Theresa May’s plans for leaving the EU, due to happen in March 2019 after a two-year negotiating period.

This put her at odds with EU negotiators.

The chances of  Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the union should be the first priority for the negotiations.

The money separation costs of 50 billion or 100 billion will become a gold mine for lawyers for years.

There is another option.

Secure the agreed reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights of all.  On agreement write off the money costs with no further negotiations on trade or otherwise.

It would save both sides a fortune.

If we all stand back and take a ruthless, non-tribal, unheroic look at the standards on offer in political leaders the incompetence on offer is near universal.

We can only hope for a Messy Brexit or a Clean Brexit.

The belief in free markets does not extend to the electoral marketplace, which would be in all of our interests. In the last 30 years, has any one thing actually ever been sorted out properly and left well alone to function?

None of this is the fault of the political parties: they have been born into a system that makes them incompetent in government. But they are to blame for not changing it. We all get so sucked into the low-level debates that today’s politics depend upon.

The main concern of the people is neither unemployment nor immigration, but the reform of EU institutions.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations 2016"

It’s a mixture of the bare essentials of basic democracy, human rights, and rule of law, and stuff bolted on as the EU role has expanded hugely, and its operation become complex.

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




( A Five minute read)

Since death violates the right to life we ought to wage war against it.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "images of life and death"

Death and attendant matters have been seminal topics of reflection, disputatious debate, and other modes of social discourse since the dawn of civilization and, presumably, also among the people who predate civilization.

Philosophers and non-philosophers stand on a level of equality with respect to death.

There are no experts on death, for there is nothing to know about it. Not even those who study the death process have an edge on the rest of us. We are all equals in thinking about death, and we all begin and end thinking about it from a position of ignorance.

The concept of death has a use for the living, while death itself has no use for anything.

Whether we think of death as a wall or a door, we cannot avoid using one metaphor or another. We often say that a person who dies is relieved of suffering. However, if death is real, then it is metaphorical even to say that the dead do not suffer, as though something of them remains not to suffer.

Death is always described from the perspective of the living. All we see when we look at death is a reflection of our own lives. The concept of death is absolutely without any object whatsoever. There is no method for getting to know death better, because death cannot be known at all.

Birth and death are the bookends of our lives.

The young have an intellectual understanding that death comes to us all, but their mortality has not become real to them. Ignoring death leaves us and them with a false sense of life’s permanence and perhaps encourages us to lose ourselves in the minutiae of daily of life.

In the twenty-first century, death and dying will be more visible, more omnipresent, more seminal topics of social concern, and a much more pressing economic reality.

All this had and is still having an impact on our culture and our social lives.

In short, in the future people can be aided to die slowly instead of dropping dead or dying quickly. More persons will be dying slowly, and more attention will be given to dying.

We are now entering an age where the tolerance of death is no longer a one way ticket to afterlife. It is a technical problem to be overcome, that can and should be overcome.

The Flagship of Science and technology is to defeat death.

The human declaration to life has no expiry date.

Google company called Calico state mission is to solve death. “We’re tackling aging, one of life’s greatest mysteries.” Calico is a research and development company whose mission is to harness advanced technologies to increase our understanding of the biology that controls lifespan.

Image associée

There are less and fewer reasons to accept death.  A world without death could well put pay to religion as we know it.

The writing’s on the wall:

Equality is out – immortality is in.  Upgrades or are we on the way that will make our lives as a young person only a distant memory.

The big question is with humanity destined becoming a ripple in the cosmic data flow will it make any difference?

Not really if we have destroyed the planet.

Long life will definitely trigger bitter political conflicts and wars as it will cause misery not happiness.

We might well conquer the pain of death  but misery is another matter.

Like most things, death has both a good side and a bad one.” Life and death depend on each other.  You can’t have one without the other, and if you think life is a good thing, you have to see death as desirable as well.

However if death did not exist, life would continue by definition.

Death might be necessary for uncontrolled procreation under constrained resources, but it is not “absolutely necessary for the continuance of life.”

In truth mortality will be still with us:

Once gone, gone forever or maybe not. If the normal lifespan were a thousand years, death at 80 would be a tragedy. As things are, it may just be a more widespread tragedy. If there is no limit to the amount of life that it would be good to have, then it may be that a bad end is in store for us all.

Each one of us will die, yet the individual’s death is merely a part of the human continuum.

So death is only an unknown, unperceivable or experienceable idea of consciousness. Death of consciousness can’t be perceived by itself. However, if the Consciousness is unfragmented, there is no conditioning and hence no fear at all, and hence the need of coming to terms with death also doesn’t arise.

Greek philosopher Epicurus:

So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former, it is not, and the latter are no more.

It is useful to think about death only to the point that it frees us to live fully immersed in the life we have yet to live. 

