Monthly Archives: January 2019

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT EFFECTS IF ANY SHOULD BREXIT HAVE ON THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN MARCH.

13 Sunday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The Euro, Transition period or Implication period., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT EFFECTS IF ANY SHOULD BREXIT HAVE ON THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN MARCH.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Twelve-minute read)

The Brexit referendum has and is demonstrating that the EU is not an irrevocable project.

It is now an internal power struggle while the EU _was_ an attempt to ensure peace and prosperity over the west part of the continent instead of the “costly” wars and colonial economics.

However, as the days go bye it is becoming more and more apparent that the EU is not for the people of Europe as a whole.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union elections"

Brexit for all its reasons is an example that is now shining a light on the forthcoming European Elections. Especially on the pros and cons of is there a future as separated national states or the Union.

Why?

Because Brexit’s main players have failed to comprehend the true significance of the European Union, bringer of peace.

Probably they intentionally refused to understand it in order to carry forth their destructive policies without qualms, hoping to reap the fruits in national elections.

But what is actually happening is that it is bringing England and their voters into a state of isolation, coupled with political and economic problems that are currently afflicting the United Kingdom it might be no longer a Union.

There is no doubting that Brexit will negatively affect the European Union, and its Member States, and its citizens, but the EU will be compensated by having gotten rid of a reluctant member that constantly hindered every effort aimed at the necessary, logical development of the integration process.

This is no fault of the in or out voters, rather it is playing out the falsehoods spread by Social media that appeal to nationalism rules & will, which in the current set up of the European Union will trump the forced solidarity of Brussels. 

No one can “force solidarity” upon you. Nor can a currency forge deeper integration. 

Only collective suicide can do so.

So are the up and coming elections going to deeper disunity than unity?

The results of the European elections will constitute the grounds for the renewal of EU institutions and of its leadership. It then remains to be seen to what extent Europeans would have a political interest in mitigating the psychological impact of this Brexit chaos on European citizens.

At the end of all this madness, what is the EU going to look like?

On May 23 to 26 the citizens of 27 Member States will be called to renew the European Parliament. Then it is the turn of the formation of the new EU Commission. A busy timetable marked by growing anti-European movements and by the possibility of citizens’ mobilization.

If England requests an extension of article 50 it will extend into the period of Europes own elections thus linking the absurd ongoing spectacle in the British Parliament- which will lead to all of us witnessing the consequences of anti-European, nationalistic propaganda based on lies and slander against the European project.

So Europe will be in a quandary.

It cannot be seen unwilling to offer an extension, nor can it risk a Brexit bush fire by an extension of  Article 50 over four months. 

The current crisis that Europeans are both observing and undergoing is nothing but the readjustment of a project that no longer serves the needs of the day properly, and therefore needs renovation.

The last thing it needs is squabbling noncooperative English second peoples referendum or general election influencing its own elections which will have more than ample pitfalls of their own. 

The Union is a rule-based union > if it is perceived to modify its rules without open democratic transparency it can only blame itself for its disintegration.

The Union might be only sixty odd years old but its history of breaking rules.

A confederation is based on trickle-down authority. The ultimate power lies in the individual states. It has no effective powers to prevent its own member states from violating its core values of respect for democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.

Take Hungary, for example. Here is a member state casually flouting basic democratic norms and human rights, swiftly evolving into an authoritarian nightmare, with absolutely no meaningful consequences. The country’s parliament has not just passed a law making claims for asylum almost impossible:

Take Poland, for example. Authoritarian Poland is making an utter mockery of the EU’s stated commitment to democracy and human rights.

Defining appropriate institutions to regulate and mediate between economic and social forces is a global and not just European challenge, but its achievement may appear too far out of reach.

The EU is buffeted by multiple crises, from Brexit to the assumption of power of a Eurosceptic Italian government.

But its acceptance of its own member states succumbing to authoritarianism may prove its greatest existential threat of all.

One of the biggest problems with the EU is not how the politicians are “elected”, but how can you get rid of them when they fail to perform.

For many reasons, (addressed in previous posts) I think the EU project is fundamentally flawed.  That those who “run” the EU are not subjected to a democratic election is scandalous.

Integration is what has given Europe its strength in economic globalization, and this integration will play a huge part in Europe’s survival in the age of political globalization. They cannot be tarnished by concession to England just for the sake of the Market.

Closer integration will have to include services but also the huge market for training and skills. It will comprise an energy union, just as it will have to comprise a proper “market” for people. This market will include not just the now-endangered EU principle of free movement in the EU. It will also include its flip side, a properly regulated shared “market” for immigrants.

What seems impossible today will have to come, no matter how much nationalist sentiments stand against it.

The EU serves a purpose, and its workings and its setup will have to be adapted as this purpose changes. Again and again.

How can this be achieved?

Fundamentally, the EU either serves the needs of the day or it gets into a crisis.

A more open decision-making process might have a positive effect on public interest in democracy at the EU level but it will not unity because it is becoming more and more evident that the single market with all its rules is more important than the citizens.

The dominant dividing line of the new parliament will become a contest between politicians who want to find common EU-level solutions to current challenges and those who favour safeguarding and reaffirming national sovereignty.

So I predict a Europe in which values will be handled closer to the lowest common denominator than to the great ideals that Europe wants to stand for.

This will be a source of never-ending tension, but it will prove less costly than becoming divided over maximalist morals only to lose out in the harsh world of political globalization.

The peoples of Europe will no longer integrate because they feel love for the idea of an integrated Europe—if ever they did. Integration will come only when the pain is really massive. And it is massive only in some policy fields, not in all. And it will remain so until the European Union affords a direct opportunity to its citizens to invest in EU that brings a reward with that investment. ( See the previous Post)

The politics of fear by building electoral platforms based on liberal principles, pointing out the big challenges surrounding technology and climate change, and showing that migration is just one issue among many.

There is no real hope for EU federalists because the Union relies on a global order that the Europeans are unable to guarantee. The direction of integration is more diffuse now than in the past.

However, the quest for political order on a planet that has outgrown its merely regional structure might have the chance to make a difference.

So with the European elections this time it’s not enough to hope for a better future: this time each and every one of us must take responsibility for it too.

Artificial intelligence has been confined to the lab for so long that it is hard sometimes to recognise that it is now an actual technology that we use without thinking. The EU is right to try to harness it.

Voting, on the other hand, has not been around for a long time, it now needs more thinking than ever.

After a woeful five years, this is perhaps last chance for the EU to prove it can regain the initiative. The stakes have never been higher, and the EU needs someone who is confident, can communicate and represents the people.

The EU needs a serious person at the helm, and it cannot afford to leave the choice to an obscure process that has so far failed to find the best person for the job.

The ‘technocratic’ rhetoric of economists and central bankers convinced most people that there is no feasible alternative to (financial) market logic, to fiscal austerity, low wages, flexible labour markets and independent central banks.

This way, establishment economics has constrained (and continues to constrain) political choices, stripping electorates of their autonomy in political and moral judgement.

This is a dangerous game since the only way disenfranchised electorates can express their anger, anxiety and powerlessness is by choosing self-defined. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european fascism"

The tragedy of Brexit powered by Farage & all doesn’t have any real solutions.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT IS REALITY?

11 Friday Jan 2019

Posted by in #whatif.com, Algorithms., Reality., Technology, The Future, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Twelve-minute disturbing read)

Dig deep enough into the fabric of reality and you are left with the above question.

The story of our recent technological development has been one of ever-increasing computational power. At some future time, we will surely begin to simulate everything, including the evolutionary history that led to where we are.

But in our increasingly digital, algorithm-driven world what is a reality.

The journey from Virtual Reality to Reality itself is looking possible. In the wake of all Artifical intelligence development, it’s not doubtful that this level of immersion will be achieved.

The illusion becomes the prevailing reality.

An algorithm-oriented way of thinking that is quickly spreading throughout all fields of natural and social sciences and percolating into every aspect of our everyday life will have an enormous impact what is a reality.

Under the conceptual metaphor of “everything as algorithms,” which means learnings from one domain could theoretically be applied to another, thus accelerating scientific and technological advances for the betterment of our world, will lead to the reality of the world disappearing.

As a result of this takeover of algorithms in all domains of our everyday life, non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms may soon know us better than we know ourselves, therefore luring us in an algorithmic trap that presents the most common-denominator, homogenized experience as the best option to everyone.

However, when data is selected and coded with unchecked bias, the algorithms become biased too.

So it not hypothetical to say we will reach a point when AI will present its result as the only viable choice, the only true narrative based on data then there can be no such thing as reality.

We cannot say that reality is a fact.

Why?

Just because sufficiently many people believe in something does not make it real. As the science fiction writer Philip K. Dick put it, the reality is that which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away. Because it is in a constant state of expansion, it isn’t what it seems.

Nothing is real until it is observed, or measured. So, is really built on emptiness?

How do many possibilities become one physical reality?

Is there an external reality that exists independently of our observations creating matter as derivative from consciousness.

Why?

Because the human brain is incapable of churning out anything beyond what we put in?

However, as we are made of essentially the same genetic material and receive essentially the same sensory inputs so one’s own consciousness is all there is.,

Then the world is also subject to our collective perception. Thus we form our world together, from one infinite moment to the next.

Does reality come down to information?

What do we mean by ‘know’?”

Will superintelligence be a reality unknowable by us?

If it acquires all the knowledge of the world and us it will have fundamental ramifications for our concept of reality. The nature of reality will have two perceptual realms. Virtual reality will quite simply be able to take you places you have never gone before.

Virtual reality will become more sensory oriented in the future. Once it begins catering to the senses, like what we feel body-wise, temperature-wise, and smell, the reality factor of virtual reality becomes stronger and the virtual piece begins to fade.

By 2050, you won’t be able to tell the difference between the “real” and the “virtual” world.

Our language is subject to change so our reality is subject to change also.

More than a decade ago, the first real smartphone hit the market and made screens an essential ingredient in our lives. As a result, it has changed how we communicate, work, travel, purchase and more.

A platform shift of what is real is imminent. Do we make real, or does it make us?

No matter how intelligent we or our robots might get, neither will find the source of reality as it is in constant transition.Where-is-Augmented-and-Virtual-Reality-Technology-Headed

SOME MIGHT WILL SAY THAT REALITY IS THE CENTER OF A BLACK HOLE.

A “gravitational singularity” which in many ways represents all that we still don’t know about the universe.

Surrounding each black hole, meanwhile, is an invisible boundary known as the “event horizon” that essentially marks the point of no return.

They, however, are processes so it’s conceivable, that living matter might be able to exist within a black hole without being consigned to that harsh and eternal oblivion.

It’s almost impossible to guess what it would really be like inside a

black hole.

‘No One Really Knows’

Black holes do not seem to me to be a thing or a place but a transition.

This raises an interesting question as to the matter being spewed out to the other side of what. Einstein space-time?

The black hole/ big bang events are just another of the realities. Both have to have atoms to happen and none of us, although we like everything, are made of atoms which are 90% made up of empty space know what occupies this space.

In the end, the only place we have any chance of determining reality is where there is no temperature- vibrations – gravity- matter-energy-vacuum- atomless- lightless- timeless all totally unobservable.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chunked into the bin.

https://youtu.be/-Xn6IDytVGw

 

 

 

 

Go back

Your message has been sent

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S ITS TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHY ENGLAND IS LEAVING THE EU.

10 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., Our Common Values., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S ITS TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHY ENGLAND IS LEAVING THE EU.

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Twelve-minute read)

This truth has been with us from the dawn of humanity.

The inability to share leads to most world problems.

Inequality.

With the ability to share truth and untruths through social media right now, it’s difficult to know what to trust or who to trust.

Are we seeing a return to protectionism or the redefining of capitalism, to sustainability before profit?

There is one certainty Social media is having an effect on where power and how power is used giving rise to Popolusim contra Eliatilism.

So I think it is time to be a bit more honest and plain-speaking about the circumstances that have led to Brexit.

Politics and the media are being pushed to the limit by advancements in technology and uncertainty about the future.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the truth in the future"

Misinformation is spreading.

When it comes to Brexit, we have reached the point where, to an extraordinary extent, the implementation of the 2016 referendum result trumps all else. But as we approach the departure date all statements about British politics should be assumed to include to the word “probably”

If it will happen when it will happen.

For the most part, the debate about Brexit since the 2016 referendum has been framed primarily in economic terms but it is my contention that Brexit, whether it happens or not, is now showing that the EU never was the problem. 

The problem is fixing Britain’s relationship with itself.

The irony is that the country that was least affected by the migration crisis is the one where we are now seeing the most consequential political backlash.

Those who promise that leaving the EU will deliver “control” are really promising something quite specific: a social and cultural reboot.

Of course, this is a complete impossibility. We live in a world defined by the economic, social and cultural interdependence of nation states.

Take back control” was indeed the slogan of the Leave campaign, but it was “control” with one purpose, above all others, the relationship between taxation and public spending and immigration.

A wealthy nation is essential both to the aspirations of individual households and the funding of public services. Unfortunately, England is now reaping the rewards of putting the economy before its people.

Of selling most of its assets, of investing in a world image of power when in fact its people were on the streets due to lack of social housing, were lying in hospital corridors due to lack of funding, were relying on food banks due to lack of decent wages, were running up personal debts, were educated for the market place.

These are now the gravitational centre of the whole debate:

Britain’s act of masochism in leaving the EU will create a country that is unpopular, self-hating and insecure about its identity.

There will be no game-changing trade deals.

It is better that they draw this conclusion today rather than in 2040 after a period of harsh isolation in the middle of the North Sea.

The British people (and particularly the English), who have been in search of their identity since 1945, might finally recognize that it lies not in the distant past (Empire/Commonwealth), nor in the recent past (“special relationship” with the US) but in the future.

The only sensible course, therefore, is to suspend Article 50 and request a return to the status quo ante.

This could be done following a proper constitutional process, meaning a parliamentary vote. Britain can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and therefore freeze the process of leaving the EU.

Britain can write a letter to the EU and state that it wants to freeze its withdrawal process, and that’s what it takes to get yourself off the default path towards crashing out.

However, this process cannot be used just to pause the process and regroup.

In order to pause the process and regroup, the U.K. would need to have the consent of all the other EU members.

If it were just a request to say, oh, we’ve really lost our mind, we don’t quite know what to do, it’s very unlikely that the other 27 members would say, oh, yeah, sure, fine, let’s do that.

Then we come to the Backstop re Northern Ireland;

Northern Ireland wants some legally binding assurances that the U.K. will be able to get out of it unilaterally.

The probability of EU leaders conceding this is zero. And it’s zero today. And it’s zero down the road.

The EU’s position has been very much: This is—this is not negotiable. And, frankly, they all know that you know, a number of EU members are unhappy with the terms of the withdrawal agreement. And if it were to be reopened, it would be a whole can of worms with a lot of, you know, different asks being put on the table.

So this is just not going to happen without the backstop becoming the front stop.

The priority list in continental Europe, with coming elections you know, Brexit isn’t the first thing, or the second thing, or the third thing; it’s somewhere after that.

The disasters to befall the EU27 won’t have befallen them. They will, instead, have continued to evolve their community, grow their economy, taken heed of lessons played out across the Channel, made things better.

Does any of this matter?

Because London is fine, Westminster and the BBC will say Britain is fine. This is no longer so, there is a much uglier reality and one that has little to do with GDP.

If London loses its financial clout there will be a fundamental change to the British economy that Britain now needs to cycle through before it can clarify where it wants to end up with in this Brexit process.

Brexit is both symptom and cause of a breakdown in this consensus.

This needs to be understood outside the day-to-day disasters of the Brexit process itself.

The NHS won’t have fixed itself. Nor will social care. Nor pension problem. Nor it’s out of date infrastructure.

So low and behold we now see department ministers promising funds to fix the NHS etc. However, Brexit will be a suffocating error when it comes to finding these funds. A poorer U.K. outside the EU will be less useful both as a military ally and as a diplomatic partner or as a trading partner.

There could be one unanticipated positive outcome.

The conventional politics of “left versus right” no longer apply:

The political party that can transcend party lines and speak to people across the ideological spectrum will be the rising voice in the next 10 years.

It is unlikely that either of the main political parties in England will survive in their current forms, given the pressures their internal coalitions are already under.

It does not take a nitwit that global we are witnessed the highest number of global battle deaths for 25 years, persistently high levels of terrorism, and the highest number of refugees and displaced people since World War II.

If this is not observable we are left with “the essence of bullshit: a complete lack of concern with truth” and “an indifference to how things really are.”

All one has to do is turn on your TV.  Who can tell what infringements to our civil liberties will have been introduced in the name of keeping us safe? What new walls will be built?

The important thing is not that what he says is true, but that it persuades. and by then none of us will have recourse to Europe to stave them off, either?

Luckily there is no such thing as an average human being.

Nonetheless, that fictional construct is precisely what businesses use to explain human behaviour, reducing us to mere consumers.

There are however those who navigate the currents of uncertainty and change without the need for any particular dogma or orthodoxy to guide them. These are the innovators, thinkers, misfits, activists, artists, and creators who can be found on the fringes of any walk of life, nipping at the hem of hegemonic power, disrupting the status quo, and bravely embracing the unknown.

The future belongs to these voices, not to a world where the truth has become so malleable and subjective as to be almost meaningless as a concept. 

It also belongs to those brave enough to stand up to bullshit in some of its most vaunted forms. There is some hope for this.  

The fine line between the present and the future never looked so blurry.

However, the truth has to persist unaffected, in the past, in the present and in the future.

The next victims of social media will be based on media trends.

What is left when you take away all the ads and the packaging of Brexit is the truth of the product –

Wake up England and stop being the sulking wanting to leave the room when you still have the chance to influence the creation of a Europe, whole, free and at peace.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the truth in the future"
All human comments appreciated/All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UK National Debt is estimated to be £1.84 trillion.

Uk Defence spending is budgeted to be £48.3 billion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A quick examination of the numbers reveals that the world continues to spend vastly disproportionate resources on creating and containing violence compared to what it spends on peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how you design the ballot would have a material impact on how it turned out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION IS GOING.

07 Monday Jan 2019

Posted by in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION IS GOING.

Tags

 

(Five-minute read)

As you know the EU has elections this year. With England leaving, France, Spain, and especially in Italy now representing sources of insecurity, there are bigger problems in store.Image associée

The question is what will we be voting for.

So here a few of the questions that need answering in no particular order.

Because of national interests! to what end is the EU actually of use?

What does it bring in terms of increased value, more jobs, more social security, more environmental protection, more education, more competitiveness?

How do you explain the value of the EU to a skeptical citizen?

Is the Europe Union the right project for the 21st century?

After all, we’re doing this in order to build something together. But this message is constantly getting perverted so that people don’t understand how affairs in Brussels are progressing for them and for the whole continent.

Should all EU decisions require parliamentary legitimization?

Now more than ever it is important for the European Commission to have an influential voice in order to stop any unrealistic decision-making happening in Brussels – and also to ensure that the legitimate interests of nation-states aren’t lost?

Should the ECB’s oversight function of overseeing the banks be separated from its responsibility for the monetary value of the euro?

Will the currency union continue to exist?

The history of the euro currency is a history of broken rules. Efforts to rescue the currency have broken even more rules, but can the currency union survive if rules go on being broken?

Who actually does what in Brussels?

In the EU people don’t see themselves as having a common identity they see themselves to be part of a city, a town, a region, a country. I am Irish, then, I’m European. I say as Europeans, we have to hold on to our specific roots, and that’s exactly what we do.

That should not be replaced with some kind of European uniformity.

That’s also what makes Europe so attractive because we can share this diversity with each other. And this is exactly what it is needed to be explained in the national dialogue with citizens.

Why?

Because many European citizens see Europe as a place of crisis, where billions in bailout money have been distributed from the north to the south.

How do we stop spreading this pessimism?

This can only be achieved by affording European citizens a direct means of investing in Europe with a reward for doing so. ( See the previous post on European citizens bonds)

European countries are not ready for proposals for a political union.

It’s very hard to agree to a political union when important rules have been broken in the past. That showed that people didn’t want a constitution at all for the EU. As such, it’s hard to agree to a political union in Europe now. It doesn’t have the majority’s support. So for now, you have to see it as a failed idea.

However those rules, like the no-bailout clause or the stability and growth pact, formed the basis of a rudimentary political union.

Is Europe going to accept budget deficits?

National interest is still the priority. Why?

Because political elites are voting for nationally and can only prepare for re-election nationally. That means that they have to try unceasingly to pursue national interests.

If you ever want an example of this no matter what the outcome will be, Brexit will deal a severe blow not just to England but to the Union.

The UK national interests if there is no clean break is going to put constrained on the progress of the entire continent by holding the remaining members’ hostage. The EU and UK are still negotiating a deal that would guarantee an orderly departure from the bloc however there’s no clarity as to what future trade ties between the two sides will look like.

In the century of global development, a retreat to our own backyards is the opposite of what we need. Great Britain, like all EU countries, will be competing on the global stage – one in which the EU is involved economically, ecologically, and in terms of currency.

With worldwide speculation and international financial locations and immigration – England will be overwhelmed alone.

I believe people feel that something has got to change and that we must grow together. This can only be achieved with a more democratic and transparent with the EU that looks after its citizens by allowing direct investment to secure an environmental Green Europe.  (See Previous Post-re-establishing the south of Europe the renewable energy hob of the EU.)

Against this backdrop, the upcoming EU elections will be characterized by the bloc as a “moment of truth”

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHERE WILL WE BE IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTY.

05 Saturday Jan 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The cloud., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHERE WILL WE BE IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTY.

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

Let’s face it over the past 50 years – everywhere we turn we are surrounded by a popular culture that is sacrificing community for convenience.

This convenience is what Capitalism thrives on. However today we are being told by the best science that there are twelve years left to change the way our economies rely on fossil fuels to avoid runaway climate change.

If you don’t believe this one has only to look at the state of Great Barrier Reef of Australia.

Our problems as they are can to tracked back to unbridled Imperial Capitalism which is now not in a position to disappear or change direction in order to avoid crawling towards ruin.

Why?

Because of productivity needs value and there is little value in Green energy.

Furthermore, with technological automation wage labour is coming to an end reducing the value of productivity with monopolies profits drying up.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the world"

WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN BE DONE TO AWAKEN US?

Old-fashioned demonstrations and civil disobedience have been replaced by anti-social online behaviour, which is now leading to a breakdown of government communications.

Under this psychology, society is, in turn, creating a culture that expresses our deepest yearnings and desires.

From nanotechnology to genomics to computer animation, technology is expanding our vision in all aspects of life.

As society moves toward a more progressive and accepting outlook, some would argue that this TECHNOLOGICAL movement which is called the fourth Industrial is creating information overload.

Take social media as if it is groundbreaking, which it is on many levels, but ultimately, it is just an extension of something we’ve always been attracted to – information.

Platforms like Facebook have just made it easier to curate and broadcast information like never before in the world of IF – without any knowledge whether this knowledge it true or false other than a like button.

We are entering this new world of IF with programmes that are manipulating neurons ( Like Google Deep dream program) with advances in reproductive science that could blur our sense of identity across the generational divide.

So where will we be in the year two thousand and fifty?

Sadly it’s anybody’s guess, BUT THERE IS ONE THING FOR SURE where we are now will seem like ancient history in five years not to mention the next thirty years.

How will we travel? What will we eat? How will our economy and global workforce shift?

A WHAT IF WORLD.

SO IN THIS IF WORLD if we don’t push technology in the direction of benefiting all we could have a very, very dystopian future. We incapable of answering where we will be in the next ten years never mind the next thirty odd years.

However I believe in the next ten years, science will prove that too much technology (e.g. heads always in our phones) is actually a negative thing for the mind and longevity.

I believe we’ll be forced to find a sustainable balance between technology use and real-life experiences. The human race is not an outpost of a galactic society; it is a domestic product.

Consumers will seek increased meaning associated with their products. Our flat screens will need smart apps that would help by providing smart nudges around their usage.

Why?

It’s almost as if we’re dependent upon them for some type of nourishment. But this nourishment comes as a trade-off: less physical contact with others, not taking the time to enjoy our environment, etc.

I want to see the intersection of social good and technology start to grow. All too often, problems being solved in tech are first world problems. Many of us forget that there are some huge global problems, particularly in the developing world, that need to be solved for the benefit of us all.

If we eventually come to our senses and realize that climate change, crumbling infrastructure, the demographic inversion, are going to toast our civilization unless we take action may be the next 50 years we could turn the IF world into the Now world.

To do this we will have to dignify a lot of new things as “work.”

Why?

Because when computations are all intelligent when everything is embedded in a control loop, the mathematical landscape of IF will change.

Technological civilisations do not last very long and although electronics got a head start of a few decades, biology is just beginning its great explosion.

So the question today is are we going to ignore our self-conscious for the sake of Twitter, a like click on Facebook.

What is needed is more transparency, more universal usable data, more computing power, and better software to take charge and make the IF world more Social.

The characteristics of race, class and gender are being reconstructed on flat screens to help us understand who we are as people but unfortunately, power, as we know, is disappearing into the long tall grass of hidden algorithms, that are electing world leaders like Mr Dump. Mr Bolsonaro. Mr Macri, Mrs May etc- AMERICA FIRST, AMAZONA LAST, BORROW, ISOLATION NEXT.

The time is now to understand what produces intelligence and self-awareness.

After all, a conscious Ai that resides in the cloud may not have the same priorities and values as does human life.

IN THE IF WORLD IF WE DONT HAVE A A COMMON UNDERSTANDING ABOUT AI, MACHINE LEARNING AND ALL THEY IMPLY IT’S LIKELY WE WILL CREATE AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PROBLEMS

Since we are now unable to stop the increasing power of AI we need to start controlling it. Addressing bias will be its biggest problem as it will only be amplified as algorithms evolve.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the IF world"

Intelligence. No.  Silence, Yes.

The right has a name and has a face has the courage to say what many know, but we do not speak.

WHAT IS NEEDED IS A TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIALIST IF WORLD.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”

 

 

THE BEADY EYE WISHES YOU A HAPPY NEW YEAR BY SPREADING SOME GOOD FALSE NEWS FOR 2019.

03 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in 2019., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Environment, Evolution., Facebook, Fake News., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The new year 2109, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE WISHES YOU A HAPPY NEW YEAR BY SPREADING SOME GOOD FALSE NEWS FOR 2019.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

Despite the dire state of the world today here is some good false news.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "fake news images"

Let’s start with an issue that has not received enough attention in the media and popular understanding.

The Earth is finite and this fact will have real-world physical, economic, social, and political implications.

Thus, we are using an economic theory that is simply incapable and inapplicable for informing an unprecedented transformation of the economy by technology.

We need a discussion as to what political leaders, business leaders, and citizens think is an appropriate distribution of wealth across the entire population of the world. This focuses on the real question (how many people have what, independent of the size of the economy, though the two are linked) instead of discussing how to shape policies and taxes to achieve an unspecified growth target independent of wealth distribution.

Trump, Brexit, and Le Pen are representations that people understand growth only for the elite in the West are no longer tenable. Neoclassical economics ignores this obvious fact, yet it is used to guide most policy (eg, economic projections and scenarios), including that for climate change mitigation.

Perhaps a summary is that the human enterprise has outgrown the long-ability of the planet’s renewable resources to support us at our current numbers and our current rates of consumption and waste generation.

Climate change is just one piece of evidence of this fact.

By 2050, over 7 billion people will live in cities (80% of the world), and cities will be responsible for 75% of global carbon emissions. The battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities.

Urban planning needs to incorporate total populations, not simply the rich and middle classes; this is the only way that the economic potential of the majority can be harnessed for the national good.

The reality is that any activity that is not sustainable HAS TO STOP.

So far, non-renewable resources are what is primarily driving our economic engine. But by definition, non-renewables are being depleted and for the most part, will stop being economically available in this century. So we must plan rapidly for the day when humanity can live using just renewable resources while maintaining the biodiversity that makes the planet habitable.

In truth, sustainability is the ultimate environmental issue, the ultimate health issue, and the ultimate human rights issue.

The days when scientists could not care about the impact of their work on cultural, values and society are over. If they ever existed, which they didn’t, but that’s water over the dam.

Data-driven technologies are increasingly being integrated into many different parts of society, from judicial decision-making processes to automated vehicles to the dissemination of news.

Each of these implementations raises serious questions about what values are being implemented and to whom these implementations are accountable.

There is an increasing desire by regulators, civil society, and social theorists to see these technologies be “fair” and “ethical,” but these concepts are fuzzy at best.

As we are developing more and more ways to let computers take over reasoning through adaptive learning, we are faced with an existential question: What is it – long term – that makes us human?

AI, although very useful, will never approach human intelligence until it is embodied.

My #1 issue is not the future of democracy. The future is a complicated subject.  Now more than ever, it’s fast-moving, complicated, increasingly immediate. We can’t keep thinking about the future as a far-off intangible. Today, things move so quickly, that the future already is happening, and already affecting us. And in many ways, we’re struggling to adapt quickly enough.

That’s only the beginning of the genetics, robotics, information and nano revolutions – which are advancing on a curve.

Meanwhile, we humans are trying to process this exponential change with our good old v. 1.0 brains. With precious little help at all from those creating this upheaval.

Algorithms by their very nature reason probabilistically and as uncertainty increases in the world, uncertainty increases in an algorithm’s ability to successfully and safely come to a solution.

Presently we have no commonly-accepted approaches and without an industry standard for testing such stochastic systems, it is difficult for these technologies to be widely implemented.

As technological developments increasingly drive social change, how can democratic societies empower ordinary people to have a say in the decisions that shape the technological trajectories that will, in turn, determine what the future looks like?

How can the public have meaningful input into the character of the algorithms that will increasingly determine both the nature of their relationships with other people on social media and their access to various important social goods?

How can we prevent an underwater arms race involving autonomous submersibles over the coming decades?

How can we ensure that questions about meaning and values, and not just calculations of risks and benefits, are addressed in decisions about human genome editing?

If there are people who are willing to blatantly refuse to believe that something is a lie, no matter how hard you try, they won’t listen. I’m not sure what amount of evidence is needed in this new paradigm of journalism to get newsreaders out of their new bubbles.

Human psychology is the main obstacle, unwillingness to bend one’s mind around facts that don’t agree with one’s own viewpoint.

The fundamental challenge we now face is how to handle a setting where anybody can get their views disseminated without intermediaries to prevent the distribution.

Somehow there still has to be some process of collectively coming to some agreement of what we are going to believe and what we think are consensual facts.

Instead, we have the golden age of the algorithm surveillance, automation, virtual reality, gene editing, the widening gap between wealthy and impoverished people, the worldwide questions of immigration, social media inserting a new level of governance in society, rapid urban growth isolating us from nature, smartphones isolating us from each other.

The challenge now is to make sure everyone benefits from this technology. It’s important that machine learning is researched openly, and spread via open publications and open source code, so we can all share in the rewards.

Our major challenge is related to our new capability of digitizing human beings.

The scale of popular social networks has democratized publishing, which effectively lets anyone – regardless of their intentions or qualifications – produce content that can appear journalistic.

Rather than waiting for politicians to make decisions and then we all argue over whether what they say reflects reality, we could have tools that engage people much earlier in the process so they can be involved in formulating ideas and drafting legislation.

As we begin in 2019 we have only 48.8% worried by Climate change/destruction of nature, 29.2% of us worried by Poverty, 22.7% worried by Government accountability and transparency/corruption, with only 18.2% worried by Food and water security.

Water is a social issue, a political issue, an energy issue, even a gender issue

– and how clean water scarcity triggers a host of problems, from disease

outbreaks to government feuds.

So the challenge before us is to begin to construct a truth signalling layer into the fabric of facts, particularly online. Even if we have structures that impose constraints on people in power and we put pressure on powerful people to be honest with us, in a sense, all of that is being circumvented by social media.

We need to turn social media upside down by changing the algorithms in Facebook or on Google to nudge people into sharing or consuming news that is slightly outside their normal comfort zone. We have to have a setting where we trust other people.

Fix it. Get out of your silo. If you can’t figure out the societal and cultural

implications of what you’re doing, start seeking out people who might.

A major issue most people face, without knowing it, is the bubble they live in.

Our world is far too beautiful to allow Social Media and profit-seeking algorithms to rip it apart.  Happy New year.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent