Monthly Archives: November 2016

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME FOR POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE – NOT NECESSARILY THE POLITICS OF WINNING ELECTIONS.

30 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Elections/ Voting, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., The Future, The Internet., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME FOR POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE – NOT NECESSARILY THE POLITICS OF WINNING ELECTIONS.

Tags

, , , ,

( A five to six-minute read)

If someone from past centuries – be it 200 or 2000 years ago – were to time travel to this decade, they would be utterly amazed at our modern technology and it’s capabilities.

Politics and social unrest have been around since man first gathered into groups in order to survive. Someone always wants to be in charge, and someone is always unhappy with the way things are. Leaders have always used private or public communication tools and propaganda to gain or maintain power, and those who oppose them have always used the same to overcome them when necessary (et tu, Brute?).Afficher l'image d'origine

These days a kid in Africa with a smart phone has more intelligent access to knowledge than the President of the United States had 20 years ago.

UNFORTUNATELY ARTIFICIAL iNTELLIGENCE  ( IRRELEVANT OF ALL ITS PROMISED BENEFITS TO MANKIND) IS TRANSFORMING THAT KID AND ALL OF US INTO A DESIRABLE READILY EXCHANGEABLE COMMODITY.

The issue here is how today the political electronic culture and economical orders contribute to the communalization of us all.  Creating a new balance between the different sources of power.  Which are in turn diminishing the resonance of political loyalties, to be replaced by transnational logics of material consumption and self-assertion at cultural level.

A depoliticization.  Self-disempowerment, and self- destruction wrought upon society guided by what I call, Silent Artificial Profit for Capitalism or Corporate Capitalism Artificial Intelligence promoted by unprecedented monopolies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter making all of us monolithic, with internet discourse becoming tighter and more coercive.

To date I have written quite a few post on the effects of AI which have fallen on deaf ears of those who have read them. Nare a comment.

I can’t say that I am surprised.

We are living more and more in a one – dimensional societies with our dignity so degraded it can only be expressed by one’s shopping choices.

Our world at the moment is absurd, ” When every person in a train carriage is staring at a small illuminated device, it is an almost tacky vision of dystopia”  – Eliane Glaser, author of Get Real.

What she saying I think is that we need to expand our horizons or we will all end up in an eternal feed back loop.

A recent Guardian Article, ” FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE SAME” encaptures the problem. I quote.

“The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage,  imagination and idealism will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.”

How will computer technology affect future politics?

Is it time for politics and political theory to face the challenge of artificial intelligence (AI)? Political theory constantly lags behind technological developments.

Perhaps our tendency to dismiss such claims as exaggerations (at best) comes from our inability to get even a slight grip on the complexity of global corporate ownership; it’s all too vast and complicated to get any clear sense of the reality.

One of the ominous trend toward political dysfunction is that the number who vote in national elections continues to slide below fifty percent of the eligible voting-age population.

One possible reason for this trend is that many people believe that political representatives have little to offer in terms of solving the immediate daily concerns of employment, health care, education, housing, transportation, drugs, crime, social decay, injustice, and so on.

With rapid developments in the field of AI, a common estimate is that technological singularity will probably happen in the next 50 to 200 years. Even regardless of the time frame, the very possibility of superhumanly smart AIs poses serious political questions calls for some serious examination.

As AI continues to get smarter, its use will only grow. Virtually every­one’s mental capabilities will be enhanced by it within a decade, or will it be the opposite.

Maybe, if the right tools were available, people would have a better chance to communicate with representatives, know and protect their own rights, engage in deliberation, test hypotheses, discover knowledge, discuss theory, and better understand world events.

The public becoming more politically astute and “awakening from the dormant state.” Success may depend partially on whether participation can be achieved in such a way as to impinge minimally upon the matters of private life.

This “awakening” is the challenge for a politics of knowledge.  Advanced information systems at least may put the right tools on the table.

Citizen and voter are being increasingly monitored through live cameras, social media, drones, etc. Every channel data can then be analyzed to check on changing political inclinations. As our devices get more interconnected and we become more device dependent, the political parties already know whom we will vote for.

Humans have stopped relying on other humans for important tasks like vigilance, politics, driving, etc. They have employed robots to take care of mission-critical tasks. On the same lines, governments of many countries have abolished Democracy and brought in “Mach-cracy” – machine enabled autocracy.

The Election of Donald Trump shows that current trends indicate that the Internet audience and social media users actively participate in some form of disinformation with or without their knowledge.

As Twitter, Facebook, Google increasingly become reliable sources of information, Internet audiences look no further. The Internet has brought in a climate of truth; information regarding corruption and misuse of power are made public using the Internet. . However, the public has difficul- ty in identifying the “true story.” Social media has become a strong weapon; disinformation being the ammunition.

Can electronic discussion be organized and protected from dominance by lobbyists, special interest politicking, and the dirty politics of character assassination and mudslinging, while protecting the right of free speech?

Computer algorithms can execute stock trades in a fraction of a second, much faster than any human.

As these technologies become cheaper, more capable, and more widespread, they will find even more applications in an economy. One field is in the increasingly complex political landscapes and to understand the dynamics of the underlying power realities.

The most common trope is that of a hostile AI taking over and destroying/enslaving humanity. Yet there is another path—AI takes over and makes itself a ruler (openly or behind the scenes), but rules in the genuine best interest of humanity political decisions. We have the opportunity in the decades ahead to make major strides in addressing the grand challenges of humanity.

AI will be the pivotal technology in achieving this progress.

We have a moral imperative to realize this promise while controlling the peril.

It won’t be the first time we’ve succeeded in doing this.

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to expand public involvement with information-driven politics, the politics of knowledge, not necessarily the politics of winning elections.

However our perception of the world is greatly influenced by culture and social conditioning. We all becoming Googly eyes |Afficher l'image d'origineConsequently, ‘reality is reconfigured and the natural state of objects is modified, degenerating the subject’s essence and reflexivity. Surfaces are replaced by another sense of ‘reality’-a glossy, hyper-real world that we sometimes choose to believe in over the tangible world.

“Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are.” – George Santayana13501802_10207907533945332_7603754631514565598_n

Does the public really want a daily digest of political information?  The press and television industry used to be the principal gatekeepers of political debate. Not anymore, the absurdity of social conditioning formed by our utilitarian habits has taken over.

Now is the time to put in place:

Other wise we will be voting for computers. As computers become more and more powerful they will be categorically different.

We are letting ourselves become enchanted by big data only because we exoticize technology.

THE BRAIN IS A WONDERFUL ORGAN. IT STARTS WORKING THE MOMENT YOU GET UP IN THE MORNING, AND DOES NOT STOP UNTIL YOU TURN YOUR SMARTPHONE ON.

If you treat the future as something definite, it makes sense to understand it in advance and to work to shape it. But if you expect an indefinite future ruled by randomness, you will give up trying to master it. You are not a commodity or a lottery ticket.

WE NEED A NEW WORLD ORGANISATION (THAT IS INDEPENDENT AND TOTALLY TRANSPARENT ) TO EXAM AND APPROVE ALL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENT ALGORITHMS THAT ARE NOT DRIVEN BY THE GOOD OF ALL BUT BY PROFIT.

What do you think? All comments appreciated. All like clicks will be bined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

27 Sunday Nov 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Commission., European Union., Politics., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

, ,

 

( A seven Minute read)

The Post aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the context of the European Union in the 21st century. 

Instead of a core group of like-minded countries coming together to embrace closer integration, one country is pulling way, opening the door for others to do the same. 

The question is whether the U.K. would remain sanguine about a more tightly integrated EU once it became a reality or see it as a threat.

Afficher l'image d'origine

The question of the aims, depth and institutional implications of the integration process has become far more pressing now that England has vote to leave.

Nobody would seriously argue that the EU doesn’t need to evolve in order to survive, but Europe is again inching toward the two-speed reality.Afficher l'image d'origineWe all know that Artificial Intelligence, Climate Change, Current Wars, along with a host of other Scientific advancements are not only changing the World but the way we live.

This crisis has also created an opportunity to re-examine the foundations of the European economic and social model and to develop them further. Patching and mending only makes the situation worse.

The crisis gives us the opportunity to rethink the European Union for the 21st century. If the Union fails, Europe will soon be reduced to a shadow of its former historical self.

The current debate about the future of Europe and the European Union has revealed a conflict of interpretation.

It suffers from a lack of creativity. For the most part it is characterized by generalized aspirations – “more Europe”, “genuine EMU” – which are too abstract to contribute usefully to an informed argument about the future direction of the EU.

While there is  a “perfectly credible” case for a second EU referendum, (if the British people decide that, having seen what it means, the pain gain cost-benefit analysis doesn’t stack up) it appears that the EU is making  no attempt to offer Reforms that would reverse the English electrical decision.   “There is no idea what Brexit really means,” The vote to withdraw is not irrevocable.

It must base its offer to England on an inclusive and positive vision of the UK’s role in a reformed EU.

Perhaps it is because the UK now accounts for less than 1 per cent of the world’s population and less than 3 per cent of global income (GDP). This is no time to revert to Little England and I have not heard to date any good alternatives to membership.

One way or the other just what is the future of the European Union?

Constructive engagement is vital when Europe confronts threats from Islamist extremism, migration, Russian aggrandisement and climate change. These can only be tackled collectively .