I certainly don’t want to die any time soon, and you probably don’t either. This is not merely because we can’t see the future. Death deprives us of many futures, good, bad, and middling.

One might argue, future lives could benefit from the knowledge, but why should that matter to us?

For the dead, death is nothing. The best thing about death is that you don’t know you’re dead.

Perhaps it will all come down too: Within this urn my ashes dwell add H20 and stir them well. A pinch of salt perhaps and then I’ll walk upon this earth again.

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




, , , , ,


( A seven minute truth read)


There is nothing new about this, other than the manner and the pace it is happening at where facts are deemed less important than beliefs.

For Example: In an age of Post – truth politics we now have a  President of the USA that appears not to care whether his words bear any relation to reality.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of post-truth politics"

The declining societal respect for facts, the rise of deceptive partisan media outlets are creating  an echo chamber effect in public discussion.

If people only knew the truth, we wouldn’t have the problems of global warming, economic recession, poverty, War, any Famine. 

Most people now get their news about the world around them pre-digested and customised by social media. They do not get the breadth of information supplied by an even moderately impartial news source.

Material is allotted them not by whether it is true but by whether they might like it.

Which is institutionally biased, and more vulnerable to the dissemination of lies.

Something must be surely be done about this.

Our post-truth era, in short, need not be an obstacle to taking common action.

Feelings trump facts and the power of truth as a tool to solve problems is being diluted by False News. For example the EU is now in danger of breaking up due to a campaign of blatant misinformation.

The lost of truth has many roots, and indeed it is a human failing not to seek it out.  Life at this juncture is practically unimaginable without the technology we enjoy today.

A large amount of social media feeds on getting strangers to follow each other’s random thoughts or tracking our idle page visits to target advertising, and as a society we seem more than happy to provide.

If you OK-ed the latest update for your Facebook app on your phone, you’ve given Facebook permission to read your text messages?

Everybody knows Google has questionable privacy rules, but Gmail is a really good email provider, and most people don’t tend to make their Twitter private.

Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. Unorganized knowledge is the king, driving Climate Change, down to the survival of the cutest.

The continued societal focus on economic growth, both personally and as a society driven by algorithms for profit are all forcing a consumer society.

With the continued societal focus on economic growth, privacy is now arguably subject to consumerism. Critical thinking is sacrificed in favour of having feelings, reinforced by soundbite.

The problem is that Facebook (which has somewhere in the region of 2 billion users) and other so-called net works do not see themselves as media companies and are for the most part run by algorithms that have put artificial intelligence in charge of spreading False News.

As capitalism really gaining a grip on everyday life technology is a society constant. The majority of the Facebook users tend to share every mundane detail of their lives.

The inverted distinction between public and private.

What can we do about it?

We’ve built an awesome, sprawling web of technology with a astonishing bit rates entering the human mind and emotions through eyes, ears and even noses, all creating an accelerating escalation of intensity which is now out of control.

In a world increasingly devoid of person to person contact we are becoming more and more attached to morally ambiguous technologies. Given such biases it is no wonder we are unable to even agree on facts.

Precious little is said about the human, societal and environmental impact of such intense and increasing post-truth politics.

Are we more or are we less?

What is happening to our relationships, to our sensitivities, to our abilities to be moved, to our abilities to perceive?

Content is no longer a fixed format so there is no provenance as to what is true or false. With countervailing views filtered it is no wonder we get like clicks or news to boost hits.

Most of us now get our news on social media with anyone becoming a publisher. This information revolution can now play havoc with political falsehood.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on post-truth politics"

So when Trump says we need to go to war now. We won’t know if he’s telling the truth.

What then?

We might even see this proliferation of belief systems and worldviews as an opportunity for human development. We can agree to disagree and still engage in pragmatic action in the world.

Modern democracy is not indeed flawless, but so far it is the most advanced political system the human kind could come up with. However the features of modern democracy for which we consider it as the most ‘human’ form of governance now comes with shortcomings.

These shortcomings like poor access to institutions, low-level of participation, rising level of elitism, ossification of state authorities, etc., are often the root of discontent among the public. Such reasons are making the discontent more than just and as a matter of fact.

But without opposition and discontent, there can be no democracy.

We as an audience must take into account the nature of media and subsequently different sources before making any assumptions on the content itself. Things like lack of critical thinking, an absence of fact-checking before accepting statements, inability to put things perspective and so on, provide opportunities for the rise of unpleasantly phenomena like post-truth and post-truth politics.

The concept of ‘post-truth’ has reached a point of saturation in present-day popular discourse and media punditry. Driven by digitally mediatized representations of reality and social interaction. Resulting in many of our world organisation becoming irrelevant.

Democracy requires a citizenship that meets, deliberates and interacts without fear and hatred. It requires organisations that give people a “voice” and a feeling that they have a stake and some influence in the system.

