• About
  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD THANK ENGLAND FOR ITS IN OR OUT REFERENDUM.

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Author Archives: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DESIRE

17 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Humanity., Social Media., Technology, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DESIRE

Tags

Desire., Excellence., Pleasure., Reward without desire., Well-being.

How often have you said  “I crave this substance, long to see that person again, would die for another piece of something I just ate.

The first time that many people consume an alcoholic beverage, they have no particular desire to drink it. They just go along with the crowd. Then the alcohol hits and they discover that the feeling is very pleasant — in other words, rewarding.

I am sure like me that this is a subject you know little about and seldom question. Like many subjects this is a human attribute we take for granted.

Indeed my desire to explain clearly what I want to, I am sure will fail miserably.

Nothing Ventured nothing gained.

So let’s ask where does desire come from?

How could anything be a desire without one having an urge to obtain the object of desire?

The obvious answer is our senses, sight, smell, touch, taste, pain, combined with abstract stimulants like shape, color, and mood or for example Donald Trump’s taste leaves a lot to be desired.

Some of our thoughts are accepted, some are rejected, and others are ignored.

There are two distinctions of orientation or of intention of a subject toward any phenomenon: “to” or “from” it, attraction or repulsion, acceptance or rejection.

The words ‘desire’, ‘want’, ‘wish’, one’s desires provide one with reasons to act.

The three faces of desire are, in a nutshell, that desires are motivating, that satisfying desires is usually pleasurable, and that desires determine what will count as rewards and punishments.

There can be reward without desire.

When a desire is not satisfied, it is rational to change the world, not the desire.

Changing the desire would leave one with nothing, neither pleasure nor displeasure.

Desire is often for pleasure and satisfying desires is often extremely pleasurable, but the very possibility of a causal relationship between the two speaks to them being different from one another.

But then again for an individual attempting to realize his self-regarding desires, the satisfaction of the satisfaction of a desire is unmeaning.

By the time we desire something, we do not have to learn that getting it would be rewarding; we already believe that.

This does not mean that the desirability of desires is a good guide to anything else about them. There are certain kinds of conflict of desire and how do you distinguish between wishes and desires?

Desires are held to conflict just in case the satisfaction of one precludes the satisfaction of the other; second, a desire is said to be satisfied just in case the propositional content of the desire is true.

Yet little is actually known about well-being. The satisfaction of one’s present desires for present states of affairs can affect one’s well-being.

So if I desire fame today and become famous tomorrow, my well-being is positively affected only if tomorrow, when I am famous, I still desire to be famous.

An individual’s well-being is enhanced when her desires are satisfied.

“Well-being,” “welfare,” “utility,” and “quality of life,” all closely related concepts, and are at the center of morality, politics, law, and economics.

Subjective theories of well-being claim that how well our lives go for us is a matter of our attitudes towards what we get in life rather than the nature of the things themselves.

The concept of preference dominates economic theory today.

I could write till the cows come home on the misrepresentations of the bodies, desires and sexualities of people in the world which are embedded in the colonial histories, and in the social, economic and political complexities of the world, with all their racial, ethnic, class and religious diversity.

Exploiting the erotic is a foundational aspect of hegemonic knowledge production, war and colonization.

The distortion of the erotic is tied to the objectification of women, the reproduction of reductive Brown and Black and White masculinities, and to the sensationalization of our identities and lives, thus reinforcing consumerist and fundamentalist politics.

The erotic has been distorted and used to oppress women and distance them from their power.

The Internet stimulates continuing change in sociality and sexual markets.  Economic growth, globalisation and the Internet facilitate access to the world’s oldest profession.

Dating websites cater to people of all ages, all socio-economic groups, married and non-married. Some websites specialise in particular social and/or sexual groups, making it easier for people with arcane tastes and interests to meet up. Commercial sexual services have also take to the Internet, and advertise their services under the guise of ‘call girl’ or ‘escort’ services and the popular ‘Girl-Friend Experience’ (GFE).

As my interest here is to ask the question what is desire, where does it come from rather than the obvious male sexual desire which manifested at least twice as often as female desire I will leave this side of desire for others to comment.

It is sufficient to say that the commercial sex industry is impervious to prohibitions and cannot be eliminated. It should be completely decriminalised.

The sex industry is estimated to be worth over four billion pounds to the British economy.

Capitalism is the economy of desire with advertising its weapon.

Welfare economics defines individual welfare in terms of preference satisfaction or utility, and social welfare as a function of individual preferences.

The desire for status is a controversial topic. On the one hand, many theorists have argued that the desire for status is a fundamental human motive.

So what are desires like that we encounter in ourselves and others?

Will Goggle Glasses create desires?

Will artificial intelligence have desires.?

The only replacement for Desire is Excellence. That state is not, of course, within the experience of normal, sane mortals. Just look at the state of the world.

Can we explore space if we desire to be home.?

Here is a desire of mine. Don’t press the like button leave a comment.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHAT NOW FOR POLITICS IN THE UK.

14 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Politics.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHAT NOW FOR POLITICS IN THE UK.

Tags

UK Politics Left or Right., UK today., UK’s membership of the EU.

People are always going on about ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ – but what does it mean?

Well it basically means what people believe a country should do for its citizens.

Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality. People who are left-wing believe in taxation to redistribute opportunity and wealth – things like a national health service, and job seeker’s allowance are fundamentally left-wing ideas. They believe in equality over the freedom to fail.

Right wing beliefs value tradition, they are about equity, survival of the fittest, and they believe in economic freedom. They typically believe that business shouldn’t be regulated, and that we should all look after ourselves.

Right wing people tend believe they shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s education or health service. They believe in freedom to succeed over equality.

Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality.

In the UK the main right-wing parties are the Conservative (or Tory) Party, and UKIP (who focus on the UK not being a part of the European Union).