The fundamental question is whether Brexit will strengthen the integration among the remaining 27 members or throw the EU into a kind of paralysis wondering what has gone wrong and motivated Britain to leave.

If an unreformed Europe, threatened by social decline, continues along its present path, it risks becoming an elite project that benefits only a minority at the expense of the majority.

It needs effective action, but also truly democratic. It must chart a course for a European Union built on democracy, solidarity and justice.

Many people feel that they have little or no influence on the conditions that govern European policy-making. Participation in the last European elections fell to 43% of eligible voters. But the seemingly general disinterest in Europe only reflects the lack of confidence that Europe’s citizens have in the power of the European Parliament to change things.

Now there is a young generation growing up in Europe without prospects, for whom the European promise has not been redeemed, and who are losing faith in a European solution to the crisis. Also many people no longer realize what they owe to peace in Europe, the common market and open borders.

The EU today is no longer synonymous with growing prosperity, rising incomes, more jobs and greater security. In the short-term the drift towards break-up must be halted, because it is leading us in the wrong direction and making long-term solutions impossible.

When contemplating the future process of integration we must be prepared to jettison prejudices and reservations, but also any harmonistic illusions.

For me the Future of the EU is about is all about shaping perceptions.

When you get right down to it, the European Union is simply the system we’ve built to agree how to handle issues that affect us all.

The EU is far from perfect, but if it needs fixing, it should be fixed, not dismantled.

As troubled as Europe is, reform is an ongoing process, not a one-off event.

Logically it is not difficult to grasp that as industrialization fades away and globalization crowds out the nation state, the political engineering to frame industrialization loses its luster. Nowadays the nation-state is squeezed between on the one hand globalization and on the other hand people’s wish to be closer to the decision-making of relevance of their daily life such as the environment, education, health.

The emphasis must be to move away from Independent economic growth, individual cultural identity, to a shared Union.  Solidarity, benevolence, and cohesion are still there but if Union shows any weakness in its forthcoming Brexit negotiations we will see a knock on effects.

This is, however, only the tip of the iceberg.

Below lurks the challenge of living up to its fundamental values confronted with the combination of demography, migrants/refugees, search for an economic and a social model that serves all.

The key invention of pooling sovereignty has weathered the test of time, but most of the remaining principles need retooling or to be replaced by new principles intercepting changes and new trends.

None of this can be achieved without a major shift to transparency whether England leaves or stays. It can only be achieved with reform. With a new model — commitment to the goal of ‘an ever closer union among the people’s of Europe’.

It does not necessarily imply the disappearance of nation-states only their status and influence will be curbed and power transferred either ‘upwards’ to a changed EU or ‘downwards’ to regions or other local communities.

A multilayered political system will emerge.

Either you are member of the EU, committed to solidarity, coherence, common decision-making, and common policies or you are not.

It must link innovation, qualitative growth and less use of resources to make the EU more competitive by tapping into the vast global market for new industries reaping the benefit of spinoffs, and delivering a better environment for citizens.

It must find a way for the Euro to reflect the individuality economies of its members.

Unless this is done the risk that the system cracks are high and the responsibility for letting this happen rests with Europe and the US. Unless the US and Europe can find common ground the prospect of chaos and infighting is too high for comfort.

The partnership albeit still existing at least on paper has slipped down the list of priorities with the Election of Mr D Trump.

The disturbing factor is the absence of confronting the issues among European politicians and Europeans buying into populism.

EU membership needs to take account of the changing geopolitical environment, the new and growing threats to all EU Member States.

North Africa poses a potential problem with its high population combined with low growth per capita and behind the curtain millions of people from countries south of Sahara look to Europe as the savior.

The prospect of seeing EU external border extended to Syria and Iran with the threat of Turkey opens its european gates to immigrants if it is going to be a member is produces nervousness among Europeans.

It must offer the Uk some key reforms in return for a rerun of the recent referendum.

A vote to remain in the EU, on the back of the renegotiation, could thus allow the UK to take the lead in arguing for a more flexible, dynamic and multi-layered EU in which all Member States, not just the UK would have an interest.

It must create more with less, deliver greater value with less input, using resources in a sustainable way, while minimizing waste and environmental impact. For this strategy, protection of the environment and resource efficiency is vital to its continuation.

It must still works as a problem grinder when a member state tables a problem asking for help. But with one proviso: to share benefits and burdens and not just scraping a lot of money together irrespective of repercussions on the EU or other member states.

Freedom and self-determination will only be possible in the future if these countries and their citizens are prepared to accept a greater degree of responsibility for each other than in the past. If they can be persuaded of this, then the European idea can regain its appeal for future generations and become the foundation on which to build a new, united Europe for the 21st century.

It must create a sufficiently strong increase in living standards to compensate for loss of cultural identity.

Things are no longer what they used to be. If members do not feel committed to a common course they will consider withdrawal.

To do so, the European Parliament should be made more representative, but by increasing the role of citizens and national parliamentarians in the EU structures the EU can be made more open to bottom-up influence.

Multiple levels of engagement should be created so as to give citizens the maximum capability to engage with the EU’s structures. Such a structure would not be perfect. No democratic structure is. But it remains the best way of creating a more democratic European Union.

These problems must be tackled alongside attempts to stabilise economic growth. This can only be done by political leaders genuinely reforming.

The euro zone will not be immune from England’s exit shock and other members, goaded by a belligerent far right, may seek to trigger exit votes. Tensions appear to be spreading throughout Europe. We see far-right movements in countries like Italy, France, Austria and Germany, and worrying signs of racially driven attacks.

In today’s globalized world, where emerging nations such as India, China, Brazil and others are getting ready to shape the political, economic and social destinies of our planet alongside the USA, and to some extent in competition with it, the nations of Europe, which are very small by comparison, can only safeguard their political self-determination, their prosperity and their social achievements by joining forces and standing together on all the key issues. That will require a new step towards European unification, and a strengthening of the capacity of the European Union and its members to take effective action at every level.

Disengagement turned into anger.

For years the bloc has lurched from one crisis to the next, promising time and again to heed the growing mistrust of its 500 million citizens, only to return to the business of internal squabbling as another emergency emerges on the continent.

If the EU is truly a democracy then the best way of closing the gap between citizens and institutions is to empower the people.

To the many of whom see the bloc less as a utopian project and more as a means to an end.

The EU is not going away, however it is time to – Reform or die!Afficher l'image d'origine

There are now 751 MEPs in the European Parliament. 

The European Parliament’s budget for 2015 is €1.795 billion. The general breakdown is:
34% – staff, interpretation and translation costs
23% – MEPs’ expenses covering salaries, travel, offices and staff
12% – buildings
25% – information policy, IT, telecommunications
6% – political group activities

The EU’s national governments unanimously decided in 1992 to fix permanently the seat of the EU institutions. The official seat and venue for most of the plenary sessions is Strasbourg, Parliamentary Committees and Political Group meetings are held in Brussels and administrative staff are based in Luxembourg. Any change to this current system would need to be part of a new treaty and unanimously agreed by all Member States.

Here is the first reform;

Stop ripping off the taxpayer, with the  EU Parliament ‘travelling circus’.  It’s an outright waste of money, unjustifiable to the European taxpayer, and its wrong.

Between 3,000 and 4,000 people, among them roughly 800 MEPs, their assistants, employees and interpreters move 400 kilometres from Brussels to Strasbourg. Their workspaces are empty for 317 days per year.

It costs taxpayers an estimated €200 million per year.

Just send the bill to M Hollande who can pass it on to the French taxpayer, annually and inflation adjusted. Everyone in France will then be less unhappy about this charade.

An After thought:

Coming up with a unified foreign policy is perhaps the E.U’s greatest challenge of all for its future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THE SOURCES OF POLITICAL POWER IS CHANGING. SOCIAL MEDIA IS RUNNING POLITICS.

24 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Communication., Elections/ Voting, Facebook, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., Technology, The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THE SOURCES OF POLITICAL POWER IS CHANGING. SOCIAL MEDIA IS RUNNING POLITICS.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( A ten minute read)

Some posts back I wrote a piece asking if there was any Intelligence between Donald Trump’s ears and a subsequent post on what a vote is worth. ( see previous posts)

We live in turbulent times and the structure of the source of power is changing.

Gathering political information via social media brings an increased risk of digesting information from questionable sources.

Why?

Because Facebook now dominates the news being read by young people and its domination is not just national – it is global.

It may well be time to think about what societies need to do to counter this growing, global news monopoly. Facebook may not be in the business of news production but its impact on news is already profound and not always positive.

Because it is provided by organisations or politicians that are paying Facebook for their attention. Gone are the days of the blind following the blind it’s now the misinformed following the distracted reading their news on their Facebook/Twitter feeds.

Ever since the so-called Facebook Obama election of 2008, our political discourse is shrinking to fit our smartphone screens, where we find cover political campaigns more like a horse race, rather than focusing on the issues.

Donald Trump, he’s the first candidate optimized for the Google News algorithm.

Donald Trump got the equivalent of about $55 million in free advertising space from the eight major media outlets.

Trump a vast web audience—four million followers on Twitter alone.

The best way to dominate the online discussion is not to inform but to provoke which is the changing dynamics of political races. You’re only as relevant as your last tweet. What’s important now is not so much image as a personality that bursts into focus at regular intervals without ever demanding steady concentration.

The more visceral the message, the more quickly it circulates and the longer it holds the darting public eye.

Elections are pivotal in shaping that world – for better or worse.

Up to recently elections were the voice of the people expressed by voting.

Hopefully this will remain so, however fears of a robot apocalypse mask the actual problems that we face by increasingly letting our lives be run by algorithms.

AIs will have and are having a knock-on effects that we have not prepared for.

When a computer spits out an answer we are typically unable to see how it got there.

There are algorithms all around us they may seem neutral and objective and unbiased but in a world of pervasive connectivity AI is the key to harnessing the power of electrical data prior to voting. It allows for millions of election related options that are posted online to be classified automatically and analysed to understand the pulse of an election.

Algorithms are now being used to make life-changing decisions such as when a prisoner should be given parole, or who gets elected. So it is time to forget everything you know about democracy.

Microsoft is building an A.I. empire and will appoint its leaders.

Twitter did exactly that : Producing a man who bankrupted his companies not once, not twice, but six times.

( The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991, Trump Castle, 1992,Trump Plaza and Casino, 1992, Plaza Hotel, 1992, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004, Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009,) and Trump America in 2020, which currently has a National Debt bordering on 20 trillion. 

Since his election to be the next President of the US the media headlines are littered with the rhetoric of powerful people in the form of CRINGING WORLD POLITICAL LEADERS CHANGING THEIR SPOTS IN ORDER TO LICK UP TO A MAN THAT HAS MANY CHARACTERISTICS OF A FASCIST.Afficher l'image d'origine

Mr Trump’s views are some of the most extreme in American politics.

[He has:

  • advocated deporting nearly 11 million undocumented workers.
  • called for a border wall to be built between the US and Mexico.
  • said he would force Mexico to pay for the wall by threatening to ban Mexicans in the US from sending remittances home.
  • Mr Trump changed his position on abortion at least five times, alarming many social conservatives. This flexibility has convinced many social conservatives that Mr Trump cannot be trusted to appoint a Supreme Court justice who would oppose abortion rights.
  • Mr Trump has aggressively criticised international trade agreements.
  • He has repeatedly said the US should rethink its commitments to Nato, saying other member countries do not pay their fair share of the organisation’s budget. He has also floated an idea that South Korea and Japan could arm themselves with nuclear weapons – eliminating the need for US protection.]Afficher l'image d'origine

In the last few years the Internet has borne witness to and facilitated a great deal of social and societal change.

While undoubtedly carrying the potential to do great good, the Internet has been plagued with numerous impediments NONE WORSE THAN ITS ASSISTANCE IN THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP.

I am aware that the Internet cannot be blamed in isolation.

The inequalities of the Capitalist system is a major contributor, but the dumbing down by the smart phone Apps are also influencing the reasons why we cast a vote.

If you not convinced the only thing that might be more perplexing than the psychology of Donald Trump is the psychology of his supporters. It isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed.

We now find ourselves looking a man and his team of advisors that has an ultimate goal to pursue national greatness in disrespect of the cost which will take the form of a state that will be anti-democratic and totalitarian. The state needed to fulfill this goal is a state that breeds ( As did all major fascist regimes that have ever existed) political parties that spend more time arguing than implementing policies.

At the same time, there is a paradoxical here with a resurgence of interest in universalism within the international legal context and the discourse of human rights, which at this point lack a firm philosophical foundation.

With a world facing problems that requires a vast resurgence of interest in universalism.

Power use to be what goes on in the head, and what goes on is a recognition of a reason – or better and more often: various reasons – to act differently than one would have without that reason…Power rests on perceived and recognized justifications – some good, some bad, some in between.  A threat can be seen as a justification, as can a good argument.

We are turning a blind eye to the day when we will have websites that are themselves artificially intelligent .

This type of power is not accountable and nobody can make it accountable. All AI decision-making is by definition, unknowable and will remain so till 2018 when a new European union comes into force giving citizens –  right to an explanation.

This however will not be of much use as AI processes data in ways we can’t. Ask its creator how it achieves a certain result and you get a shrug.

These  AIs brain responses are automatic, and not influenced by logic or reason.

What does it mean to act, and to act well?

We now have software writing software and soon we have unsupervised learning.

Even with all the technological advances we have seen over the last few years there still remains a large disconnect between technology and the general public.

How do we determine which actions are those which are moral, and which fall outside this sphere? And how do we negotiate the priority of all of these questions?

In fact, digital technology, particularly the internet, offers potential complications into human beings’ discussion and understanding of free will; even as the internet appears to open up options and capacities for individuals to exercise increased autonomy, it also has the potential to change the very ways in which human beings think, thereby impeding human capacities for meaningful self-reflection, a necessary if not sufficient criterion for rational autonomy.

The Internet, we’ve often been told, is a force for “democratization.

It’s worth asking, though, what kind of democracy is being promoted.

People skimmed headlines and posts, seeking information that reinforced their biases and rejecting contrary perspectives. The Internet inspired “participation,” but the participants ended up in “cloistered cocoons of cognitive consonance.”

The social networks operated by companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google don’t just regulate the messages we receive. They regulate our responses. They shape, through the design of their apps and their information-filtering regimes, the forms of our discourse.

All social networks impose these kinds of formal constraints, both on what we see and on how we respond. The restrictions have little to do with the public interest. They reflect the commercial interests of the companies operating the networks as well as the protocols of software programming.

With the instantaneous transmission of information, the internet has revolutionized the way we do business, obtain knowledge, vote, and communicate with others. Instead of a one-way relationship in which the human agent has total control as the sole actor and the tool is merely the object acted upon – a mere means to an end which the human agent has in mind, it would be more accurate today in the face of digital technology, specifically the internet, to recognize that tools also act on their users. When we create things to use for our own purposes, these tools can and do indeed act back on us, in some cases changing the very ways we think.

It is especially poignant to make this observation in the face of the development of the internet because of information technology’s potential to dramatically augment or infringe on human autonomy.

While the internet may indeed open up choices and opportunities to people that were never there before, it also has the potential to degrade individuals’ deep reading capacities, which is a dangerous threat to these individuals’ claims to free will since deep reading is necessary for meaningful introspection which is necessary to claims on rational autonomy.

On the other hand as we continue to enter the digital age, the neutrality of the internet becomes a resource that we must fight to protect, or we risk our further advancement.

Maintaining net neutrality is not simply a matter of protecting existing standards and preventing the extension of authoritative powers, but instead is a matter of establishing a new fundamental human right in the digital age. We can only hope that in unity we can break the barriers which stand between us, and in so doing, provide a living and evolving blueprint for our mutual future.

The Internet is changing the way we think about power and its interaction with economic and international relations.

A blind acceptance of a narrative provided by the Algorithmic world is not acceptable.

Therefore before the names of just and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant, and to make good that propriety which by mutual contract men acquire in recompense of the universal right they abandon.

As a matter of urgency must establish a world governing body to overlook all technology. ( see previous posts)

When it comes to Algorithms the stakes for society are too high because AI may have arbitrarily negative consequences. Algorithms are a source of power and how they manifests themselves in the world cannot be let to the wimp of Capitalism.

If we are to read beyond the archaic dichotomous representation of international conflict, daring to create your own mind on the matter, doing so involves more than simply good intentions and determination.

It requires obtaining a new type of dignity as “selfs.”

Moreover, a willingness to engage in a dialogue concerning Being will allow for a creative and broad interpretation of man’s relationship to his world, and the responsibilities and interconnectedness that characterize it when it is not defined simply as an atomistic “standing reserve.”

This shallow consideration of the context plagues the headlines and propagates a facile belief in domineering great powers as the ‘be all and end all’ saviors of world conflict. The two leading competitors for the prize of… (peace?) in Syria leads one down a dangerous path that bolsters a bellicose Waltzian ‘balance of power’ attitude and neglects the voice of the people. This can be seen in the unacceptable bloodstains of millions around the world to this day.

The implications of Internet Freedom and its assistance or impediment has a knock on effect for International Relations as a whole.

The internet has become such an indispensable part of our everyday life that it is incredibly difficult to imagine life before it. Luckily the general public can align with interest groups via the web, thus making such groups much larger and more powerful than ever before. Unfortunately Ethicists are still confronted by the traditional questions that have plagued them since the ancients. They have been cut adrift from the context out of which they developed, searching for a foundation which is not forthcoming.

The disproportionate impact of the internet on the presidency and special interest groups only furthers the gap of influence between the public and the president.

As we move forward into an era of increasingly powerful digital technologies we have to ask the question WHY IT IS that the electrical system of one of the most powerful country can only produce two candidates that endeavored to buy with billions of $ the position of USA President.

WHEN YOU OBSERVE what are the power dynamics and systems of knowledge in our modern world, and what are their relationships to concepts of morality in general? All men having right to all things: power only exists when such an acceptance exists. Therefore where there is no commonwealth, there nothing is unjust.Two Jewish men lean against a barrier with the New York skyline behind them

The power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to each other, relate to people, or relate to corporate enterprises, control over security, production, finance, and knowledge.

What is authenticity? In that respect, like all forms of honesty—intellectual and other— a principle of authenticity stems above all from a powerful sense of universal respect and love.

 

 

Charismatic’ domination derives from a population that perceives their leader to be virtuous and deserving of their dedication.

Furthermore, because people perceive their leader’s charisma as being the basis for the validity of the state’s legitimacy, one may infer that they also view their leader as a virtuous person who they understand has an inner calling to lead.

That the supporters and friends of a charismatic leader orient their interests to be in line with his/hers because they genuinely believe in the allure of their leader’s personal qualities.

Hence, because a charismatic leader is someone who many people favor, and due to them believing in his/her devotion to the state, it follows that the validity of a state’s authority under a charismatic leader is dependent on their charisma.

Efforts to engage the public are meant to sidestep the special interest groups that have dominated governmental discourse over the past several decades. The dominant theme according to the “We The People” rollout is to open a dialogue directly between the people and the administration, one that will meaningfully impact policy and legislation. Yet, the website has not led to any significant legislation at present and so far it has failed to promote meaningful interaction between the people and the presidency.Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

Parliament is problematic because This weakens the state and, ultimately, the nation

This writing has merely touched the surface of the issues at hand.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37999969

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37999969

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT NEXT? – CYBER WARFARE.

17 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Facebook, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

 

( Twenty minute read)

You could not be blamed if ask this question some years ago for thinking that the world is in such a mess that what coming next is beyond description, with climate change, the state of the economy, current wars, and the indifference and lack of world leadership to tackle the obvious inequalities.

You might think that one of the above is going to explode in such a manner that it is going to be the main contributed to the future.

This might to right, but there is a hidden force that is going to plunder the world called  Artificial Intelligence, AI for short.

I am no scientist, clairvoyant, prophet, tech guru or loony and to be honest I am not worried by what is next.

I won’t be around by the time any of what next happens.

The future of humanity as an inescapable topic.

But be that as it may, the thesis that liberal democracy (or any other political structure) is the final form of government is consistent with the thesis that the general condition for intelligent Earth-originating life will not remain a human condition for the indefinite future.

Powerful new mind-control technologies could be deployed globally to change people’s motivation, or that an intensive global surveillance system would be put in place and used to manipulate the direction of human development along a predetermined path, one would have to wonder whether these interventions, or their knock-on effects on society, culture, and politics, would not themselves alter the human condition in sufficiently fundamental ways that the resulting condition would qualify as posthuman.

It’s easy for my generation, and the coming up generation to cast off the problems that AI is going to create in the world.

WHERE HUMANS WILL BECOME THE BOTTLENECK TO PRODUCTIVITY AND INNOVATION.Afficher l'image d'origine

It is hardly reasonable to think of the future of humanity as a topic: it is too big and too diverse to be addressed as a whole in a single essay, monograph, post, or even 100-volume book series.

A sensible forecast of what next in technological innovations in the next 400 years is beyond our imaginations.

All I want to achieve here is to improve the accuracy of our beliefs about the future.

It is relatively rare for humanity’s future to be taken seriously as a subject matter on which it is important to try to have factually correct beliefs.

Thirty years from now, the public will be even dumber tethered to their phones, have even less social skills.

Depending on whom you ask, this moment in technological development is either a crisis for science or a revolution to hold researchers and journals more accountable for flimsy conclusions.

I would love to be able to describe what is currently happening in the revolution at this moment. However, I can’t do that because things are constantly and quickly changing. This continual change is why it is premature to write anything other than a “future history.”

Our moral obligation is to generate possibilities, to discover the infinite ways, however complex and high-dimension, to play the infinite game. While our knowledge is insufficient to narrow down the space of possibilities to one broadly outlined future for humanity, we do know of many relevant arguments and considerations which in combination impose significant constraints on what a plausible view of the future could look like.

Preparation for the future obviously does not require accurate prediction; rather, it requires a foundation of knowledge upon which to base action, a capacity to learn from experience, close attention to what is going on in the present, and healthy and resilient institutions that can effectively respond or adapt to change in a timely manner.  

UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE NO SUCH INSTITUTION, AND BY THE TIME WE HAVE IT WILL BE TOO LATE.

It will take all possible species of intelligence in order for the universe to understand itself.

The Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, a not-for-profit created by Microsoft unveiled a search engine it calls Semantic Scholar. It uses machine learning and other AI in an effort to significantly improve the way the academic world searches through the increasingly enormous corpus of published research.

Initially, the new search engine will focus on neuroscience and computer science research, covering over 10 million papers, but the organization plans on expanding into other subjects.

We need realistic pictures of what the future might bring in order to make sound decisions.  Increasingly, we need realistic pictures not only of our personal or local near-term futures, but also of remoter global futures.  Because of our expanded technological powers, some human activities now have significant global impacts.

However there might be traps that we are walking towards that we could only avoid falling into by means of foresight.  There are also opportunities that we could reach much sooner if we could see them farther in advance.  And in a strict sense, prediction is always necessary for meaningful decision-making.

Unless the human species lasts literally forever, it will some time cease to exist.

In that case, the long-term future of humanity is easy to describe: extinction.

(An estimated 99.9% of all species that ever existed on Earth are already extinct.) This is surely the case with regard to many aspects of the future of humanity.

There are two different ways in which the human species could become extinct:

The first is obvious blow itself to smithereens, or simply dying out, without any meaningful replacement or continuation. Environmental threats however seem to have displaced nuclear holocaust as the chief specter haunting the public imagination. Current-day pessimists about the future often focus on the environmental problems facing the growing world population, worrying that our wasteful and polluting ways are unsustainable and potentially ruinous to human civilization.

You might suppose that new kinds of threat (e.g. nuclear holocaust or catastrophic changes in the global environment) or the trend towards globalization and increased interdependence of different parts of the world create a vulnerability to human civilization as a whole.

The other not so obvious, by evolving or developing or transforming into one or more new species or life forms, sufficiently different from what came before so as no longer to count as Homo sapiens.

For example, whether and when Earth-originating life will go extinct, whether it will colonize the galaxy, whether human biology will be fundamentally transformed to make us posthuman, whether machine intelligence will surpass biological intelligence, whether population size will explode, and whether quality of life will radically improve or deteriorate: these are all important fundamental questions about the future of humanity.

There is no question that science and society will continue to co-evolve and that the technologies that will pose these risks will also help us to mitigate some risks.

In decades to come, we will control computers with our minds, not a mouse.

Technological change is in large part responsible for many of the secular trends in such basic parameters of the human condition as the size of the world population, life expectancy, education levels, material standards of living, and the nature of work, communication, health care, war, and the effects of human activities on the natural environment.

One does not have to embrace any strong form of technological determinism to recognize that technological capability – through its complex interactions with individuals, institutions, cultures, and environment – is a key determinant of the ground rules within which the games of human civilization get played out.

Other aspects of society and our individual lives are also influenced by technology in many direct and indirect ways, including governance, entertainment, human relationships, and our views on morality, mind, matter, and our own human nature.

Among the most important potential developments are ones that would enable us to alter our biology directly through technological means. Such interventions could affect us more profoundly than modification of beliefs, habits, culture, and education.  If we learn to control the biochemical processes of human senescence, healthy lifespan could be radically prolonged.

The nature of this evolution is the daunting scientific questions of our time.

The first thing to notice is that the longer the time scale we are considering, the less likely it is that technological civilization will remain within the zone we termed “the human condition” throughout.

Virtual reality environments will constitute an expanding fraction of our experience.

New tools of observation and measurement, and the new technologies of knowing, will alter the character of science, even while it retains the old methods. The capability of recording, surveillance, biometrics, and data mining technologies will grow, making it increasingly feasible to keep track of where people go, whom they meet, what they do, and what goes on inside their bodies.Afficher l'image d'origine

Nanotechnology will have wide-ranging consequences for manufacturing, medicine, and computing.

Machine intelligence, is another potential revolutionary technology.

Deep realtime simulations and hypothesis search will drive data collection.

Pattern-seeking software will be everywhere.

There will be more change in the next 50 years of science than in the last 400 years.

Technology is, in its essence, new ways of thinking.

Scientists will share”zillions” of ideas in the form of data flows sets, videos, 3-d models, software programs, graphs, blog posts, status updates, and comments on all these rich media and these content formats will connect with each other via the hyperlink.

As New informational organizations are layered upon the old. Zillionics will require a new scientific perspective in terms of permissible errors, numbers of unknowns, probable causes, repeatability, and significant signals.

The data volume is growing to such levels of “zillionics” that we can expect science to compile vast combinatorial libraries, to run combinatorial sweeps through possibility space (as Stephen Wolfram has done with cellular automata), and to run multiple competing hypotheses in a matrix.

Because of the unpredictability of the details of the new science and technology that will evolve, the details of social evolution are also unpredictable.

The Internet already is made of one quintillion transistors, a trillion links, a million emails per second, 20 exabytes of memory.

It offers us the first major opportunity to improve collective long-term memory, and to create a collective short-term working memory, a conversational commons for the rapid collaborative development of ideas.

Technological innovation is the main driver of long-term economic growth.

In a world of instant distribution, what happens to peer review?

Are we all going to end up silent, unable to express opinions, other than pressing the like button.

Will this be a world where junk gets published, and no-one will be able to tell whether a particular piece of content is good or bad?

AI is approaching the level of the human brain and is doubling every year, while the brain is not. It is all becoming effectively one machine. And we are the machine.

Here is what our American cousins think when asked about their concerns about the governance of science and technology relating to: the purposes of science; trust; inclusion; speed and direction of innovation; and equity.

When asked for their general views on technology’s long-term impact on life in the future, technological optimists outnumber pessimists by two-to-one.

(81%) OF AMERICANS believe that within the next 50 years people needing an organ transplant will have new organs custom-made for them in a lab.

Whether computers will soon match humans when it comes to creating music, novels, paintings, or other important works of art: 51% OF AMERICANS think that this will happen in the next 50 years.

Two in five Americans (39%) think that teleportation will be possible within the next 50 years. That humans of the future will be able to control the weather: just 19%  thinks that this will probably happen.

53% of Americans think it would be a bad thing if “most people wear implants or other devices that constantly show them information about the world around them,” just over one-third (37%) think this would be a change for the better.

65% think it would be a change for the worse if robots become the primary caregivers to the elderly and people in poor health.

60% of men and (61% of 18-29 year olds) think it would be a bad thing if commercial and personal drones become much more prevalent in future years.

26% would, 72% would not, interested in getting a brain implant to improve their memory or mental capacity.

20% would eat meat that was grown in a lab.

66% feel that it will be a change for the worse if designer babies became possible.

By 2045, super tall buildings will have artificial intelligence ‘personalities’ and will be able to ‘talk’ to people. Homes and offices will collect and process data from various sensors to flag up when repairs are needed or when the heating needs to be turned on.Futurologist Dr Pearson believes that by 2045, supertall buildings (illustrated) will have artificial intelligence 'personalities' and will be able to 'talk' to people. Homes and offices will collect and process data from various sensors to flag up when repairs are needed or when the heating needs to be turned on

Biology,  is the domain with the most scientists, the most new results, the most economic value, the most ethical importance.

Computers will keep leading to new ways of science. We want to understand how minds work and we want to understand how to apply what we know in the real world: It is likely that some subtle and difficult-to-replicate phenomena might be existence proofs that tell us something about the first.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, HUMANS FOR THE MOMENT ARE IN THE DRIVE SEAT

ITS UP TO US TO DECIDE WHAT’S NEXT.

IF WE REMAIN SILENT ALGORITHMS WILL RULE OUR LIVES. Afficher l'image d'origine

THIS BLOG IS A WAKE UP CALL.. REMEMBER NEITHER PEOPLE NOR SOFTWARE WILL BE MUCH USE WITHOUT THE OTHER.

AS TIME GOES BY WE’LL SEE THESE AI SYSTEMS HAVING A IMPACT ON BROADER PROBLEMS IN SOCIETY. SUPPORTING HUMANS IN THE BIG DECISIONS THEY HAVE TO MAKE. WE ARE ALREADY SEEING NEW AI ALGORITHMS TAUGHT BY HUMANS LEARN BEYOND THEIR TRAINING.

RIGHT NOW SOME OF THOSE SYSTEMS RIGHTLY SO SEEM OMINOUS.

WHEN AN ALGORITHM OR WHAT EVER MAKES A DECISION, WE DON’T KNOW WHY IT MADE THAT DECISION. IT’S VERY UNLIKELY THAT THEY WILL BE NO ACCOUNTABLE OR TRANSPARENT OR THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO QUERY THE SYSTEM.

Responsibilities for errors will be hard to pin down.

In economics, it’s been understood for hundreds of years that wealth is created when IT ACHIEVES RELIANCE.  GOOGLE.

The way of science depends on cheap non-invasive sensor running continuously for years generating immense streams of data. While ordinary life continues for the subjects, massive amounts of constant data about their lifestyles are drawn and archived. There is no such thing as an objective algorithm.

The vital signs and lifestyle metrics of a hundred thousand people might be recorded in dozens of different ways for 20-years, and then later analysis could find certain variables.

The growth of the Internet of Things ensures that every aspect of our lives, on personal and industrial scales, is trackable and optimizable. This technological evolution represents a huge opportunity for business.

We live in an age of algorithms. Algorithms are the new soldiers of Capitalism.

They are just managing business the way we always have. We are not moving in any new direction.

In effect, smart machines are now collecting information about practically every facet of human activity, on a continual, pervasive and uncontrollable basis, with no option to turn off the activity. Afficher l'image d'origine

At the core of science’s self-modification is technology it may well create new levels of meaning, but the tools for managing paradox are still undeveloped let’s hope they REMAINS SO.

A new form of decision-making “for us, about us, or with us”

The good news is that there is unconditional convergence for all in the future. The bad news is that this will not be easy to accomplish as advanced technological economies will employed themselves as usual on the way to becoming rich.Afficher l'image d'origine

If you dont want a future ruled by Twitter, Face Book, Microsoft, Apple, and there like leave a comment.

 

Continue reading →

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS MODERN DAY LIFE?

14 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Facebook, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS MODERN DAY LIFE?

Tags

, ,

( The very fact that I have to indicate how long it will take to read this post in order to enhance its chances of being read, is in itself an indictment of our lifestyle)

(4/6 minutes)

We are temporal beings – born into a world that existed before us with its religion and culture, its history already written, and to make sense of this world we engage in various pastimes to get by.

YOU COULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR THINKING WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING TO THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN. YOU COULD PUT THE BLAME ON THE GREED OF CAPITALISM.

BUT NOT FOR MUCH LONGER.

The “economic problem” that had defined our species from the beginning is now in decline.

IT’S TIME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CAPITALISM as we know it will eventually need to be superseded with a post-scarcity system that is built around the new economic reality.

But what will that reality be?

Modern life is, for most of us, a kind of serfdom to mortgage, job and the constant assault to consume. Although we have more time and money than ever before, most of us have little sense of control over our own lives. It is all connected to the apathy that means fewer and fewer people vote. Politicians don’t listen to us anyway. Big business has all the power; religious extremism all the fear.Afficher l'image d'origine

Certainly we can say that the pace of modern life, increased and supported by our technology in general and our personal electronics in particular, has resulted in a short attention span and an addiction to the influx of information.

A mind so conditioned has little opportunity to think critically, and even less chance to experience life deeply by being in the present moment. A complex life with complicated activities, relationships and commitments implies a reflexive busy-ness that supplants true thinking and feeling with knee-jerk reactions.

Modern Life today has become a series of spectacles to be viewed, not actions to be lived. We live in a world of many alarms, none of which sound our true concerns.

The difference between technology and slavery is that slaves are fully aware that they are not free.

The very shaping of history now outpaces the ability of men to orient themselves in accordance with cherished values.

We spend more time gazing at luminous screens, and clicking like buttons than voicing our concerns. Consequently, the void in quality leadership is filled ( as we have recently witness by the Election of Trump) by a charismatic or toxic leader can have disastrous results.

The science of robotics has exploded with revolutionary developments in the past few years and many more previously unimaginable breakthroughs are now on the immediate horizon.

Humanity may be on the verge of experiencing something comparable in effect to the Cambrian Explosion making it possible for machines “to replicate the performance of many of the perceptual parts of the brain,” including, fittingly enough, vision itself.The Death Of Privacy

We are in the midst of a communication revolution on a par with the invention of writing or the printing press which is no doubt bring about a period of considerable turmoil and angst and the effects on economic output and human workers are certain to be profound.

The transformation of employment wrought by robots and digital communication is not restricted to manufacturing. One-half of existing jobs will be eliminated in the coming one or two decades, and there is no sector that will be immune to automation.

Just in case you think you will not be effected white-collar jobs are also on the digital chopping block.

No one in their right mind foresees any new employment sectors opening up that are or will be sufficient to swallow the displaced workers or the hundreds of millions of people entering the workforce across the planet. Not even close.

Even the prospect of ever-lower wages cannot compete with the gigantic promise of the new technologies.

These developments are going to pose direct and mortal challenges to both capitalism and democracy.

The revolutionary advances in technology are hardly a panacea; they only seem to promote ever-greater talk about the need to slash living standards and cut back on social services.

This is a supreme irony – at the exact moment far less human labour is necessary to produce more than enough to satisfy human wants and needs, the system that fostered that abundance is incapable of adapting to it.

The Internet has transformed our economies, our culture and politics, and our very way of life. The tragedy is while the declining system of Capitalism is evolving more into a decaying feudal order than providing the basis for an affluent society with social mobility we are accepting the transformation with the majority of us confused or distracted into silence.

We live in a ready-made world with ready-made values. The days of every action we take is a choice, decided upon by us and no one else are evaporating right in front of our eyes.

Many of us are manipulated into pursuing desires that are not ours. We are being willed towards fruitless endeavours by Artificial Intelligence and therefore excluded ourselves from creating a meaningful future for ourselves.

Once a pound a time these choices used to bring meaning (or not) to our life – and were the cornerstone of existentialism.

Rather than offloading the responsibility onto society or religion, each individual is solely responsible for making their life meaningful and living it authentically.

The question is are we really exercising choice or are our choices now being manipulated by malevolent Algorithms.

Existentialist philosophers teach us that we alone are responsible for creating a meaningful life in an absurd and unfair world, but is this Philosophy no longer true.

The meaning of our being must be tied up with time and our time is the revolution of technology which we accept blindly without any scrutiny or laws.

Mass culture creates a loss of individual significance, instead of engaging in authentic thought by forming our own opinions, most of us passively adopt the opinions constructed by the news.

The Truth is we have no other purpose than the one we set ourselves; no other destiny than the one we forge. Yet many of us remain in denial of our responsibilities, (No doubt this thought may seem harsh to someone who has not made a success out of his life.) but on the other hand I hope that it helps to understand that reality alone counts, and that dreams, expectations and hopes only serve to define a man as a broken dream, aborted hopes and futile expectations; in other words, they define him negatively, not positively.

As with capitalism, political democracy has hardly been experiencing a golden age of informed citizen participation and public service-minded leadership in recent years. The economic reality of extreme inequality and personal greed translates into increased corruption and cynicism in the political sphere, and that undermines effective self-government.

The United States is an extreme example, with money-drenched campaigns and abysmally low voter turnouts – especially among the poor, the young, and the dispossessed.

As the crisis deepens, however, people will return to the political realm, and it is an open question as to whether the system can respond with democratic and humane solutions. Those who greatly benefit from the status quo will likely battle against progressive change as if their lives depended on it. It could just as easily degenerate into propaganda, militarism, and tyranny. Everything rides on the outcome.

All fascist movements invariably played upon racism and chauvinism of one form or another, depending on the nation, to gee up support.  It ranks among the ugliest and most shameful developments in history, and we see it re-emerging as the crisis deepens, even in nations where the scourge of fascism made that notion unthinkable for generations.

A strong commitment to reinvigorating democratic institutions, ending militarism, and guaranteeing all people a secure standard of living as the bulwark against fascism and the only way for humanity to proceed.

To end poverty would be a good place to begin. It was once commonly believed and still is by many, that great leaders were born, not made, by Twitter, Facebook or the internet.

What we consider the freedom of modern-day life is under attack from everyAfficher l'image d'origine technology that is alienate you from some part of your life.

That is its job.Afficher l'image d'origine

Your job is to notice. First notice the difference. And then, every                                        time, choose.

Artificial intelligence are for the moment relatively benign.

The advent of big data and artificial intelligence is creating billions in value for business.  What matters most, however, at least right now, is that we begin building a pathway for human and robot relationships.

It is time we created an independent, totally transparent World Institute to vet all technology that encroaches on our freedoms and values.

Man is not a purely physical system; our thinking, feeling and willing activities do not originate in our physical parts. So it will be impossible to introduce real human mentality into machines, and studying and developing machines will never reveal our real essence; on the contrary, they deviate our attention from it.

 

 

 

 

 

”

 

 

 

 

 

trading freedom for security. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

we live an inauthentic life.

 

 

human beings have no particular purpose. It is only through our actions that we later start defining what our purpose in life is going to be. “Man is nothing other than his own project,”

humans deceive themselves into thinking that they are predestined to be what they are, shifting the responsibility of their actions onto others or onto a moral code. Reality exists only in action,

 

The problem is that the oppressed often don’t know they are oppressed; they view the world as one that cannot change, as “a natural situation”.“

Life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying.” “

stationary state” society, where economic growth was unnecessary, commercialism would be reduced, human nature would evolve, and all people could develop their talents and faculties as only the wealthy few could do in the impoverished past.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: CAN AMERICA BLAME ITS ANTIQUATED VOTE SYSTEM OR DID TWITTER AND FACEBOOK ALGORITHMS ELECT TRUMP.

12 Saturday Nov 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Brexit., Elections/ Voting, Facebook, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., The Internet., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: CAN AMERICA BLAME ITS ANTIQUATED VOTE SYSTEM OR DID TWITTER AND FACEBOOK ALGORITHMS ELECT TRUMP.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

( A three-minute read for all Americans and all of us who value the freedom of a  Vote)

This week, Americans elected a new president who had essentially no support from mainstream politicians or media, SENDING THE CAPITALIST WORLD INTO A FRENZY OF VERBAL DIARRHEA.

How on earth did this happen?

Something else (aside from the design of the Electoral College) was needed to put Trump in the White House.

You don’t get people to see things your way by calling them idiots and racists, or sorting them into baskets of deplorables and pitiables, but with the help of Twitter and Facebook you can sow the seeds of discontent whether true or not.  Its called virtual community manipulation of what they do rather than where they are.

To speak the truth is no longer needed to gain power.

If you bend your values in challenging, strained times they’re not worth much at all when the going gets better.

In that sense, this posting may seem futile, but to any Americans reading this who are presently frustrated by a political system that does not necessarily reward the candidate with the most votes I would pass on this observation.

It is very interesting that the great symbol that is situated in the harbor of New York City, the Statue of Liberty, is a woman, carrying a torch, with her book of wisdom in hand, the crown of light atop of head, and a torch of light held high with her right hand.

She is the keeper of lost wisdom and the guide for lost souls. 

She is also a painful reminder that the liberty she promises is now becoming enslaved to a world of algorithm systems.

Trump was much better than Hillary Clinton at social media use.

Trump’s Twitter — full of ranting tweet storms and things he regretted — looks in broad outline like the account of a human who likes Twitter. Clinton’s looks like a brand.

Plainly, Trump’s election and the Brexit vote are rebellions against elite opinion — that is, against political orthodoxy and its defenders.

In both cases, the question is, how does one account for the uprising?

There’s no single reason.

What they have in common is anger at the existing economic order, and the use of social media.

You might think that after a price tag of $6.8 billion in vested interests (That’s more than what consumers spend on cereal ($6 billion), pet grooming ($5.4 billion) and legal marijuana ($5.4 billion),  would produce a leader better than a man who has spouted misogynistic, racist, xenophobic and climate change-denying views.

Not so.

As we’ve learned in this election, bullshit is highly engaging, with Mr President Trump not giving a flying toss whether he Tweeted the truth or otherwise, but it means that Twitter is harmful — it provides an echo chamber that confirms and intensifies dangerous false views — then there’s not as much it can do about it.

Tweaks to the algorithm won’t help.

As a result we can all look forward to having the biggest megaphone in the world in Jan of next year.

We are entering dangerous times not because of Trump’s Election but because Facebook and Twitter algorithms, of a shapes and sizes are now deciding the government of the United States not the vote.

Both Facebook and twitter news feeds were responsible for fueling “highly partisan, fact-light media outlets” that propelled Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency.

But Facebook is just a clicks-and-shares company.

Its mission, its ethos, is that people should tell their friends and family what they’re up to. If what they are up to is making videos of cats doing funny things, Facebook doesn’t care if the videos were staged. And if what they’re up to is sharing anti-Semitic memes and fake news, then … I mean … what?

Facebook’s DNA is in the sharing business, not the truth business, and its thinking about how to deal with the truth and harm of what it shares is inchoate and muddled.

It is not far off the truth that both of these companies optimize their content for popularity and profit rather than truth. Behind the scenes, Facebook has been studying and analyzing its effect on news consumption.

They are as old as for-profit media. In general these companies start with an ethic of truth-seeking and fairness that then may or may not be compromised by the quest for clicks and shares.

Where does all of this leave modern-day democracy.

With the unwinding of economic linkages the planet’s wealthiest and most powerful countries face a slow-moving but potentially devastating political and economic crisis.

If we all stay silent when men brag about sexually assaulting women. If we accept lies and hate speech about women, or migrant, refugee and Muslim communities.

If we stop pushing to prevent catastrophic climate change.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” It’s easy to lose something you don’t even know you had.Afficher l'image d'origine

Mr Obama would do well during the transition of power to bring the President elect to see the Statue of Liberty “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

The liberty she promises is not slavery to world’s system of Facebook, Twitter or the Internet of everything. 

It is so that humanity as a whole can muster the courage to seek the truth.

This can only be achieved by the simply use paper ballots not The Electoral College. Not computerized voting machines.

The problem with algorithm systems is that one can’t guarantee that the software is doing what it is supposed to do. (see previous posts)

It is time we pulled aside the cloak, and take a good look at the real facts, and what they mean for us, today.

The United States electoral system remains a work in progress, as it has for more than 230 years. Surely it time to remove the power of the $ and save the rest of us from eighteen months of bickering.

All comments welcome. Or if you like join the silent brigade and press the like button.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS ONLY THE ICEBERG OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

10 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Humanity., Innovation., Life., Technology, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WiFi communication.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS ONLY THE ICEBERG OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(An essential five-minute read)

 

Artificial intelligence is not just the frozen father of TRANSHUMANISM it will decide much of our future.Afficher l'image d'origine

Clearing away that mental block allows one to see a dazzling landscape of radical possibilities, ranging from unlimited bliss to the extinction of intelligent life.

The future will be filled with digital implants, mind controlled exoskeleton upgrades, age reversal pills, hyper-intelligence brain implants and bionic muscle upgrades.

All of these technologies will literally make us dependent on autonomous inventors of algorithms run by software.  So the sense one gets from this and other futurist predictions is that the future they predict is in the past.

Transhumanism is undeniably being actively pushed by mass media and promoted as something that is necessary and inevitable in the future. That way, when it will actually happen, nobody will be outraged by it, it will be considered as something normal.

But transhumanism will only be available to the richest and most powerful people and the world (the world elite) and will created an even wider gap between the “masses” and the “elite”.

Yes. Change happens, and to the victor belong the spoils.

Mr Trump. Represents the rising power of individuals against states, a growing middle class that will increasingly challenge governments, and ongoing shortages in water, food and energy and climate change.

However Artificial Intelligence in the form of unsupervised algorithms represents the hidden agenda of dying capitalism and where real power will end up. In the hands of a few.

If things continue in the current direction, the future we face will likely feature more starkly enforced social rules accompanied by fewer science achievements.

When machines start to make themselves smarter, without the need for people to make them, very strange things may happen.

As we consider the varieties of human experience of the future, and the kinds of modes through which we may eventually coexist with intelligences other than our own we are deeply irresponsible not to consider any regulations by Universal Laws Governing Scrutability of all technologies using programming algorithms.Afficher l'image d'origineIt could result in a two-tiered society comprising enhanced and nonenhanced persons, a dynamic that would likely require government oversight and regulation.

Soon, man intact with all his natural parts, may be available only in museums.

Advances in information technologies and AI are combining with advances in the biological sciences including genetics, reproductive technologies, neurosciences, synthetic biology.

With our devices becoming twice as powerful every eighteen months with more and more sophisticated algorithms we need to be vigilant even if the programs don’t, learn, understand or anticipate in the way we humans do.

We are entering an age of NEW SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS.

You don’t have to look far to see what is happening.

Just yesterday we witness the first autonomous bank robbery in the Uk.

Autonomous systems, whether drones or automated trading systems are infiltrating all our lives.

The democratization of Knowledge by Google and the Internet are turning into the colossal repository of human knowledge.

The human brain via genetic and bio-engineering with the nuclear family as a social unit is coming under fire from Facebook.

There are all sorts of speculation concerning AI.

The truth is that robots are not likely to become self-aware or decide that you are redundant.

As always the threat as ever is us.

Combined this with greed by Algorithmic bias to profit, (This time it will be with blind stupidity beyond anything we have seen before) we will end up relying on systems that are inscrutable because of no one programmed them.

The current regulations which are non existence are already outdated.

For example they don’t recognize that computers are already producing patentable inventions.

Computers are no longer a simple tool but autonomous inventors.

Should the technology be developed in the first place?

To what ends should it be deployed?

How the technology is to go forward, how should it proceed?

How and who do we monitor Technologies to ensure adherence to transparency?

Is the technology committed to equality, available to the less well off?

Is there a level of intervention, and accountability?

Who is responsible when a program goes awry?

We need to consider what limits we place on AI ?

What restrains and safeguards should be placed within these programs?

The list is endless.

If you think that this is all hogwash.

On August 12, 2013, something remarkable took place at the University of Washington. Professor Rajesh Rao sat down in his laboratory and put on an unusual-looking cap, covered with electrodes. This headpiece was connected to an electroencephalography machine – a computer with the ability to read signals from the brain.

Then, with the power of thought, Prof Rao was able to move the finger of his colleague, Andrea Stocco, sitting half a mile away on the other side of campus. Stocco himself had no choice: his body was simply responding to a command sent by Rao, transmitted over the internet.

This historic experiment represented the world’s first human brain-to-brain interface, and was replicated with a further six volunteers in November this year.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND COMPUTER LEARNING IS PREDICTED TO HAVE A GLOBAL ECONOMIC IMPACT BETWEEN OF $5.2 AND $7 TRILLION BY 2025.

It is going to have impacts way beyond the purely technological and economic.

As Abraham Lincoln said ” You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today”

Its time for a Independent, transparent, new world Institution, to set the Regulations and Laws governing all aspect of technology.

The out of date United nations is totally incapable of supervising the far reaching effects that Artificial Intelligence is having, or going to have and all of us.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE YOU INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING POSITIVE TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE.

07 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Every day we are warmed and warned by Earth’s stormy heat source the sun.Afficher l'image d'origine

As you all know these days there is little point in proclaiming the rights of ordinary citizens to establish governments to protect human Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness – which are all by-products of the sun energy stream!

To save humanity from the scourge of war and to reaffirm rights, dignity and worth of humans we must all contribute to making the world realize that climate change will if not tackled head destroy this plant.

The Paris Climate agreement has somehow or other created a false illusions of control, which in the long run will be either distorted or compromised by our own human weaknesses.

Last year, more than 32 million people around the world had to leave their homes because of climate-related disasters.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are more than likely to occur.

Our attitudes will only result in awareness.

The Sun correctly describe our relationship to the creative force of every atom, life and world in the Solar System.

sun_cme.jpg (1024×1024)

With social media sites virtually becoming a cross-platform of exchanging ideas with many TV programs are now using Facebook and Twitter. Even the government has realised its potentiality and set up twitter and Facebook accounts, presenting in imitative like MyGov web portal which can help in citizen interaction.

Television has a very strong role to play when it comes to reach and address a large target group or audience. However it is sad to see often media is engaged in trivial matters that appeals to masses forgetting the real issues that haunts nation of the world.

When it comes to Climate Change Society is so distracted by technological, physical connections that our deeper, more fundamental spiritual connections to reality are mostly ignored – except when we are individually alone with Nature.

If we define the future as a time that looks different from the present, then most people aren’t expecting any future at all; they expect coming decades to bring more globalization, convergence, and sameness.

They may be right, but when it comes to Climate change it is already affecting the planet and society and will continue to do so for generations to come. The physical and chemical changes of human activities are being felt in natural ecosystems on land and at sea, on farms and ranches, and in cities and suburbs, but the changes are not happening uniformly.

Predicting the long-term consequences is complicated in part because choices we make as individuals and as a society will change those outcomes.

This is where you can make a positive difference:

By promoting Awareness.

To make informed choices about the climate, and prepare for the results of those choices.

You can do this by lobbing you TV station to include in their weather forecasting a section that addresses the problems related to climate change.

By asking your readers or friends to do the same. 

Send the below open notice to you TV Station:

 OPEN NOTICE TO ALL TELEVISION STATIONS.

 Dear Sir or Madam                                                                            6/Nov/2012

As a viewer:

I wish to bring to your attention the need for your, Weather Forecast slot to address to following:

Surely it’s time that your MAIN WEATHER FORECAST SHOULD BE INCORPORATING SOME INTERACTIVE MAPS showing Global Sea Level Rise or Ice melting;  Instead of posting Weather photographs from social media weather watchers.

You have a social responsibility to make your viewers aware that observations throughout the world are making it clear that climate change is occurring. 

To build understanding: Media acts as watchdog to protect public interest against malpractice and create public awareness.

With your help society as a whole will be able to face challenges more successfully. 

Human’s would no longer be human with the future of climate laid out before them.

I wish you well in this challenging, but necessary task:

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND BREXIT IS IT TIME WE LOOKED AT THE VALUE OF A VOTE.

04 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Brexit., Elections/ Voting, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Politics., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND BREXIT IS IT TIME WE LOOKED AT THE VALUE OF A VOTE.

Tags

, , ,

As the world watches the finishing post arriving to the United States Presidential Election with the potential election of a bombastic, conspiratorial buffoon and a jailable female, both spending millions, you have to wonder is this the best that capitalist democracy can produce.

It begs the questions.

If elections are central to democracy, then how should a society organize the institutions that govern the processes by which government leaders are selected?

Should there be a parliament or a president and a legislature?

Should legislative seats be allocated in proportion to the popular vote, or should the winner in each district take all?

Should there be two, or three or a dozen political parties?

Should the parties be strong or weak, centralized or decentralized, ideologically unified or diverse?

What is the meaning of democracy?Afficher l'image d'origine

Does democratic choice as expressed through popular elections work?

Such Questions or debates are heated because the political stakes could not be higher: institutional arrangements influence the distribution of power; shape the ways that politicians pursue their goals; and constrain the ability of citizens to control their government.

Only through comparative analysis can the relative performance of different democratic arrangements be established.

We have all witness with Barack Obama term how presidential and legislative terms can be politically crippling.

When presidents do not enjoy majority party support in the legislature the potential exists for deadlock and paralysis. Chronic impasse invites regime instability and breakdown which we are currently witnessing with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. ( Two unworthy candidates that are buying votes. Two popularly elected, independent institutions that create problems for coalition building and executive legislative cooperation.)  Afficher l'image d'origine

Parliamentary democracy, is more apt to succeed, or so its advocates claim, because it escapes the problems associated with temporal rigidity and majoritarianism, and because the vote of confidence can resolve interbranch conflicts.

The problem with either system is the both entail assumptions about voters: about the information that they possess, the beliefs they hold, and the considerations they bring to bear on the electoral choices they make.

Such assumptions, it is important to point out, are rarely tested.

Coalition governments (common in parliamentary regimes) obscure accountability and reduce the ability of the electorate to assign blame.

For example, proportional representation produces more parties and less disproportionately in the conversion of votes to seats than do plurality and majority systems.

Accountability is also undermined in the presidential systems because voters give too much weight to the personal attributes of presidential candidates and too little weight to issues.

Laws determine how citizens cast votes, how votes are aggregated, and how aggregated votes are converted into positions of governmental authority.

Electoral laws have profound political effects.

We do not possess, the knowledge of the ways in which electoral laws ultimately affect voters and their representation in government.

What are the impact of these laws on individual citizens: on the ways they make choices and on the relationship they establish with their representatives.

They are questions that as yet have no firm answers.

The international economy is undergoing profound changes. With the lowering of barriers to international trade and the globalization of the world economy has come the birth of new economic sectors and the death of others. Some citizens, in some countries, in some economic sectors are thriving; others are failing.

So:  Has there been a shift in the expectations and demands that citizens place on government?

How have these economic changes affected the nature of political cleavages and party coalitions as manifested in opinion, vote choice, party allegiance, and alliances among social groups and economic sectors?

How do differing levels and duration of unemployment influence the relationship between economics and voting?

Does this relationship vary according to differences in economic structure?

Is there a relationship between the long-term strength of a nation’s economy and attitudes towards democracy?

We know little about how differences in political and economic systems impact on the nature of the relationship between economics and politics.

Population growth, industrialization, and the concentration of people into urban centers are placing steep demands on the world’s natural resources. Global environmental changes of profound proportions are taking place. Some scientists argue that these changes to the global environment threaten the very inhabitability of the earth. No nation will be able to escape coping with these environmental issues over the next decade.

Over the last three decades, however, electoral alignments have weakened, party strength has grown increasingly volatile, and party systems have become increasingly fragmented. As a consequence of these trends, social cleavages no longer explain vote choice the way they once did.

We need to measure vote choice in national elections as well as the nature and level of citizen participation in electoral politics.

We must keep in mind that understanding political participation requires an appreciation of the ways that political parties and other organizations mobilize citizens both directly and through social networks.

We need a better understanding of the nature of the relationship between citizens and political parties.

The way you cast your vote can depend on the type of election. Brexit for example. 

The problem with actually implementing a new system, though, is two-fold.

First, the current beneficiaries will do just about anything to preserve their positions, whilst others only see the drawbacks with the system every four years and then forget about them until the next election season rolls around.

But more importantly, any fixes now with Artificial Intelligence programs all have their own downsides.

Electoral systems matter. As a series of rules or procedures for determining who gets to hold office—when, for how long, and under what conditions—an electoral system has an important effect on how politics is practiced and how a country functions.

Parties are adept at changing strategy in response to the rules of the game. There is no perfect electoral system. Electoral systems are consciously designed to reduce the number of parties in a parliament or to provide a boost in seats for the largest party in an election.

It’s too easy to hide code in large software packages. The machines initially displayed an ‘x’ next to his or her name but then, after a few seconds, the ‘x’ disappeared or there is no voter verifiability.

Perhaps the PR electoral system is the best: It encourage the main parties to propose policies with broad public appeal rather than to target small groups of voters.

Voting should be a non-partisan issue.

In the eyes of the whites, we are bobbejaans (baboons).

But one thing is clear: We could do a lot better. Open your eyes.

Is there nothing we can do? or is surveillance capitalism in the form of AI the only way to go. Afficher l'image d'origine

Any Suggestions?

 

THE BEADY ASKS: WHY NATO?

03 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS: WHY NATO?

In the Spring of 1949, only 67 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington.

To day it has 28 member countries and is one of the longest surviving collective defence organizations of the world.

The Alliance has undergone a transformation, adapting to the new circumstances and should no longer be seen merely as a military Alliance with a defensive character, but as a political one as well, gathering the nations that share common democratic values and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

If you are like me I could not name the 28 countries that make up Nato membership.

However I would say that I am not far wrong in saying that it’s an US lead organisation that to day acts as a thorn in Putin’s side. Nor could I name it present Commander without Googling.

The supreme Allied Commander is an Army General named Curtis Michael ” Scap” Scaparrotti according to Google.

He ruffly has access to 3 million active duty troops, 24,000 military aircraft, 800 oceangoing warship, not forgetting a standing command structure of over 10,000 professionals in Europe. All useless against a cyber attack.

The point of the alliance was to deter Soviet aggression by guaranteeing that an attack on any NATO nation would be taken as an attack on all NATO nations.

These days it is seen as a good way to become connected to the US, Canada, and countries of the EU.

The world has seen many changes since the inception of NATO. It has served to symbolize the connection between North America and Western Europe.

The risks that the world must face today are connected primarily with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility of a rogue state or even a non-state entity acquiring such weapons.

To the view of NATO “from the other side.”

NATO appears determined, for the first time in its history, to intervene beyond its borders, even militarily, in those cases where atrocities are being committed, as was the case in Yugoslavia, in order to promote peace and stability. The intervention in Kosovo demonstrated to the world that the Alliance was ready, without a specific mandate from the U.N. Security Council, to carry out a large-scale military confrontation.

In 1990, the then 14 European members of NATO spent around $314 billion on defense collectively.

In 2015, the alliance’s now 26 European members are expected to spend around $227 billion on defense. So while European membership in NATO has nearly doubled since 1990, defense spending by Europeans has gone down by 28 percent since then.

In a few months we face a conundrum with Trump’s recent statements on the U.S. contribution to NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.“we are getting ripped off by every country in NATO, where they pay virtually nothing”

The question is will Nato stay relevant to world peace.

NATO can remain a vital part of our international security apparatus only if we are careful about what we want it to be and do.

We should start by looking at our global security needs, asking what instruments best meet those needs, rather than looking at NATO and asking what role we might devise for it.

We also must engage our allies in meaningful conversation about where NATO fits into their national priorities.

Finally, we have to consider the outlook of NATO’s neighbors, friend and foe.

 

International terrorism represents a growing concern to the western world, while drug trafficking in Asia is rampant.

In addition, ethnic conflict in Europe, as is witnessed right now in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, is a destabilizing factor with possible spillover effects for other countries.

All these threats are new and NATO has had to take them into consideration when drafting its new strategic Concept in 1999.

 

 

Since then the United Nations has hitherto failed to carry out its primary function namely to maintain peace and security and to facilitate the peaceful settlement between nations.

The reasons for this failure is because the five principal powers who are permanent members of the Security Council have the right to veto their decisions.

The primary aim of the Atlantic Alliance on the other hand is based on the elementary principal underlying most societies, namely, the incontestable right of self-defence. .

This right in an International field can only be exercised by collective action guaranteed by a treaty of mutual assistance, and organised in advance.

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

So how does Nato act as a preventive to war.

It is the world’s largest power, establishing the hegemony  of the allied west over the rest of the world.

Article 5 of the Treaty NATO’s founding treaty – states that an armed attack against one or more of them all be considered an attack against them all.  Or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

The end of the Cold War and, consequently, the absence of the Soviet threat, did not render NATO obsolete.

international reality has changed between 2001 and 2015

 

 

In light of NATO’s character as a political forum of democratic nations, expansion to incorporate those states that had authoritatively been excluded from it and pushed into the arms of the Soviet Union seems a logical consequence.

Russia however worries about that, as well as the new identity and tasks that NATO has awarded itself. Russia opposes expansion mainly because she fears that the West is trying to isolate her in the corner of Europe, deprive her of her privileged relationship with her former satellites and undermine her national interests.

This is why she is so fiercely opposing enlargement to include the Baltic States and Ukraine.

Permanent peace cannot be achieved only by confrontational methods and for sustainable peace reconciliation is important in conflict ridden countries.

For NATO, failure in Afghanistan will raise doubts on its ability to successfully complete a mission.

 

 

It’s certainly false to say that most of the other NATO members pay “virtually nothing.” The Us annual direct contribution is under $500 million a year.“The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole,”Trump has raised the specter of America puling out of the military alliance if the Europeans don’t pick up a bigger share.

On paper, members say they will put at least 2 percent of their GDP into their militaries. In practice, only five do: the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia and Poland.

By NATO’s count, total defense spending of all NATO members stood at about $900 billion in 2015 in current dollars. The United States’ share was about $650 billion. Do the math, and the percentage comes to about 72 percent.

there is no easy way to separate America’s military spending in Europe from its global military strategy.

that NATO’s military resources defy easy description. There are two ways to quantify them and both are incomplete.

The statistics show the military spending of the NATO countries from 2009 to 2016. The military expenditure of Germany in 2010 totaled up to 40.66 billion U.S. dollars.The statistic shows the U.S. military spending in the years 2000 to 2015. In 2000, the U.S. military spending was about 301.7 billion U.S. dollars.

The statistics show the global military spending during the years 2001 and 2014. In 2014, the world’s military spending amounted to 1.71 trillion U.S. dollars, compared to 1.14 trillion U.S. dollars in 2001.

It is about addressing Europe’s growing security vacuum and defining who will be in charge of European security. The reduction of the U.S. security footprint in Europe and Europeans’ dramatic loss of military capability since the 1990s have created a security vacuum in Europe
  • The question of who will guarantee Europe’s security in light of global strategic shifts remains unanswered.
  • Europe will be forced to step up its defense capabilities in the future if it wants to deal with the myriad threats in its neighborhood. This includes more and smarter defense spending, more defense cooperation, more shared threat assessments, and more leadership by hitherto reluctant nations.

 

in effect, the dependence of European NATO allies on the United States has further increased since the end of the Cold War, not decreased. As a percentage of GDP, defense spending by European allies fell from an average of 2 percent in 1995–1999 to 1.5 percent in 2014, while that of the United States went up from 3.1
 NATO, as a political organization, was conceived to administer this security guarantee and make the Europeans themselves stakeholders in it.
This fundamental principle of the political order of Europe has never been abandoned and remains in place today.
Overall, it is highly unrealistic that all 28 NATO allies will ever reach the 2 percent spending goal. On the surface this might sound like a potential credibility problem for NATO. If not even a pledge made at the highest political level of the alliance is likely to be fulfilled, then NATO’s standing as Europe’s bedrock of security could be seriously damaged.