The pervasiveness of presumed causal linkages between environmental degradation, violent conflict and human mobility has been utilized by policy makers and pundits to shape public opinion.

Democracy now needs online innovation.

When Microsoft created Windows, it created the possibility of multiple lenses or views of any issue. Why not build on that? Before we all become Twit’s.

The problem which remains is purely one of logic.

The world is populated by other people who aren’t you. This is one of the major tools of democracy.

What does post-truth tell us about the current and future state of democratic engagement and of democracy itself?

Truth must no longer legitimize the politics of Brexit and Trump. No matter how democratic it is, the rug must be pulled out from under Post – truth politics. We have lost our power to them; we cannot lose our truth too. 

The pervasiveness of presumed causal linkages between environmental degradation, violent conflict and human mobility has been utilized by policy makers and pundits to shape public opinion about the predicament we are now in.

What can be done?

“Take back control”

The least we can do to make the United Nations a place where minds, hearts and nations connect for the sake of so many people all over the world.

Obviously, don’t vote for fibbers.

Bombard social media platforms to remove filters.

Create an Online Political platform for the Truth.

Remember that knowledge is power.

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





































( A two-minute read)


After four decades of legal, economic and administrative convergence, the scope of this the forthcoming negotiations is truly vast: from labour mobility to customs checks, fishing rights to patents, scientific research to counter-terrorism.

The challenge is all the greater because Article 50 stipulates that (unless the other Member States agree by unanimity to extend the period) the UK will cease to be a member of the EU within 2 years – deal or no deal.

At its core, the EU has been a political project.

It is not just a group of states that cooperate, but a group of states which have created supranational institutions that have executive and judicial authority over EU member states and that can pass laws that are directly applicable throughout the EU.

So what can be expected?

The UK starts from a weaker position than the EU because it needs a deal more.

Certainly Britain cannot be rewarded and it will not be allowed to pick and choose at will policies that it wants to participate in or abstain from.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the uk -eu negotiation "

It must decide what it is willing to concede in exchange for achieving its objectives.

On the other hand the EU will wish to avoid an acrimonious divorce that damages all parties.

Both sides must take a long-term view, beyond the possibly drawn-out negotiations that will begin in the coming months.. The EU and the UK economic links are now so interwoven that their prospects cannot be independent over any foreseeable horizon.

The big question might well boil down to, can or will the Uk pay, whatever the economical price. The British government has no legal obligation to pay for Brexit or outstanding payments into EU budget.

The EU’s €1tn, seven-year budget was negotiated in late 2013 by EU leaders including the British prime minister. It is due to expire at the end of 2020, although bills may be trickling in until 2023. This reflects that payments for EU-funded infrastructure projects, such as roads or airports, are not settled until two to three years after being promised.

It is more than likely that payment will be a principle of liability with the British government (with estimates ranging from €20bn to more than €70bn.)

A large payment would be a political problem for any UK government. however to have any negotiations they should be honoured in full.

If not in an increasingly volatile world the chill winds of solitude points to no deal.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of negotiation skills"

At the end of the two-year period  EU Treaties will cease to apply to the UK, even if no agreement has been reached. This will lead  to a short, sharp shock, rather than a lengthy period of economic dislocation and political acrimony.

So it stands to reason that if the UK government wants goodwill from EU countries and a deal on access to European markets, agreement on the budget will be important.

For some, the most controversial question is likely to be whether it is possible to have close economic integration comparable to the single market while partly limiting labour mobility.

This will turn into a political football : EU citizens in the UK and English citizens living and working in the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of negotiation skills"

Reorganise Europe in two circles to accommodate the Uk will not work.

So what will be the result? It’s a tough one this.

Negotiation is crucial in all organisations and in virtually every aspect of life. In essence, negotiating is deciding what to agree on and persuading the other party to agree. The outcome does matter. Good negotiators focus on value while sellers often focus on price.

Everything go straight to the wall. May day, May Day.

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

















This will be an essential element of the negotiations on the orderly separation.”




, , , , , , ,


( A five-minute read)

We all know or at least we should all be aware that our world is becoming less and less transparent thanks to what we call Artificial Intelligence.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of cloud computing"

The challenge there is:

The false promise of the Internet was that it can connect people from different backgrounds, with different beliefs and across disparate locations.

The trend toward personalization by AI is impeding the fulfillment of that promise?

What is becoming more and more apparent is that while most personalization on the web is algorithmically driven, aren’t we implicitly, informing the algorithms based on the choices we’ve previously made interacting with content?

Couldn’t you then, in theory, manipulate the filter so you see what you want to see or are there too many factors beyond our control?


Even if you’re completely logged out of Google, on a new computer, the company can track 57 signals about you — from what kind of laptop you’re using to what your IP address is to what the font size in your browser is. Already, that gives a lot of important clues about age, income and demographics.

It’s ironic — the promise of personalization is that it gives us our own personal view of the world.

But the challenge is that a lot of the time, it’s actually pushing us toward a stereotyped, simplified version of ourselves: “This person is male, so we’ll show him more gadget and car news.”

So let me ask you.

Many of the major social, discovery and media sites on the Internet now implement some type of personalization. Do you feel these sites have a responsibility to educate consumers about how their information is being filtered? Do you think users should be able to opt out of personalization?

I would say Yes, on both counts.

In an increasingly complex and vast media landscape it is crucial that me maintain our private lives.


Because: Algorithms of all shapes and sizes are monitoring, analyzing, making
decisions, dictating our credit scores etc.  They are shaping our lives and economies, our future, so shouldn’t we know what code and mathematical equations, or deep learning go into making them work.
However Transparency alone won’t help.
Algorithms are complicated so exposing the code behind them won’t make them more understandable. Knowing how an algorithm is coded is useless without knowing the data that has being fed into it in the first place.

There is only one solution and that is the:

The Creation of a New World Organisation that is totally transparent, and self financing:  To vet all Technology. To ensure that they comply with the core world gold standard of human values.
(See previous Posts)
Let me ask you two further questions.
Can some level of personalization be useful?
What are we missing that we need to see?
Some amount of algorithmic personalization is necessary — there’s just too much stuff to sort through for humans to do it all. However you don’t know who Google thinks you are or on what basis it’s editing your results, and therefore you don’t know what you’re missing.

A lot of the personalization that exists today just serves up information junk food, but a growing portion is being curated by robots — computer algorithms that are filtering content and deciding what we get to see.

It may be delicious, but it doesn’t feed the soul.

Now it’s possible to live in a bubble where that stuff doesn’t ever show up — you’d never know it’s happening.

Take the Facebook “Like” button — the main way that information gets spread on Facebook. “Like” isn’t a neutral word — it’s easy to Like “I just finished a marathon,” and hard to Like “cell phones may cause cancer.”

So some kinds of information get through, and others don’t, and when that’s happening in the Facebook News Feed, where an increasing number of folks get their news, it’s a real problem.

Most people aren’t aware that their Google search results, Yahoo News links, or Facebook feed is being tailored in this way.

Filters can provide relevance and combat information overload, but with so much riding on automated decisions to ensure algorithms deal with humans fairly is now more relevant than ever.

I recently read that in five-year your smartphone could be reading your mind.

Brain- computer interface.

Personalization couldn’t exist without the massive dossiers of personal data being collected by big companies online these days. And it’s a problem because consumers don’t have much control over that.

The current laws around personal data just don’t contemplate a world in which a click on one website changes what you see on an entirely different one.

Almost all popular websites, from search engines to social networks to media outlets, are now utilizing filters in some way to personalize content for visitors.

When websites show us only what we like, we get cut off from the diverse points of view that can enrich our understanding of the world.

We get Donald Trumps.

Privacy is about controlling what the world is allowed to know about you. This is about controlling what you’re able to see of the world — what your filters let through and what they don’t.

Its time to wake up.

We can lose sight of our common problems, but they don’t lose sight of us.

It’s only a matter of time before our Fidelity/ Loyalty cards are linked up to our personal data held by banks, e-commerce sites and social media. If not already.

We will then be looking at citizen character score, which will bring credit scores to a whole new level, turning them more into to life scores, by tracking anything and everything we do. The scary bit is what is tracked and by who.  

I hear you saying that this will never be accepted.

It is already on the cards for people living in China and Singapore. Humans and robot algorithms, living in peaceful harmony. Where you go, what you buy, who you know, how many points are on your driving licence, how your friends rate you.

The scores will serve not just to indicate an individual’s credit risk, but could be used in a vast array of applications and organisations such as Governments, Benefits, Hospital Operations, Visa, Education, down to all fields that makes Society including prison sentences, landlords, employers, and even romantic partners to gauge an individual’s character.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of cloud computing"

All stored in the Cloud. Which comes in many different models forms.

Ubiquitous access to the network: Self-service and on-demand access to computing capabilities. This service will most often be performed by the service provider automatically without the need for human interaction.

Cloud Computers is not the easiest of terms to define, or explain what it all actually means. Owned by Google, Twitter, Gmail and Facebook the Cloud is elusive as grabbing a cloud itself.

Perhaps we can blame it all on Leonhard Euler one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, and also a prolific inventor of canonical notation.

( An Euler path is a path that uses every edge of a graph exactly once.)

One way or the other to use a Trumpetism:  It’s ain’t going to be great unless we build algorithms that have a sense of civic purpose embedded in them, giving us both entertainment and the information we really need, not profit.

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

O sorry about the line spacing in this post just cannot figure out how to correct it.