They believe that if you have more money, you should get to keep it, and buy better education and health services for yourself. They believe that businesses should be less regulated, and that the more money they earn, they’ll bring more benefits to the country.

In the UK the main left-wing parties are the Labour Party and the Green Party.

They believe in making laws that protect women, ethnic minorities, and gay people against discrimination. They believe that we should tax rich people more to support people less well off, and they believe we should regulate big businesses so they serve people’s interests.

The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) are another major party in the UK but people often argue about where they fall, politically. They have some traditionally left-wing ideas, and some right-wing ones as well.

 

Most of us in the west live in a system that makes growth an imperative; but this growth involves huge environmental threats and doesn’t improve our real well-being. To counter this we need a radical redistribution of income, within countries and between them.

Increasing incomes are not making us happier.

More important is the environmental issue: growth eats up the world’s resources and generates carbon with the inevitable and catastrophic effects on the climate.

So what is going to change with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party?

The major challenge in the short-term is of course political.

The reality is that economic relations in the UK are becoming set in stone.

If you are a stranger to the truth here are a few facts as to why a different approach is needed.

It’s not just that the very rich no longer fall while the very poor no longer rise. It’s that the system itself is protected from risk. Through bail-outs, quantitative easing and delays in interest rate rises, speculative investment has been so well cushioned that, as financial markets are one of the last bastions of socialism left on earth.

In the UK Public services, infrastructure, the very fabric of the nation have been sold to Private Enterprise. These too are being converted into risk-free investments. Social cleansing is transforming inner London into an exclusive economic zone for property speculation.

Nor should we be surprised when governments help to negotiate, without public consent, treaties such as TTIP and CETA (the Comprehensive Economic and Trad Agreement, which undermine the sovereignty of both parliament and the law.

Is he going to provide effective opposition to the government and address austerity and neoliberalism as the problems, instead of whimpering about “aspiration”.

Is he going to be able to stop the conservatives squeeze themselves into the centre ground and cause the extinction of Labour in 2020.

Labour lost the last election because they failed to present a credible alternative to the government’s programme. 56% say Labour’s platform is unclear.

One thing for sure it can’t be lefte politics of envy it will have to be the politics of justice.

Labour have just realised that the public do not like the word TABLET.

If he adopts a program of building social homes he will see an electoral shift.

The biggest divides these days are cultural rather than those of class.

How can anyone in their right mind ever imagine that the Tories while in coalition with the Liberals  – who pissed away your money defending bankers’ bonuses in Brussels – have the interests of anyone other than the richest 1% at heart? There is a growing divergence between private and public sector workers and the rise in economic inequality is matched by voting trends.

Scrapping tuition fees, Trident, and nationalizing Energy, Transport, Water, are all admiral aspirations.

We all want a better lifestyle, but do our desires exacerbate global inequality? How do we know when enough is enough? The average income in the UK is around £25,000 or nearly three times the world average, and 60 times that in Afghanistan.

We have enough, but Afghanistan and  most developing countries clearly do not.  That we have enough is shown by surveys showing we – in rich countries – don’t get happier when we get richer.

In short Europe is changing right in front of our eyes. News Media Industry is all about grooming people’s attitudes and their feelings about other people and – above all – persuading people to think in a certain way.

With the influx of Refugees the EU in or out vote will be a complete fares.

Who on the left would wish to stand on the sidelines as this carve-up continues? Who would vote for anything but sweeping change?

To fail to confront this system is to collaborate with it.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S WHAT HAS CAPITALISM ACHIEVED

07 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Capitalism, Humanity., Unanswered Questions., WORLD POVERTY WHERE'S THE GLOBAL OUTRAGE

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Capitalism vs. the Climate., Community cohesion, Distribution of wealth, Globalization, Inequility, World aid commission

To understand the role of capitalism in modern economic times you must understand the word Growth.

Growth at any cost.  Which we are just coming to apprentice thanks to the Internet.

For a long time nothing much happened till Wheat conned humans into growing it.

It is not my intention here to address Money and Power. It is sufficient to say that money leads to power and corruption and that all three intermingle in the notoriously subject of Economics.

What I want you to do is to look at Capitalism that founded states and ruined them, opened up new horizons and enslaved millions, moved the wheels of Industry and drove hundreds of species of plants and animals into extinction, plundered the earth resources for profit, promoted science, all to the dethronement of a sustainable planet and ask yourself is it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

There can be no doubt without some system the human race would descend into barbarism based on nothing but self-interest.

Our cultural output throbs with this notion of self-interest. Just look at the present Refugee problem facing the European Union.

So would the collapse of Capitalism lead to misery?

Capitalism in all its credulity and inequality reflects mans barbarous nature. Indeed the horrors of ISIS are trumpeted so vehemently by the western press precisely because they fill this narrative.

However a dog eat dog world with which capitalism and the state justify themselves is in part a fallacy.

In fact nature teems with co-operation – both between animals, between species and within the ecosystem as a whole.

We are the same, but it is no coincidence that where we do co-operate these areas are dominated by capital and constructed in a way that systematically reward the uglier sides of our common nature.

We know that the world in unfair where the few have too much and the most have too little.

The feeling that Capitalism, inequality, and injustice are inevitable and the idea that to struggle for a better world is naive is coming to an end.

If we could only entrench the cooperative compassionate and empathetic sides of our nature as dominant values in society we would redesign our Capitalist world – to a world worth while living in.

The current state of our planet is affording all of us this opportunity.

How can we tackle the world problems ?

A good place to start would be to get Capitalism to pay for it.

By placing a World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over ($20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all Drilling Wells.  This would create a perpetual pot out of Profit for Profit sake that could fund the inevitable cost of climate change.

In doing so we would redistribute the world’s wealth from the whole of the world. ( see previous Posts)

Sooner than later we are going to exhaust the raw materials and energy of the planet Earth. What will happen then?

Which is why, whenever the opportunity arises, we must be prepared to seize it.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASKS : Why those the universe exists rather than nothing.

06 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS : Why those the universe exists rather than nothing.

I am sure like me you have at some time looked up an wondered where does space stop.

My unscientific language does not seem to lend itself well to this topic nor my understanding of the Universe or God.

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves is and will be a mystery long after I have departed this world.

Some how for me the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed.

It seems impossible even if proven chromatically that all the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. Into to a tiny fireball that then exploded and gave rise to our early universe.

Lets say that again.

“All matter in the universe was once in a single point — the Big Bang singularity.”

But that’s not quite true because in Einstein’s formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached.

So what was there before the bang?

This is cosmology’s most fundamental question:

How did the universe begin?

The universe as we know it almost certainly started some 14 billion years ago. But was that the absolute beginning, or was there something before it?  This question seems like the kind of question that can never be truly answered because every time someone proposes a solution, someone else can keep asking the annoying question: What happened before that- God?

“If God existed in time, once time existed and time had a first moment, then God would have a first moment of existence.”

There would be a moment before which He did not exist, because there was no ‘before’ that moment . . . . Yet even if He . . . had a first moment of existence, one could still call God’s existence unlimited were it understood that He would have existed even if time did not.

I suppose it might be easier to get you head around  the Psalmist’s description of God: ” From everlasting to everlasting”

No.

I must admit it difficult to see how can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence but Religion’s central beliefs is that mankind needs a savior.

However, that belief becomes hard to sustain convincingly if we posit that a god created the universe and then let things make themselves via purely physical processes, because then sin and death aren’t the fault of man, but merely natural byproducts of the god-makes-things-make-themselves process. Sin and death, on that scheme, are no longer man’s fault, but God’s choice, for he must have known that these things would emerge via the stated process.

Still confused.  Don’t worry so am I.

When we look up we see a universe filled with grand cosmic structures — galaxies, clusters of galaxies, clusters of clusters called superclusters, and clusters of superclusters called galaxy filaments — some of the latter stretching a billion or more light-years across.

It therefore does not make sense to me that the universe has a non-existent state (or nothing) and so must be eternal in the sense of being persistent rather than necessarily temporally eternal (presumably the universe does not require the quality of time to exist).

So, strict nothing cannot logically or physically exist.

It’s simply hilarious that the Big Bang is asserted as having started with a form of physics that is completely unknown, and to validate it we have to use “dark energy” that is equally unobservable and unmeasurable.

These days we see big ideas like this do change, and it’ll be fun to see if this one does!

Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.”

But what if we did not need a singularity to have a Big Bang?  Or could our universe’s Big Bang be an implosion of a previous universe?

What if our universe has no beginning or end? It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang.

What if the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. This would eliminate the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. ( to be more precise)

The Big Bang model of the universe suggests that our entire universe came from a single point, what scientists call a

However the  big bang has been a fact of most of our lives since we were born. Presented as some sort of explosion that caused expansion that is to this day still expanding and will continue to do so for entirety.

Where does that leave us.

According to present day scientists when we look up we are looking into the past not the future.

However consider the following.

  1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.

2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.

3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, since the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

4. The universe began to exist.

From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.

From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.

From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, since the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked is what everybody means by God.

Now, in atomic processes, the notions of space and time are no more than statistical notions ; they fade out when applied to individual phenomena involving but a small number of quanta.

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta.

If the future development of quantum theory happens to turn in that direction, we could conceive the beginning of the universe in the form of a unique atom, the atomic weight of which is the total mass of the universe. The whole story of the world need not have been written down in the first quantum like a song on the disc of a phonograph. The whole matter of the world must have been present at the beginning.

So did the big bang happened everywhere.

Some are claiming that the cosmos as a whole—the so-called “multiverse”—is eternal, but that it contains infinitely many individual universes (a consequence of modern inflation theory). This eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened.

Einstein described the universe as static, rather than expanding, but he later abandoned the concept as his “greatest blunder” after Edwin Hubble’s 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our Local Group are moving away from each other.

Rapid inflation in every direction also explained why the universe we now observe is so homogeneous, and why the temperature of the background radiation left over from that primordial blast is uniform, in every patch of the sky, to one part in 100,000. The process of inflation had to be eternal, meaning that once it started, it never fully stopped.

If the universe were always inflating, and always expanding, would that imply that the universe itself was eternal and had no beginning?

Nothing can be created from nothing.” energy can neither be created nor destroyed, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself.

A universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton.

Come from nothing in the sense of their being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics.

But where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time?

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein’s general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past.

Quantum Mechanics also says that what ever can happen, does happen. That means that we should be seeing Universes popping put of nowhere spontaneously all the time.

Neither QM theories explains what is dark matter.  An invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes. It is made of what?

A part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic “bounce,” where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding.

In the end none of us a supply a creditable explanation.

When we get more powerful telescopes that can see “further back in time” (or farther away in physical space), we’ll start to see a wide array of galaxies, both old and young that would be common in any direction we would choose to look . . . because it’s the same universe everywhere.

Sorry that’s the best I can come up with. There are a few links below to help you make your mind up.

There is no Universe of existence other than now and now never comes into being.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SHOUTS SHAME ON US. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION.

03 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SHOUTS SHAME ON US. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION.

Tags

European leaders, Mediterranean refugee crisis.

For crying out loud there can be no heart that has not being moved by the latest picture from the Mediterranean Shores.A Turkish border guard carries the body of a migrant child after a number of migrants died and a smaller number were reported missing after boats carrying them to the Greek island of Kos capsized, near the Turkish resort of Bodrum

If there is they don’t represent me. 

Europe for god sake of all places in the world has seen enough death in its history.

There is no point to a European Union if it can not united to help people fleeing War.

While Europe is squabbling, people are dying.

It time to stop the political diarrhea.

Some countries, like Sweden and Germany, are being generous with their acceptance of refugees, but warn that they cannot be this generous forever. Other countries, like Britain, are strictly applying regulations to dissuade migrants and asylum seekers, while opposing a European Commission proposal in June for mandatory quotas for settlement, to help share the burden.

There is no European Union standard for asylum; no common list of countries regarded as in conflict, and thus more likely to produce refugees; and no collective centers where asylum seekers can be met, housed, fed and screened.

On the Greek crisis, “we had one meeting after another at the highest level,”  these are people not money perhaps that is the difference.

For crying out loud get your fingers out of your self loving arse holes. 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE HIPPOCRATIC NATIONS SELLING ARMS.

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Arms Trade.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE HIPPOCRATIC NATIONS SELLING ARMS.

Tags

Arms Trade., Extinction, Hippocratic Nations., The Future of Mankind, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement., Trade Agreements., United Nations

There is no doubt that the gun has had more influence in changing the course of history than any other competitor – money/Capitalism, Credit, or the Internet and the good news is that the international arms trade is still booming to this day. story-thumb-nail-image

In September this year the Docklands in East London will play host to DSEI 2015, a biennial government-sponsored arms fair that is among the biggest in the world.

DSEI, which will be unimpeded by the Arms Trade Treaty, will bring hundreds of major arms companies and arms dealers together with some of the worst dictators and warmongering regimes.

At the same time 300,000 are fleeing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, while ISIS flattens world heritage, destabilizes, beheads with American arms all that come in its path, while Israel grabs Palestinian land and Americans have the right to arms to kill each other,

This deadly carnival of the grotesque could not take place without the practical and political support of government ministers and their departments.

The promotions don’t stop at hosting arms fairs and trade missions.

Britain even has a government department dedicated to the promotion of arms sales: the UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organization (UKTI DSO). Despite its obscure name and low profile, UKTI DSO is right at the heart of the government’s support for the arms trade, employing 128 civil servants for the sole purpose of boosting international arms sales.

Arms sales, which fuel insecurity and abuse around the world, only account for 1.4 per cent of British exports and just 0.2 per cent of the jobs.

On top of that, the industry receives an annual public subsidy, which one study estimates to be around $1 billion. The mindset that puts helping companies secure lucrative (for them, not the taxpayer) deals before all else.

The simple fact is that Britain, and other countries, could stop arming tyrants right now.

Britain has consistently pulled out all stops to try to maximize them.

Every year the government publishes its Human Rights and Democracy Report; the most recent report listed 28 ‘countries of concern’ and yet in the last 12 months it has licensed weapons to at least 18 of them.

That doesn’t need an Arms Trade Treaty. It needs the political will.

Soldiers patrolling Monrovia, Liberia, 2003

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.”

The boundaries between the formal arms trade and “the shadow world” are extremely fuzzy.

The arms industry is unlike any other. The industry is hardwired for corruption. It is responsible for 40% of all corruption in world trade. It operates without regulation. It makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.

Armed conflict was responsible for 231m deaths last century.

Respect for human rights is often overlooked as arms are sold to known human rights violators.

These weapons land up in places you don’t want or expect them to.

You might say that the arms trade may not always be a root cause, because there are often various geopolitical interests etc. However, the sale of arms can be a significant contributor to problems because of the enormous impact of the weapons involved. Furthermore, some oppressive regimes are only too willing purchase more arms under the pretext of their own war against terrorism.

This rush to globalize arms production and sales ignores the grave humanitarian and strategic consequences of global weapons proliferation.

Industrialized countries negotiate free trade and investment agreements with other countries, but exempt military spending from the liberalizing demands of the agreement. Since only the wealthy countries can afford to devote billions on military spending, they will always be able to give their corporations hidden subsidies through defence contracts, and maintain a technologically advanced industrial capacity.

And so, in every international trade and investment agreement one will find a clause which exempts government programs and policies deemed vital for national security. Here is the loophole that allows the maintenance of corporate subsidies through virtually unlimited military spending.

So who profits most from this murderous trade?

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, together with Germany and Italy  are responsible for eighty-eight per cent of the arms sold between 2004 and 2011.

Each year, around $45-60 billion worth of arms sales are agreed.  That is $235 for every person on the planet.

Most of these sales (something like 75%) are to developing countries.

World military spending has now reached one trillion dollars, close to Cold War levels. Recent data shows global spending at over $1.7 trillion. 2012 saw the first dip in spending — only slightly —since 1998, in an otherwise rising trend.

The highest military spender is the US accounting for almost two-fifths of the world’s spending, more than the rest of the G7 (most economically advanced countries) combined, and more than all its potential enemies, combined.

While international attention is focused on the need to control weapons of mass destruction, the trade in conventional weapons continues to operate in a legal and moral vacuum.

  • More and more countries are starting to produce small arms, many with little ability or will to regulate their use.
  • Permanent UN Security Council members—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China—dominate the world trade in arms.
  • Most national arms controls are riddled with loopholes or barely enforced.
  • Key weaknesses are lax controls on the brokering, licensed production, and ‘end use’ of arms.
  • Arms get into the wrong hands through weak controls on firearm ownership, weapons management, and misuse by authorised users of weapons.

Arms sales (agreements) by the Leading Recipient Developing Nations, 2004-2011 (in billions of current U.S. dollars)

Ranked Country               Amount spent               Percent of total

1 Saudi Arabia                       75.7                            21%
2 India                                  46.6                             13%
3 UAE                                    20.3                               6%
4 Egypt                                 14.3                               4%
5 Pakistan                             13.2                               4%
6 Venezuela                          13.1                               4%
7 Brazil                                  10.9                                3%
8 Algeria                                10.3                               3%
9 Israel                                  9.5                                 3%
10 South Korea                      9.2                                 2%
11 All other developing countries 145.168                  39%

Arms sales (agreements), by Supplier, 2004-2011 (in billions of constant 2011 U.S. dollars)

Supplier                     Total Sales in US Dollars(billions)                    Percent                                                                                                            of Total                                                                                                              Sales

United States Sales to Developing countries: $151.644bn (69%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $68.964bn (31%)220.608 44%
Russia Sales to Developing countries: $79.078bn (95%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $4.245bn (5%)83.323 17%
France Sales to Developing countries: $27.491bn (66%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $14.469bn (34%)41.96 8%
United Kingdom Sales to Developing countries: $25.869bn (96%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $1.168bn (4%)27.037 5%
China Sales to Developing countries: $17.601bn (99%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $0.207bn (1%)17.808 4%
Germany Sales to Developing countries: $11.046bn (51%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $11.022bn (49%)22.068 4%
Italy Sales to Developing countries: $8.652bn (61%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $5.626bn (39%)14.278 3%
Other European Sales to Developing countries: $26.999bn (56%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $21.26bn (44%)48.259 10%
Others Sales to Developing countries: $19.887bn (74%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $7.222bn (26%)27.109 5%

Perhaps at the forthcoming Climate Change Summit in Paris we should arm all the delegates. As we all seem bent on self-destruction why wait for climate change to start off the wars that are inevitably on the horizon.

To stop Wars,  ” We must take the profit out of war by taking the profit out of arms deals.”

If you are interested here is what is happening to your Planet.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE WRITES AN OTHER OPEN LETTER TO THE PARIS SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

31 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Climate Change., Environment, European Union., Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE WRITES AN OTHER OPEN LETTER TO THE PARIS SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Tags

Climate change, Distribution of wealth, Environment, Extinction, Global warming, Natural disaster, United Nations, World aid commission

31st August 2015.

Dear Delegate,

When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.

There is no point in spending a lovely week in Paris talking about what should be done about Climate change and coming up with an agreement to cut emissions by placing A Price Tag on carbon.

The true financial costs of climate change is away beyond any price tag or unenforceable agreement.

What value do we place on the ocean’s coral reefs and the myriad animals they support, and how do we weigh their loss against other values? What price tag do you put on a species of bird or fish or mammal which, once gone, will never return?

How does humanity weigh moral accountability if our own carbon emissions contributed to that destruction?

Isn’t it about a sustainable planet? A sustainable and biologically diverse planet?

Most likely our descendants will be left to adapt to a warmer world where greater climatic uncertainties, depleted resources and human migrations, amongst other, will be the norm.

If climate change affects not only a country’s economic output but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon than any price tag agreed.

The economic damage caused by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions – often referred to as the “social cost” of carbon – will actually be far higher than any of us can imagine.

There is no solution to an event that is all ready taking place.

There can only be a change to the event or a confinement to the end result.

If there is no solution to how the world is going to finance this change your and you fellow delegates might as well go home and bask in the sunshine of an agreement that is as porous as the paper it is written on.

In his fascinating book “Catastrophe: Risk and Response”, published in 2004, Richard Posner argues that we do not do enough to hedge against catastrophic risks such as climate change, asteroid impacts or bioterrorism.

In light of the “competition” of existential risks, how much should humanity invest in the mitigation of climate change?

The answer is:  Human extinction is a risk we all share—and it would be an unprecedented event that can happen only once.

Growth at all costs is the mantra of the technological world we live. Climate policies that require public sacrifice and limiting economic growth are doomed to failure.

Believe in the current pledge-and-review mechanism is a farce.

From current projections we know that climate change will pose a serious challenge by 2040 for many organisations. Putting a true economic cost on these risks can act as a catalyst to taking action today in order to help organisations better prepare for the future.

There is only one way to achieve this and that is the creation of a World Aid Commission or tax on profit   for profit sake.

Would you rather have a one percent tax increase on everyone in the country or kill one percent of the population?  This will not work as the cost of collection and administration, or culling, would out weigh any benefits.

The solution is a Universal 0.05% commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions (over $20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions and on all Drilling Wells.  

This will create a perpetual Fund to tackle the world problems.  

 

The expected loss to society because of catastrophic climate change is so large that it cannot be reliably estimated.

Climate policies should flow with the current of public opinion rather than against it, and efforts to sell the public on policies that will create short-term economic discomfort. People are willing to bear costs to reduce emissions, but they are only willing to go so far.

The Dangerous Underestimation of Climate

Change’s Cost and the

financing of any agreement is self-evident.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE TAKES A LOOK AT WHAT HUMANITY HAS ACHIEVED TO DATE.

28 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Environment, Humanity., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE TAKES A LOOK AT WHAT HUMANITY HAS ACHIEVED TO DATE.

Tags

Capitalism and Greed, Capitalism vs. the Climate., Community cohesion, Distribution of wealth, Environment, High - Frequency Trading, Sovereign wealth fund, The Future of Mankind

The most accurate simulation of the human brain ever has been carried out, but a single second’s worth of activity took one of the world’s largest supercomputers 40 minutes to calculate.Men’s and women's brains are wired differently

SO LET’S HAVE A LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED SINCE WE CAME DOWN OUT OF THE TREES AND STOOD UPRIGHT.

( I am sure there will be many gaps in what I write here so you will have plenty of ammunition to comment. Those of you who are shadow people lead by the like button feel free to press it. )

Right: On your marks we off.

At first we were of no significance till we discovered that we could walk up right, discovered fire, tools, and language. We became foragers/ hunters with no hierarchy spreading all over the world providing there was a land bridge developing new weapons and new clothing due to climate change and perhaps unfriendly rivals.

All that changed when we began to devote our efforts to manipulating the lives of animals and plants. The Farmer had arrived. More babies to be fed, so we burnt down forests and planted wheat thus becoming wheat slaves living in settled artificial enclaves dedicated to growing wheat.

Because of this we discovered writing and numbers, money and religion.

This lead to placing a material value not just on possession but on ourselves resulting in a conscious effort to create laws, customs, procedures, to run societies.

By this time with the human brain going into hibernation due to all the information that needed to be stored we are well on the way to creating religious gods, empires, armies, taxes, etc  Thus the arrival of bureaucracy, rulers, social division, ruling classes, slaver, gun power, the wheel and sea worthy ships.

Of course building, pollution, masculine dominance and exploration were now in full swing and it’s not long before the world is dividing into Empires of different cultures, different languages, different belief, most still using their legs and horses with the odd set of wheels to get around.

The Roman empire broke up, the Mongol empire went to pieces, the Chines empire built a wall, America and Europe did not know each other existed. Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world.

90% of humans lived in a single mega world ; the world of Afro- Asia the rest lived in America, central America, the Andean world, the Australian world, islands of the Pacific.

They were all swallowed up by the Afro-Asian world.

Resources were plentiful. Till along came How Much is it.  Money the foundation of Greed and cooperation between strangers drastically reducing diversity. The first step to we becoming US against the Rest.

The European Industrial Imperial steamroller gradually obliterated our uniqueness.

The Spanish quashed the Inca, Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigate the globe, Marco Polo gave the Vatican a Chines map of America, they sending Columbus off to discover it, while Queen Vic with the help of Darwin, Livingstone, Nelson, expanded the British Empire with ball and chain, cannon.

At this stage there is no evidence that history is working for the benefit of humans. Science, engineering, flight, medical advances, power, religious rightness, profit, wealth, corruption, greed and reckless plundering of the earths resources, ignorance, and credit now come into play.

Empirical observations are being put together with the help of mathematical tools.

All of this cost money and it did much more than just charting the universe, mapping the planet and cataloging the animals than did Galileo, Columbus and Darwin. If there had being no funds or these geniuses and they had not being born we would be still waiting on some others to do so.

Of course none of the above is in strict chronological order and I have left out, Michelangelo Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, William Shakespeare, Bach, Confucius, Aristotle, Newton, to mention a few but I hope you get the gist.

I grow sick and tired of all the same old lies
I might be a little young, so what’s wrong?
You don’t have to be old to be wise

— Judas Priest

Anyway it is suffice to say that European imperialism was entirely unlike all other imperial projects.

So here we are. WE CREATED THE WORLD THAT YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
After numerous wars and two million years of being marginal creatures, thirteen odd billion years after the big bang we have arrived at the Capitalist creed OF THE FREE MARKET and a belief that Science which is about 500 years old can solve all our problems.
The question is how many people want to live in a world that you see around you.
We need to ignite a second cognitive revolution. It is unclear whether bio engineering could really resurrect Neanderthals. Tinkering with our genes won’t necessarily kill us. But we might fiddle to such an extent that we would no longer be Homo sapiens.
ayn rand apollo 11 human achievement day
In a previous post I asked what do we want to become. A human who stood on the moon and saw a dying world that could be so beautiful if we learned to share.
                                               Paradise Lost or Found.
Unlike other animals, we humans need to create the means for our physical survival as well as our spiritual well-being. We need to figure out how to acquire food, build shelters, cure illnesses, build cities, travel to the Moon, and create everything that deserves the label “civilization.”
Take a moment to look around you. Reflect on your own achievements and take pride in them. Reflect on the virtues that have allowed you to achieve the things you value.
The potential for human achievement is endless, but only if we truly value achievement and appreciate that the achievements we create in our modern world are manifestations of the moral virtues we each create in our character. Not Twitter, not Face book, not the internet, or the web of everything, not Google, not Apple.
If there’s one thing that many science and reality-minded people tend to do quite a bit, it’s over analyze every little detail.
The answer is right in front of your eyes . Open them.
We must tap Greed by creating a World Aid Fund by placing 0.05% commission on all High Frequency Stock Exchange Transactions, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $20.000. on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all new Drilling wells. ( See previous Posts)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHO IS A REFUGEE?

25 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in European Union., Humanity., Politics., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHO IS A REFUGEE?

Tags

Capitalism vs. the Climate., European identities., European leaders, European Union, Migrants/Refugees.

Understanding the problems confronting refugees—and those striving to protect them—depends on grasping precise legal definitions.

The core definition of a “refugee” is contained in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, which define a refugee as an individual who: “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

With biggest driving force for change still to manifest itself: It seem to me that the definition is long over due a revamp.

Climate Change will like the Internet have a profound effect on the world.

The Internet alone has assisted the creation of wars, by highlighting the inequalities that exist between the have and have not’s. It is exposing Capitalism and the free Market for what it real is. It is unveiling corruption, challenging the mass media and assisting mass immigration by generating sizeable networks to deal with the any obstacles set in their paths.

Climate change will change any definition of undocumented aliens asylum seekers. It will displace millions, impacting on the economy, by having a positive affecting on some groups and negatively others.

Trade agreements like the TTPI will weaken the case of those who would venture a rigid and single-factor comparison between “political” immigration and “economic” immigration.

We can expect the migratory issue to become increasingly political. A more rational approach would be to consider who the illegal immigrants are, before making immigration laws.

Much of Europe’s brewing migration debate carries a polarized tone of certainty, and migrants themselves are often slotted into neat “political” and “economic” categories.

You can see this at the moment as the EU struggles to establish who are political refugees and illegal immigration, on the role of economic versus non-economic factors. The definition Refugee has and is being ignored.

Is it possible to distinguish between the poverty of “condition” and the poverty of “position”?

Poverty, while a commonly cited factor “pushing” migration, is difficult to define.

In the former situation, the two main factors are a lack of employment and steady income, which prompt a feeling of having “nothing to lose.”Their biggest concern and expectation is to improve their physical well-being, something they regard as impossible at home.

This element has also got a growing home-grown element of poverty due to unemployment, no hours contracts, and exploration of the vulnerable within the EU.

Poverty of position, in contrast, involves migrants who use emigration as a way of more rapidly climbing the social ladder. These migrants feel that their income and position in their home country will never match their social capital (for example, their level of formal education or training). They move to places where they believe they can realize their aspirations.

Theses generic terms therefore covers a wide range of facts but Violence and Conflict are the leading causes of the current wave of migration [to Europe]

It is rooted in the crazy [U.S.] idea to launch an intervention in Iraq, which allegedly had weapons of mass destruction, but nothing was found.” A disaster that destabilized the Middle East giving rise of terrorism that we now see to-day.

However some of the blame for many asylum seekers is not wars.

For example, persecution is not necessarily imposed by the government or other official institutions in their country of origin. Some may face violence at the hands of mafia networks, armed groups, or a dominant majority group in connection with factors that are not directly political, such as ethnicity.

Others may be threatened for having a lifestyle that involves a socially unacceptable choice of spouse, sexual orientation, etc. As a result, some people are threatened and persecuted without fully meeting the demands of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

The long the short and tall of it is that Northern Africa today can no longer defend Europe from the immense masses of people on the move.

As Europe turns its back, these are refugees, not migrants, are arriving in their thousands on Greek shores .

The number thought to be in the UK could be as high as 863,000 – larger than the population of Leeds. By comparison, Italy was thought to have up to 461,000, Germany had 457,000, France’s top estimate was 400,000 and Spain had 354,000. Greece, it is estimated that about 100.000-150.000 undocumented refugees and migrants enter Greece each year, among them maybe around 10.000 unaccompanied minors.

Refugees and other vulnerable people deserve the protection and assistance to which they are entitled under international law. Rather then the inhumane treatment seen in the below:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/streams-refugees-flow-macedonia-greece-150823072040825.html

In a wide range of countries, attitudes toward immigrants appear to be related to labor-market concerns, security and cultural considerations, as well as individual feelings toward political refugees and illegal immigration.

Are attitudes toward foreigners influenced by economic considerations or are they driven exclusively by non-economic issues?

At what point do we as citizens of the EU conclude that these people have already suffered enough and deserve to be aided in their flight to safety?

Without legal alternative routes for refugees to enter other European countries, people fleeing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere have taken matters into their own hands

The future of Europe, will be determined by its ability to confront the issue of immigration. Whatever the attitude of the government, population pressure will be immense on Europe and there is no chance to prevent such migration.

On the one hand, the Fortress Europe concept essentially focuses on the role of external border controls and neglects the entry and settlement of clandestine immigrants and undocumented aliens. At the same time, border controls, deportations, mass arrests, and internment of migrants in closed centers and prisons invalidate the thesis of Europe as a sieve.

Europe, which is neighbor to many war zones takes in more than 1.5 million legal migrants.

Overall, forced displacement numbers in Europe totalled 6.7 million at the end of the year, compared to 4.4 million at the end of 2013, and with the largest proportion of this being Syrians in Turkey and Ukrainians in the Russian Federation. Syria’s ongoing war, with 7.6 million people displaced internally, and 3.88 million people displaced into the surrounding region and beyond as refugees, has alone made the Middle East the world’s largest producer and host of forced displacement. Adding to the high totals from Syria was a new displacement of least 2.6 million people in Iraq and 309,000 newly displaced in Libya.

Today, Libya, between 500,000 and one million people aspire to come to Europe.

With population growth of 7% or 8% in Africa, against just over 1% here, migratory pressure is mechanical.

It is not possible or desirable that Europe opens its doors to every tom dick and harry. On the other hand it not possible to address the situation with 4-meter (13-foot) high fence on its borders like Hungary, or We need to build a wall, we need to keep illegals out,” Donald Trump said at last Thursday’s GOP debate.

I for one do not want to be represented by Israeli or Berlin wall.

It needs policies that better serve the interests of both nations and immigrants.

It is beyond me that we cannot move FRONTEX (It coordinates EU States’ actions in the implementation of EU border management measures.) from Warsaw (Poland) to some where useful.  So far this year, more than 180,000 migrants have reached Greece and Italy by sea (others come from Turkey via the land border with Bulgaria).

In the first four months of this year, more than a quarter of a million people claimed asylum in a European Union member state.

Where is the big deal in setting up humanitarian corridors for asylum seekers. To putting up initial reception center. To agreeing to a binding quota system for distributing refugees among all European countries.

I am sure if an appeal was made to all European Citizens the majority of the 509 million would not begrudge 10 Euros a month.

Let us hope that Europe can respond intelligently by rejecting generalisations and simplistic discourse by being true to its values, notably in terms of asylum and yet be more effective.

I leave you with the words of  Ahmed Satuf, another refugee from Idlib in Syria, told Al Jazeera he didn’t want anything from Macedonia, except for being allowed to cross its borders.

“I’m not a terrorist. We are humans. Where’s the humanity? Where’s the world? Everyone here, they are families,” he said.

“We don’t need anything. We don’t need money. Let us cross. I want to go to Germany.”

Europe above all places in the world born of integrationist ideals yet undermined by participants’ unwillingness to share costs as well as benefits, has a chance to shine.

“For us, today Europe is at stake” 

said Orban Viktor the president of Hungary,  “The survival, disappearance or, more precisely, the transformation beyond recognition of the European citizen’s lifestyle, European values and the European nations.”

He knows where he can stick that finger of his.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE REAL QUESTION TO BE ASKED AT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT.

20 Thursday Aug 2015

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Climate Change., Environment

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE REAL QUESTION TO BE ASKED AT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT.

At the last major climate summit, in Copenhagen in 2009, the developing world were promised financial flows of at least $100bn (£65bn) a year by 2020.  Another words rich nations promised at Copenhagen that, by 2020, investments of at least $100bn a year would be channelled to the developing world, to help cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

Some developing countries want all of the $100bn a year to come from the public purse of developed nations.  But rich governments were strongly resistant, insisting instead that private sector finance should form the lion’s share of the total.

What happened?

So far only about half of that target has been met.

“The question of financing is, in fact, decisive for reaching an agreement in Paris.”To have an agreement [in Paris] we need some sort of financial package.” We’ve now reached that point once again:

For many countries it is the condition of reaching any agreement.

Now we all know what happens when you ask for money. You only have to look at pledges of Aid when a natural disaster wipes out a people.

At the UN climate conference in Paris this December, world governments are expected to forge a new global deal on climate change, including commitments from both developed and developing countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions, to take effect from 2020 when current commitments run out.

In case you are not aware this is whats at stake.

The warming of the planet is already affecting yields of crucial crops. Food production will need to increase by at least 60 per cent over the next 35 years to provide food security for the 9 billion people expected to be living on the planet by 2050.

Moreover, approximately one-quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions come from land-use, making sustainable practices in agriculture critical. Climate change increases the risk and stress to water, sewer, drainage and transportation systems as well as infrastructure, as these systems are more exposed to the impact of increasingly powerful hurricanes, typhoons and other natural disasters.

About 80 per cent of the world’s energy is supplied through the combustion of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. At the same time, energy demand is growing along with expanding global wealth, a world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, and efforts to provide electricity to the 1.3 billion people now living without it. Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase under a ‘business as usual’ scenario by nearly 50 per cent by 2030 and more than 80 per cent by 2050, compared with year-end 2009.

Shifting the global economy onto a low-carbon and climate resilient development pathway requires an investment of tens of billions of dollars. To achieve this, both Governments and key financial actors must commit to massively scaling up public and private financing to meet the growing challenge of climate change.

There is no chance of this happening.

Just look at reaction of the EU to Greece and the refugee fleeing the conflicts in Syria and else where. The world as we know it is incapable of unilateral action whether its to do with Inequality of opportunity or eradicating a threat to its value.

While many efforts to slow or halt deforestation have been successful, approximately 13 million hectares of forests continue to be lost each year, contributing up to 20 per cent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.

Industries are essential to control global temperature increases — especially industries engaged in the production of energy, waste management, refrigerants and the global transport of freight.

⌈For more information open: The Beady eye say’s it time for Capitalism to Pay. > The Beady eye writes an open letter to the United Nations.> The Beady eye looks at what is wrong with the world.⌋

Mobilizing finance for climate action is a priority.

The status of pledges on financial contributions from rich to poor countries is less clear and what should be counted as “climate finance” under the Copenhagen agreement is a joke.

You only have to look at the history of the world to realize that the chances of over a hundred countries not to mention the millions of us agreeing on anything is a long way off. You might think that the Internet is connecting us all with its like button and online lobbyists/ campaigns/ petitions to change Industrial practices and Governments. You be wrong. In fact it is fragmenting society into ignored shadow people with little or no driven conviction except vanity.

So there is only one solution that will stick.

The Introduction world-wide of: A world Aid commission of 0.05%. ( see previous posts)

Why?

Because it can be put in place quickly, its cost-effective, and captures the very thing that caused the problem to rectify it:  Capitalism.  

If you don’t believe me. Here what they god wobbled about during the last Summit.

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803306104001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803025862001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803107814001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3802937261001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803270960001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3802931112001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803233966001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

If you have nothing to say or no comments press the like button which I like to call the bog off button.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
← Older posts
Newer posts →

All comments and contributions much appreciated

  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS WE NOW LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE YOU CANT TRUST YOUR OWN VOICE NEVER MIND YOU IMAGINE. April 28, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS ENGLAND IS POLITICALLY TEARING ITSELF ASUNDER, AND HERE IS WHY. April 23, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS WITH THE ARRIVAL OF SMART GLASSES THE CONCEPT OF ANY PRIVACY IN A LIFE IS ABOUT TO DISAPPEAR FOR GOOD. April 19, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT TRUMP’S DERANGEMENT SYNDROME AND ASKED HOW MUCH LONGER DO WE HAVE TO WAIT BEFORE WE ALL FUCKED. April 18, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE. LOOKS AT TODAYS WARS. April 15, 2026

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Talk to me.

Jason Lawrence's avatarJason Lawrence on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WIT…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHA…
bobdillon33@gmail.com's avatarbobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
Ernest Harben's avatarOG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONC…

7/7

Moulin de Labarde 46300
Gourdon Lot France
0565416842
Before 6pm.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.
bobdillon33@gmail.com

bobdillon33@gmail.com

Free Thinker.

View Full Profile →

Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 99,160 hits

Blogs I Follow

  • unnecessary news from earth
  • The Invictus Soul
  • WordPress.com News
  • WestDeltaGirl's Blog
  • The PPJ Gazette
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

The Beady Eye.

The Beady Eye.
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

unnecessary news from earth

WITH MIGO

The Invictus Soul

The only thing worse than being 'blind' is having a Sight but no Vision

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

WestDeltaGirl's Blog

Sharing vegetarian and vegan recipes and food ideas

The PPJ Gazette

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Join 222 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar