The Historical implications of the present conflict you can look up and indeed it is necessary to do so to come to any understanding.
Rooted in centuries of Social, Religious, and Political anguish.
It is sufficient for the purposes of this post to say the latest injury to one side becomes the next injury to the other.
There is no denying that a Jewish State was created in Palestine despite the fact that for over 1300 years it was overwhelmingly inhabited by Arabs.
Why it was formed is based on the biblical account in which God promised the land to the Jews who subsequently conquered and rule the land until along came the Romans 2000 years ago.
Putting aside recent history herein lies the issue as it stands today.
The Region holds historical and Religious significance to both groups. Both groups insist that the land belongs to them. Neither group has anywhere else to go. Both groups claim it is impossible to coexist.
They both have incompatible Goals insofar as one groups sense of identity seem to deny the reality or legitimacy of the other groups identity.
So what does the Iran nuclear deal mean?
Is the US opening a door to a new policy era in the Middle East with potentially far-reaching implications. Should it come to pass. Is it a way to really make changes in the political landscape?
There is one thing for sure: If it does come to pass suddenly US support of Israel is no longer Unconditional.
It is time for Israelis to face the reality.
For Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even dismantling Iran’s civilian programme entirely does not satisfy the Netanyahu’s appetite; it is the Iranian ‘policies’, ‘behavior’ and ‘state’ that he wants eliminated.
How will Israel and Arab nations in the region respond?
Can the US balance newly competing interests in a region already torn by Sunni-Shia conflicts in Syria and Iraq. What about Yemen? All three conflicts have Iranian proxies in the fight.
Will the US have a much greater incentive to force Israel to solve its conflict with the Palestinians, something it resolutely opposed till now.
All of these questions are beyond my and many to answer.
It seems to me that Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice.
Every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less. ( See previous Postings)
Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly would be broken.
So are we in the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored.
In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent a challenge to its nuclear monopoly. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran.
You would think through all the tears of Jewish horror Israel would extend the hand of friendship by offering a One state solution.
Sadly the likely of this happening will take another biblical story. History rarely sleeps securely.
Welcome to a world where the bottom line trumps the common good and government takes a back seat to big business.
I have addressed this subject before. We all have our opinions on Capitalism and Democracy or Capitalism V Democracy.
Capitalism’s role is to increase the economic pie, nothing more.
While Democracy, at its best, enables citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided and to determine which rules apply to private goods and which to public goods.
If we are to restructure the relationship we could not start at a better place than by Putting Ownership Back into Democracy.
Our Governments are paying the penalty for the years they allowed corporations and elites buoyed by runaway economic success to undermine the government’s capacity to respond to citizens’ concerns which has lead to: A sense of political powerlessness which is on the rise among citizens in Europe and the USA.
Today, the tasks of re balancing is increasingly being left to the market.
Companies have shed their loyalties to communities with CEOs who take home exorbitant paychecks from industries that often wreak havoc on the environment. They have morph into global supply chains of great power plundering the world for Profit.
Much of labor inequality comes because high earners getting paid through stock options and capital ownership.
Relative poverty, what we are now calling inequality cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger economy. We must take disparities in the way the benefits of growth and productivity are distributed into account. We haven’t really begun to tackle this problem.
The result is an arms race for political influence that is drowning out the voices of average citizens.
If the Labor Party in the UK were to adopted Putting Ownership Back into Democracy such a policy which would return it to its core values would win them the forthcoming election.
While corporations are increasingly writing their own rules, they are also being entrusted with a kind of social responsibility or morality which of course does not exist as Corporate executives are not authorized by anyone — least of all by their investors — to balance profits against the public good.
Shareholders do not invest in firms expecting the money to be used for charitable purposes. They invest to earn high returns.
Now it the time to create Tax breaks for any privately owned company that offer participating of employees in a share of their profits or losses through stock options. Such a course of action should be encouraged – so that workers can supplement their wages with significant capital ownership stakes and meaningful capital income and profit shares.”
In other words, let’s turn everyone into a capitalist.
The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals.
But democracy cannot fulfill this role when companies use politics to advance or maintain their competitive standing, or when they appear to take on social responsibilities that they have no real capacity or authority to fulfill.
That leaves societies unable to address the trade offs between economic growth and social problems such as job insecurity, widening inequality, and climate change. As a result, consumer and investor interests almost invariably trump common concerns
It is worth contemplating for a moment Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.
Indeed if any Political party were to recognizes that the worsening inequality is an inevitable outcome of free market capitalism it would be large a step in the right direction.
Entrepreneurs are become increasingly dominant over those who own only their own labor. For instance Zero Hour Contracts or for a better word Modern day slavery.
Politicians are surrendered more and more power to trade, to global markets and to what I call supranational bodies like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the world trade organisation, the EU.
The question is, what is the point in electing any one when globalization is changing national politics and our states are activity selling your countries resources to privatization for short-term profit.
Fresh Water, Clean Air, Power, Rail Transport, Medical Care and Education should be state-owned. Run by the Nation for the Nation not for the GDP.
We are on a path toward a degree of inequality that will reach levels likely to cause severe social disruption. I don’t have to tell you where to look.
Politicians forget about the constant small changes which make up the whole economic picture and spend their time fighting between the past and future, between inherited entitlements and future investment. They put too much emphasis on elections and too little the other essential features of democracy.
It’s no wonder that politicians have to lie all the time.
There was a time that people elected representatives who pulled the levers of national power for a fixed period.
You don’t have to have a crystal ball when looking at the world to realize that economic growth worldwide is very likely to be stuck at 1 to 1.5 percent through the rest of this century.
And that the digital revolution it turning democracy’s institutions into out of date institutions that are handing more powers to special interests turning politics into the struggle of who gets what, when, how.
Technological changes and discontinuities (or globalization) have created a surge in inequality, where online hyper democracy rules and will continue to do so.
The Internet makes it easier to organise and agitate, in a world where people are voting daily in reality TV or supporting a petition with the click of a mouse. They only vote for Government every five years.
Political power changing is also a major contributor to the rise in inequality in advanced economies.
If we are honest with ourselves today, we will acknowledge that the ideal of Democracy has never failed, but that we haven’t carried it out, and in our lack of faith we have debased the human being who must have a chance to live if Democracy is to be successful.
The Moral Basis of Democracy (1940)
When the Clean Air Act was passed in the United States, the joke in Tokyo and Osaka was that while Ford and General Motors called in their lawyers, Toyota and Nissan called in their engineers.
Here is what going wrong.
If political power exactly followed economic power there is little hope for Democracy.
We all know that it is not possible to please all the people all of the time.
The problem is that democracy and capitalism are not bed partners.
Traditional liberal government policies on spending, taxation and regulation will fail to diminish inequality. The higher” the rate of return on capital is in comparison to the rate of growth of the economy. The higher this ratio is, the greater inequality is.
It all starting roughly with the onset of World War I.
The owners of capital – those at the top of the pyramid of wealth and income – absorbed a series of devastating blows. These included the loss of credibility and authority as markets crashed; physical destruction of capital throughout Europe in both World War I and World War II; the raising of tax rates, especially on high incomes, to finance the wars; high rates of inflation that eroded the assets of creditors; the nationalization of major industries in both England and France; and the appropriation of industries and property in post-colonial countries.
In Eisenhower’s words, “Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear from that party again in our political history.”
Leaving us with a belief that the economy is the be all and the end all to keep the masses happy.
However personal income distribution is getting more unequal — which indeed is what we have witnessed in the past 30 years. Zero Hour Contracts, no security, higher and higher Vat.
There is no point in creating millions of modern-day slavery jobs. They are worthless in galvanizing a nation’s wealth. Pride of ownership is what produces productivity and happiness. It’s not rocket science.
On a world scale to halt inequality there are a few options:
Create a World Aid Fund which feeds of Profit by placing a world aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions ( over $20,000) on all Foreign Wealth Funds Acquisitions. (see previous Posts)
Or
Impose a global progressive tax on wealth – global in order to prevent (among other things) the transfer of assets to countries without such levies. A global tax, in this scheme, would restrict the concentration of wealth and limit the income flowing to capital.
Or
Impose an annual graduated tax on stocks and bonds, property and other assets that are customarily not taxed until they are sold.
The very infeasibility of establishing a global wealth tax serves to reinforce the argument concerning the inevitability of increasing inequality.
The International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations, reported recently that the number of unemployed grew by 5 million from 2012 to 2013, reaching nearly 202 million by the end of last year. It is projected to grow to 215 million by 2018.
No country can deal with Climate Change, and the forthcoming shortage of fresh water, never mind tax evasion.
The political economy is such that the political power to enact those taxes also requires a mobilized citizenry and institutional power, such as a robust labor movement. When in fact all that people want is equal opportunity.
I am no Karl Marx but the capitalist economic system is in its present state undermining the democratic system by compromising the very values that democracy was founded upon.
It is imperative to remember that we are also citizens who have it in our power to reduce social costs, making the true price of the goods and services we purchase as low as possible for all.
Conclusion:
Since capitalism means the rule of a small elite in the economy, and democracy means the rule of all people, the option of capitalism as the base for democracy is questionable regardless of the wishes of the workers or the community.
Are there any authentic democratic institutions left. No.
Lets hope Capitalism as we know it is obsolete well before machines do everything.
The contradictions between democracy and capitalism will be on full display in the UK elections if you are interested over the coming weeks.
The most valuable commodity in the world today, is not oil, not natural gas, not even some type of renewable energy. It’s water—clean, safe, fresh water and it is being privatized for short-term profit.
A gift of nature, or a valuable commodity? A human right, or a luxury for the privileged few? Will the agricultural sector or industrial sector be the main consumer of this precious resource? Whatever the answers to these and many more questions, one thing is clear:
That water will be one of the defining issues of the coming decade, not the internet, not the current conflicts, not poverty or Inequality, nor climate change, or the far of distant stars.
SAVE THE PLANET, WHEN WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO SAVE OURSELVES.
Some estimates say that 768 million people still have no access to fresh water.
Water isn’t traded on commodity exchanges yet but you would wrong to think that the most valuable commodity more valuable than oil will remain so.
These days we hear that sustainable development is the only way forward. There will be no sustainable development while the water issues remain unsolved.
It is our responsibility that fresh water does not become a commodity to be exploited for short-term profit to pump out billions in profit.
The Oil Industry wastes 2 million gallons each day in California Fracking.
Across the world Nestlé is pushing to privatize and control water resources. In 2000 at the world Water Forum Nestlé successfully lobbied to stop water being declared a universal right. Profits over people and corporate rights over human rights.
There is now a hunting season on local water resources by multinational corporations looking to control them. This means billions in profits with us paying 2000 times more for drinking water because it comes in a plastic bottle.
Safe water will become a privilege only affordable for the wealthy.
What are our Out of Date World Organisations doing to safeguard the human right to water other than more verbal diarrhea. (They are discussing the goals)
The World Water Forum which is described as a mouthpiece for transnational companies and the World Bank are falsely claiming to head the global governance of water. (See Below)
Water is essential for human survival and well-being and important to many sectors of the economy. However, resources are irregularly distributed in space and time, and they are under pressure due to human activity. Today, freshwater is used unsustainable in the majority of the regions of the world.
Everyone is demanding more of everything, more houses, more cars and more water. And we are talking of a world where temperatures are forecasted to rise by two to three degrees Celsius, maybe more. The situation is already dire.
China’s energy needs alone will grow by 100 percent by 2050. Since 1990, half the rivers in China have disappeared.
Globally, water pollution is increasing. Around 60 percent of the worlds nation’s groundwater resources are already polluted. In developing countries, an estimated 90% of waste water is discharged directly into rivers and streams without treatment.
At present, most water policy is still driven by short-term economic and political concerns that do not take into account science and good stewardship. State-of-the-art solutions and more funding, along with more data on water resources, are needed especially in developing nations.
Here are some hard facts.
Fragmentation of river systems due to dams is the single greatest threat to freshwater ecosystems’ health.
There are an estimated 800,000 dams worldwide, including around 45,000 large dams (over 15 metres high)and 1,000 mega-dams over 100 meters high. Over 60% of the world’s 227 largest rivers have been fragmented by dams, diversions and canals. An estimated 60 to 80 million people have been displaced by dams and nearly 500 million people have had their lives and livelihoods negatively affected.
Some 20 percent of the world’s aquifers are facing over-exploitation, and degradation of wetlands is affecting the capacity of ecosystems to purify water supplies.
People use 54% of the planet’s “blue water” (water that flows through rivers, lakes, and groundwater). Estimates suggest that this may increase to 70% by 2025.
2.3 billion people live in river basins which are under water stress, where less than 1,700 cubic meters of water is available for each person per year. If current consumption patterns continue, at least 3.5 billion people will live in water-stressed river basins in 2025 – half the world’s projected population.
Our Freshwater Living Planet Index (which tracks changes in populations of 714 species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians found in temperate and tropical lakes, rivers and wetlands) showed populations of freshwater species fell by 35% between 1970 and 2007 – a larger decline than in marine and land ecosystems. In tropical regions the decline was almost 70%.
Around 10,000 of the world’s 25,000 known fish species live in fresh water. An average of 300 new freshwater fish species are discovered every year.
Wetlands around the world provide goods and services to people worth an estimated US$70 billion a year.
Climate change is predicted to have a whole range of impacts on water resources. Variation in temperature and rainfall may affect water availability, increase the frequency and severity of floods and droughts, and disrupt ecosystems that maintain water quality.
Over the last 50 years, the frequency of severe flooding and the damage it causes have increased, in part due to the degradation of freshwater ecosystems.
In parts of the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, over half of wetlands were destroyed in the 20th century, and many more were degraded across the rest of the world.
Freshwater is a highly valuable resource for a large number of competing demands, including drinking water, irrigation, hydroelectricity, waste disposal, industrial processes, transport and recreation, as well as ecosystem functions and services.
There is only one direction for water prices at the moment, and that’s up.
The United Nations estimates that by 2050 more than two billion people in 48 countries will lack sufficient water.
Approximately 97 percent to 98 percent of the water on planet Earth is saltwater (the estimates vary slightly depending on the source). Much of the remaining freshwater is frozen in glaciers or the polar ice caps. Lakes, rivers and groundwater account for about 1 percent of the world’s potentially usable freshwater.
95 percent of the world’s cities continue to dump raw sewage into rivers and other freshwater supplies, making them unsafe for human consumption.
Agriculture is responsible for 87 % of the total water used globally. Fresh water is crucial to human society – not just for drinking, but also for farming, washing and many other activities. It is expected to become increasingly scarce in the future, and this is partly due to climate change. Approximately 98% of our water is salty and only 2% is fresh. Of that 2%, almost 70% is snow and ice, 30% is groundwater, less than 0.5% is surface water (lakes, rivers, etc) and less than 0.05% is in the atmosphere.
Climate change will have several effects on these proportions on a global scale. The main one is that warming causes polar ice to melt into the sea, which turns fresh water into sea water, although this has little direct effect on water supply.
The direct impact of climate change is not the only reason.
The increasing global population means more demand for agriculture, greater use of water for irrigation and more water pollution. Rising affluence in some countries means a larger number of people living water-intensive lifestyles, including watering of gardens, cleaning cars and using washing machines and dishwashers.
Rapidly developing economies also result in more industry and in many cases this comes without modern technology for water saving and pollution control. Therefore concerns about climate change must be viewed alongside management of pollution and demand for water.
If we allow poverty related to water to exist in other countries, then we can expect jealousies between nations to rise, and we can expect acts of vengeance from those who are jealous. It is already a source of conflict in some parts of the world such as the Indus River, which runs between India and Pakistan. Another one would be, in fact, in Iraq, where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, rising in Turkey, flow into Syria, then into Iraq. And, in fact, much of Iraq’s water supply is from Turkey.
Fresh Water is why Palestinian must strive for a one nation-state solution with Israel. It is why we must stop oil exploration in the Arctic.
By the middle of the 21st century, 2 billion to 7 billion people will be severely short of water. The WHO estimates that more than 5 million people die each year from diseases caused by unsafe drinking water. By 2030, global demand for water will outstrip supply by 40 percent, a surefire recipe for war.
It takes some 5000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of rice.
General Electric Chairman Jeffrey Immelt said the scarcity of clean water around the world will more than double GE’s revenue from water purification and treatment by 2010—to a total of $5 billion.
Saudi Arabia is expected to invest more than $80 billion in desalinization plants and sewer facilities by 2025 to meet the needs of its growing population.
While China is home to 20 percent of the world’s people, only 7 percent of the planet’s freshwater supply is located there. Asian countries will have severe water problems by the year 2025. (demand is increasing)(supply is decreasing)
In France agricultural production is exempt from the Polluter – pays -principle and that it continues to deteriorate the quality of groundwater with impunity.
The state of the world’s fresh water warns that decreasing water supplies could lead to epidemics and international conflict. Over the next 20 years, the average global supply of water per person is expected to drop by one-third.
What does the future hold?
How can water resources be managed sustainable while meeting an ever-increasing demand?
We always have the same amount of water.
The six billion people of Planet Earth use nearly 30% of the world’s total accessible renewal supply of water. By 2025, that value may reach 70%. Yet billions of people lack basic water services, and millions die each year from water-related diseases.
And you Wonder why we have terrorism.
Water is a basis of international conflict.
Basic human needs for water should be fully acknowledged as a top international priority. Education and research will be essential to providing the knowledge, skills and technology needed to combat fresh water scarcity in the future.
The World Water Forum is a large-scale international conference that is held every three years since 1997 in cooperation with the public, private sectors, academia, and industries.
It was first launched in an effort to facilitate international discussions on global water challenges.
The last Forum attracted more than 35,000 participants in Marseille 2012.
This Council is made up of.
15 heads of State, of governments and European Commissioners.
145 represented countries.
112 Ministers, Vice-Ministers and Secretaries of State.
176 national delegations and international organisations taking part in the Ministerial Declaration.
More than 750 elected officials among which 250 mayors and 250 parliamentarians.
More than 500 sponsored persons.
3,500 NGOs and civil society representatives.
More than 2,600 children and youth.
Like all our Unfunded World Organisations it is an other gossip shop that lacks financial clout to make a differences.
There is only one way we can guard our Fresh Water we must Buy It.
Which can be achieved by Placing a World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange transactions ( over $20,000) and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisition.
We than can create Drought Banks, that give Farmers an allocation of water. He must then decide what is the best return he can get from that amount of water on his property. It might be a big wheat crop or a small cotton crop. It doesn’t matter. The water is the fixed in the equation, not the type of crop.
Foot Note:
Just in case you think that all of this is Hog Wash:
Here are over 80 organizations (community, academic, governmental, funding, and more) working on water and sanitation issues in multiple countries around the world.
Technologies are actually available but most of them are too expensive or far to time consuming to implement simultaneously with ongoing progress and changes.
Even within the European Union an estimated 20 to 30 million people do not have access to safe sanitation, and little action has so far been undertaken to address this problem.
The question is not whether we can afford it but can we afford not to do it?
For example, what is the cost of no action? Water is already under severe pressure and this will only increase with climate change. We cannot afford to lose the services and benefits that a healthy aquatic ecosystem provides. We need clean water in sufficient quantities for our living and for economic activities. In order to keep that, we need a determined action to protect water resources.
The global population is likely to reach 9.1 billion in 2050, if not sooner. While this alone has potentially dire consequences in terms of pressures on natural resources, especially water, Climate change sets its own agenda,
The world is changing faster than ever and becoming more and more complex.
Uncertainties about water availability and demand are increasing, as are the associated risks to development and well-being of people, societies and the environment. Unless we can generate the awareness and political will to react now, the crises we are experiencing now are likely to escalate and the odds of meeting our developmental goals will degenerate. This is why the most recent economic crisis could be seen as an opportunity; it provides an occasion for reflecting on a desired collective future.
For once we might act as one to the benefit of all. The future of the planet and the human race both depend on it.
Water is a common heritage of humanity and of future generations and must be protected as a public trust in law and practice. Water belongs to the Earth and other species. Water might teach us how to live together. How to tread more lightly on the earth — in peace and respect with one another.
There is no doubting that the influence of technology will go beyond new equipment and faster communications and that Science and technology are in danger of out running our morality.
The evolution of technology has morphed the relationship between consumer and creator forever. But life exists in individual moments and it is up to us to make sure those moments are vital to technology. Each of us has meaning, and it is us that bring these moments to life not the other way around.
This for me defines the dangers of Technology. There is a danger that we will end up starved for wisdom and individual wonder distorting the values of civilization.
Sharing may well be the mechanism that propels culture forward, but individualism driven by knowledge is what counts. Therefore we should be wary of falling into the trap of futurism. There may be a temptation to follow technological determinism, that is the idea that technology provides a logical sequence of development that pervades society regardless of its effects.
So it is necessary to study the relationship of science, technology, innovation and government. We need to stay attuned to the power dynamics at play.
Ultimately as we continue to develop and our technological capabilities even the stars will be open to our explorations.
Will humanity be prepared for the greatest discoveries of the history of our civilization? No
Will we find other intelligent civilizations far older and incredibly superior than our technological capabilities and collective wisdom? Yes
Our collective destiny could end with speculation on the values, ethics and consciousness of these civilizations and lessons they may hold for the future of humanity.
Recently I have concentrating on the effects of what Technology could do to Society and how we will behave or change as its influence grows.
We are already living in a world few could have imagined 50 years ago. In a new economy—powered by technology, fueled by information, without a sustainable Life-Plan.
As technology continues to spread, questions emerge:
What are we losing as a society? What is the effect on social relations? Work, after all, is more than just a job or paycheck. It is where we meet friends, share ideas, and build a common sense of purpose and a social network.
What happens if we all become Google Slaves. (see previous post) Is it creating an Hip-pro activity world designed by us that will not work. With voice mail, e-mail, and computer networks, how do we preserve the human network and the social interaction that work has helped to facilitate? What takes its place?
As I have said there may well be a strong link between technology adoption by society and its culture. But technology is never purely beneficial. It has negative and positive effects, There is a need to distinguish between desirable sustainable development and economic growth.
While it is not possible to foretell the future, it is useful to examine present trends and determine their possible consequences.
The use of computers and the Internet in workplaces is become more pervasive as work and skills are being redefined and reorganized.
The demands of the future will require increased efforts to include these workers who have been left behind and have not shared in our prosperity.
It will also require successfully integrating millions of immigrants into the workplace.
If we’re not careful, our technological evolution will take us toward not a singularity but a sofalarity.
The problem with technological evolution is that it is under our control and, unfortunately, we don’t always make the best decisions.
Does Technology want what life wants: Increasing efficiency; Increasing opportunity; Increasing emergence; Increasing complexity; Increasing diversity; Increasing specialization; Increasing ubiquity; Increasing freedom; Increasing mutualism; Increasing beauty; Increasing sentience; Increasing structure; Increasing evolvability. I think not.
Technological evolution has a different motive force. It is self-evolution, and it is therefore driven by what we want as opposed to what is adaptive. In a market economy, it is even more complex: for most of us, our technological identities are determined by what companies decide to sell based on what they believe we, as consumers, will pay for.
When it comes to technologies, we mainly want to make things easy. We are at a time of great creativity, of great potential for change for better or worse.
Technology is not the only cause of these changes, but scientists have made clear that it is a driving factor.
It is already dispensing death by algorithms.
Assuming that we really are evolving as we wear or inhabit more technological prosthetics—like ever-smarter phones, helpful glasses, and brainy cars—here’s the big question:
Will that type of evolution take us in desirable directions, as we usually assume biological evolution does?
The technology industry, which does so much to define us, has a duty to cater to our more complete selves rather than just our narrow interests. It has both the opportunity and the means to reach for something higher. And, as consumers, we should remember that our collective demands drive our destiny as a species, and define the post human condition. Both Google and Apple would do well to keep this in mind.
All of these factors have contributed to rising inequality. The development of a hierarchy of knowledge, a prejudiced vision towards a desired future rather than recognition of more plausible realities.
We all want a future defined not by an evolution toward super intelligence but by the absence of discomforts.
In general, humans have a tendency to always choose the easiest option without
stopping to think that maybe, to think another perspective would open other
possibilities.
The power of Google is considerable, and wielded in many different ways.
Few companies have had as large an impact on our daily lives as Google. The company is everywhere, powering our access to information and how we connect to others.
It has grown to set the world’s standard of information and how it’s managed.
Google is not Life: It’s hidden algorithms have the power to make or break reputations and fortunes, to shape public debates, and to change our view of the world.
Google’s immense resources mean that it can wield its power in many more ways than a mere internet monopoly. Lobbying, both open and hidden, is a big deal – the amount of effort put into shaping the reform of the data protection regime so it suits Google better has been colossal.
It has infiltrated our daily routines with its products and services including smartphones, tablets, laptops, and even financial organization solutions. Through these devices and offerings, Google has influenced culture in a way that very few companies throughout history have.
The company can learn even more about people who use G Mail, the social networking site Orkut, or another of Google’s popular personalized services.
Google’s determination to change the way we access and use information is epitomized through their technological innovations.
Most recently, Google Glass, a groundbreaking technology, combines Google’s software services with day-to-day application. This product introduced the world to the possibility of wearable technology, as users are fed a constant stream of digital information via a mini screen that is fixed on a pair of glasses.
How they set their algorithms, how they index the web, what they include and exclude, what they rate highly – and what they rate as insignificant – matters in ways that are often hugely underestimated.
If you think that Google is are a purely neutral organisation, providing a service to the planet it is a very naive assumption. Google has a critical role to play in how technology functions, how businesses function – and in how the media functions.,not how we function.
The question is whether the company is acquiring too much power over our lives – invading our privacy, shaping our preferences, and controlling how we learn about and understand the world around us.
“Searching” is no longer a neutral tool, but has become a social force in itself.
“A log of your search history is as close to a printout of your brain as we’ve ever had.” For this reason we should be wary of its power, before you end up doomed to join Google Slavery and become a genuine SELF E.
Take for example if you wanted to remove a link; a request is made, and then Google can decide to delete or not to delete – deletions being if the information is old or irrelevant – and if they choose not to, the requester can either take legal action or ask the data protection authority to adjudicated.
In previous post I have aired the opinion that Google wants to capture all knowledge and its distribution, thus becoming the power of the market place world-wide.
Google mission statement: “Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
With so much tracking power throughout the web, plus search, plus its toolbar and other services, Google can track ~70% of the Internet population.
It has the potential to vaporize the profits of any industry that traffic in bits and bytes and to shift the economics to the advantage of Google.
It could actually pose a national defense concern at some point simply by virtue of its singularly massive storehouse of data.
It is becoming the crude oil of the Information Economy.
Our lives are being mapped by the internet.
But is it wise to let the likes of Google decide what becomes of our culture’s collective memory? The place into which we appear to be pouring our culture for safekeeping. If we are putting all our eggs in one or two vast online baskets, shouldn’t we, the public, share a grip on the handle?
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world…
Should we allow search engines like Google to controls not only the future but the past…
Google has successfully built a platform that monetizes the content of other people, first though search, and then through a contextual network. It controls 60%+ of all advertisements that flow in contextual networks.
It’s influence over the Internet spans far beyond search. It goes right into the heart of the Internet – content. Google is like a giant spider who has spread its net all across the Internet, and each time you get on that net, you give more power to that spider.
Google knows more and more about us, but right now there’s almost nothing we can do to find out exactly what it does with that information.
The challenge is how to do this without undermining an online application that, even its critics concede, is one of the greatest learning and labor-saving devices of our time.
Google agreed last year to limit the amount of time it keeps personalized user information to 18 months and to cut the life span of its cookies from 30 years to two.
In the past several years, Google has spent billions on companies, research and projects ranging from YouTube to wind power. It has acquired over 170 companies.
It has changed our language. It has changed our brains. It has taken over our cell phones. It has transformed the way we use e-mail. It’s changed how we collaborate. It has allowed us to travel the globe from our desks. It has influenced the news we read. It has turned users into commodities. It’s changed how everyone else sees YOU.
Google’s Android operating system is also the most widely used smart phone software in the world, further emphasizing their technological dominance in mobile computing markets.
The role of search engines as intermediaries or data controllers is not understood.
Indeed Google’s power to control the process and set the agenda is lacking vision.
Despite the growing number of photographers who use Google in their works, it remains unclear how this technology will influence our perspective in photography—and perceptions of spatial reality—outside the virtual world.
A small step in the right direction.
Instead of Google promoting its Logo as a biennial supporter of St Patrick’s Day or
It could with its Logo highlight the Inequalities of the world. The abuse of People Trafficking, Poverty, Corruption. Its Logo could become a rallying symbol for change. Would it do it. Of course not because it suffers from the very symptoms it has or is creating. Exploitation of the weakest, the gullible, the naive, the lonely, the very people who need to be one bar closer to Humanity.
Whatever your opinions are about Google, you can’t deny their influence on the world around us.
Ultimately, Google must grapple with the essential paradox it embodies.
As a corporation, it’s often a cipher, its intentions and methods concealed by algorithms that look impenetrable and impersonal. Yet the search engine and the blockbuster business built atop it utterly depend upon millions of people sharing through searches their most intimate desires, and upon thousands of businesses willing to open their data storehouses to feed Google’s voracious digital maw
” It’s about humans. “
Google may have to listen to the rest of us about what Google will become next.
Old expectations of privacy might be fading but if we are denied the right to reply or remove links it could well lose the head-to-head battle between it and Apple.
“Google nets $115,150 of revenue in one minute, and converts $23,509 of that into profit.
Apple in 60 seconds,makes a dizzying $328,965 in revenue. Translate that into profit, and it’s still an insanely high $71,288. Per second, Apple makes over $1100 in pure profit.
I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written or stored by Google.
I am asking this question because it wont be long before we will all have wearable Technology on our wrists.
They will know you better than you know yourself.
Monitoring you around the clock. From birth to death, transferring the collected data to persons unborn thereby enhancing the value of their wrists remote oversight.
The prize for such wearable technologist will be slavery.
Its only around the corner when a glance at the smart phone app will let you know exactly what your four-legged friend is up to and whether you are in need of a service.
The real value of technology depends on human interaction from design to utility.
Just imagine wearing a device in the obvious place and it’ll measure your calories burned and thrusts per minute as well as suggest the correct tempo to work at. (Your are too late it already exists)
What is on the horizon when it comes to Medicine and medical care.
Since data is the lifeblood of science, we’re going to get a lot smarter about some data leading to peer communities that will probably rely on a lot of technology and they’re going to have algorithms guiding their treatment or their path.
Already there are amazing advances on the horizon that will do everything from predicting depression using geo-location on smart phones to printing out organs.
The regulation of these applications moving forward has yet to be determined.
The medical community is just beginning to understand that these digital breadcrumbs called Bio Mechanics, (The measurement your heart rate and breathing patterns from beneath your sheets to tell how deep you’re sleeping and even when you initiated your shuteye in the first place, the correction of your posture, the measurement of perspiration, the sensing and skin temperature recording, the measurement of your pulse by using LEDs that highlight the speed of blood flowing through your capillaries) are all going to be liable to legal scrutiny.
If they are not there is going to be hell to play between interactive clothing design, smart textiles and wearable microelectronics.
Or will it be the users that determines whether wearable technology is a cost-driver, a cost-saver, quality controller, error creator, a great equalizer or disruptor and in doing so wearing the device will grant legal immunity to the producer of such technology.
It is this dichotomy—the ability to heal or harm that intrigues me.
From the operating room to the living room, phone applications are increasingly used by providers and patients alike for medicine care.
Take for instance Electronic medical records. (EMRs)
These digital records store the health information of millions of patients. EMRs can be a great money saver in medicine because they will become more interoperable and move into the hands of patients or should I say on to the wrists.
The drawback is that IT systems don’t care if the guy went to the intensive care unit two hours later or was diagnosed with Parkinson’s 20 years later. Just give us the data and we will put it on his wrist.
Whether we like it or not wearable tech will define humanity’s future.
Technology always changes social relationships so it stands to reason that the relationship of patient – doctor is also going to change.
All of these devices will spit out ridiculous amounts of data of all forms, so this big data world that we’re already in – is going to accelerate. Also we’re going to get a lot smarter about some pretty fundamental things, whether it’s genomics or self-diagnosis or how errors happen.
Then, because we’re putting all this power into the hands of so many people all around the world, it seems certain that the scale, pace, and scope of innovation are going to increase.
So why not cure ourselves.
The question of whether computers would ultimately replace the diagnostic work of clinicians, predictions by and large, has not pan out as yet.
When I see a flu symptom data set, that stops we getting a cold I might ware a wrists band.
When patients are reduced to templates, you can forget it. Hype shouldn’t be mistaken for justification.
Physicians use “the eyeball test” — their intuition, drawn from subtle cues that are not (currently) captured in the data — to make a clinical judgment.
The Wearable war is only just starting. There’s no better time to get familiar and get involved like the present.
It is all down to deep learning — is just blowing the doors off the competition.
It’s spread beyond the academic world with major players like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook creating their own research teams.
We should all be careful before we all become Google or Apple Slaves.
“OK, Glass, Google ‘What’s the correct dose of Temazepam?’” Likewise, the gadget could also document a patient visit, such as storing a photo of a skin rash or an audio recording of a conversation.
Would you feel comfortable if your physician examined you while wearing Google Glass? Or would you record your own doctor’s visit using Glass?
Modern day education is aided with a variety of technology, computers, projectors, internet, and many more.
I am entirely certain that is fifty years or less from now we will look back at education as it is practiced in most schools and universities today and wonder that we could have tolerated anything so primitive. Why?
Because the greatest innovation in the world is the demand for equality of opportunity and that comes primarily through education which unfortunately these days is lacking the words “How” “Look ” “Understand”.
These three missing words in our world of Education are causes ignorance.
They can only be brought back as the backbone of Education if we stop educating for the Market Place and educate for ability to make yourself do the things you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not.
The Internet provides abysmal knowledge at just a click of the mouse; there is no end to it. 93 percent of students search online rather than go to the library, and Wikipedia is the most used research resource.
There is no doubting that Technology has had an amazing impact on education in the last few years. The impact of Internet on education can be felt in homes, schools, colleges, universities.
However the Internet has proven to be a double-edged sword for education and we must now ask the question, are traditional higher education approaches fit for purpose for the modern world?
A broader definition of learning is needed that better accounts for the intricate nature of learning in times of complex technological and social contexts.
What we’ve seen so far is nothing compared to the sea change that will be created by the Internet of Everything (IoE) in the coming decade.
The networked connections among people, processes, data and things will change not just how and where education is delivered, but will also redefine what students need to learn, and why.
People today generally agree that the purpose of education is to convey knowledge. But if all the world’s knowledge is instantaneously available online via smart phone or Google Glass, how does that affect what we need to teach in school?
Perhaps education will become less about acquiring knowledge, and more about how to analyze, evaluate, and use the unlimited information that is available to us.
Perhaps we will teach more critical thinking, collaboration, and social skills.
Perhaps we will not teach answers, but how to ask the right questions.
Regardless of gender, race, age, geographic location, language or any disability, the internet gives an equal chance to all to progress in the field of education.
Information Superhighway along with personal computers is fast transforming the world of Education.
Not only our planet but the whole universe has become accessible.
We are being fed with facts and knowledge. Not art, not books, but life itself is the true basis of teaching and learning.
Education is producing a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
Our Education Instituted were created in the era of the assembly line. Built for an industrial era not for the Technological Revolution now taking place.
The very concept of what a university is, what academia is, has change.
Technological innovation is creating less uniformity in higher education.
These days or Tech experts believe market factors will push universities to expand online courses, create hybrid learning spaces, move toward ‘lifelong learning’ models and different credentialing structures by the year 2020.
But they disagree about how these whirlwind forces will influence education, for the better or the worse.
For a millennium, universities have been considered the main societal hub for knowledge and learning.
Universities have survived intact through the sweeping societal changes created by technology—the moveable-type printing press, the Industrial Revolution, the telegraph, telephone, radio, television, and computers. Like every thing else they are susceptible to tech disruption as other information-centric. (Industries such as the news media, magazines and journals, encyclopedias, music, motion pictures, and television.)
As a result the cost of university education is growing higher and higher which is totally unsustainable particularly in the light of the growing global demand for such education. For me it is the duty of the richer nations to educate its next generation for Free. This could be easily achieved by placing an education tax on all gambling.
(In the case of poorer nations it can only be achieved by capping Greed. ( see previous posts; 0.05% World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, and on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $20,000.)
Students and parents, stretched by rising tuition costs, are increasingly challenging the affordability of a university degree as well as the diploma’s ultimate value as an employment credential.
As a result heightened inequalities may arise based upon instructional delivery formats.
The transmission of knowledge need no longer be tethered to a college campus.
The technical affordability of cloud-based computing, digital textbooks, mobile connectivity, high-quality streaming video, and “just-in time” information gathering have pushed vast amounts of knowledge to the “place less” Web and privately held, online instructional delivery firm.
Nonprofit learning organizations such as the Khan Academy, commercial providers of lecture series, online services such as iTunes U, and a host of specialized training centers that provide instruction and credentials for particular trades and professions.
All these can easily scale online instruction delivery more quickly than can brick-and-mortar institutions and will present themselves as challengers for-profit universities.
Requirements for graduation will be significantly shifted to customized outcomes leading to ‘customized’ education for people from different class backgrounds.
Significant numbers of learning activities will move to individualized, just-in-time learning approaches. There will be a transition to “hybrid” classes that combine online learning components with less-frequent on-campus, in-person class meetings. The technology will allow for more individualized, passion-based learning by the student, greater access to master teaching, and more opportunities for students to connect to others—mentors, peers, sources— for enhanced learning experiences.
There will be mass adoption of teleconferencing and distance learning to leverage expert resources. Distance learning.
As communications technologies improve and we learn how to use them better, the requirement for people to meet face-to-face for effective teaching and learning will diminish. The high cost of face to-face instruction, the improvement of AI will be major factors in individualizing education.
Research will increasingly be driven out from behind the high-premium-pay walls of academic journals and into the open, where scholars and the public can more easily benefit from government-funded and grant supported research projects.
While people will be accessing more resources in classrooms through the use of large screens, teleconferencing, and personal wireless smart devices, most universities will still mostly require in-person, on-campus attendance of students most of the time at courses featuring a lot of traditional lectures.
Most universities’ assessment of learning and their requirements for graduation will be about the same as they are now. Assessments will take into account more individually oriented outcomes and capacities that are relevant to subject mastery. Universities are not just portals where students access learning, they are places in which people develop as social beings.
In 2020, higher education will not be much different from the way it is today
The good man who can speak well will not be brought about by techno-based thinking. Teaching is not about holding on to huge amounts of information; it is more about giving direction to the thought in individual minds.
It is obvious that the Internet has and will continue to change the way we live. How it is changed, and how it will continue to do so is to be seen.
Around the world, millions of children are not in school: 57 million primary school children and 69 million secondary school children are denied a basic education.
I know that you do not have to be told that if we want to change this selfish chaotically world we have to strive for free education for all.
An education that emphases values.
The brain flourishes freely and ideas blossom marvelously when they are given an open sky and a broad horizon.
I was told the other day that I had not addressing the last and perhaps the most important issue concerning the effects of Technology that the human race will ever faced. The dire warnings that machines run by Artificial Intelligence will one day take over from humans.
What better day to post my views an diamond eclipse. The last time it happened was in 1935 and the next time is 2206.
Now don’t get me wrong I like being human! I want humans to retain autonomy over machines! Judgments of virtue are judgments of a whole life rather than of one isolated action. The development of moral character may take a whole lifetime. But once it is firmly established, one will act consistently, predictably and appropriately in a variety of situations.
However we will need a new set of practices for value creation; where data slaves dare to stand up and call for a revolution … But it will be very difficult to turn back the wheel that has already been set in motion several decades ago.
What is artificial intelligence and what is the media talking about? What ever it is it is a long way off before Machines turn on us never mind emulating human behavior to the point of mimicking communication.
Are these technologies beneficial to our society or mere novelties among business and marketing professionals?
Medical facilities, police departments, and manufacturing plants have all been changed by AI but how?
So far this bond has been one-sided because the ability to generate, recognize and express emotions are a unique prerogative of living human beings, but if this intelligence or abstract attribute could be taught to machines, it would re-conceptualize the perception of machines.
So in this post should I focus on the truly remarkable achievements of the technology or dwell on the dangers of what could happen if machines reach a level of Sentient AI, in which self-aware machines reach human level intelligence.
Let’s start with present day. Do you believe that if all computers are stopped for a day, complete civilization comes to a halt!
Fifty years ago, this might have been a science fiction, but today it is a reality.
We cannot predict because of the great potential of AI what we might achieve when this intelligence is magnified by the tools AI (may provide) however the eradication of disease and poverty are not unfathomable.
So it is valuable to investigate how to reap its benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls.
The potential benefits are huge, since everything that civilization has to offer is a product of human intelligence.
Presently, applications in advanced robotic appeared so real that one can believe a humanoid robot will be capable to interact or work side by side with people in a near future.
If so are we ready for the bio mechanical future revolution. ( Or as I would call it synthetic intelligence implants, because it is not natural intelligence.)
For the sake of the length of this post I will stick with AI.
This questions; Will AI be a reality and many others are and should be the concern of the general public.
A time will soon come (brought about by the lack of education concerning rapidly advancing computer technology) when this question will need to be answered. On the ethical use of such technology and its impact on intimate human relationships and society.
When is the best time to discuss the ethical uses of these technologies? NOW.
If robots are ready to plug safely into society the question is no longer a questions for future generations to sort through, it must be decided, and soon.
As technology rapidly improves, it is inevitable that it should begin to take on elements of its creator and believe me there are many routes that Artificial intelligence can go.
Its impact on society is only likely to increase.
For instance: Once we begin to mesh technology more closely with ourselves as humans we can begin to accept it as a part of ourselves and as a part of our society. Some say it could be curtain for Society.
As I have said in previous posts Technology is transforming our social, economic, and political institutions; our understanding of what it means to be human; and the distribution of power in the world.
The threat of AI equipped computer systems and machinery taking jobs away from humans is becoming a harsh reality. When and in what order should we expect various jobs to become automated ?
How will this affect the wages of less skilled workers, creatives, and different kinds of information workers? Some have argued that AI is likely to greatly increase the overall wealth of humanity as a whole. This is a total misconception as the rich will own the Data. Increased automation may push income distribution further towards a power law and the resulting disparity may fall disproportionately along lines of race, class, and gender.
Research anticipating the economic and societal impact of such disparity could be useful to start asking the questions.
How should the ability of AI systems to interpret the data obtained from surveillance cameras, phone lines, emails, etc., interact with the right to privacy?
How will privacy risks interact with cyber security and cyber warfare?
We already have drones and it will not be long before we have a weapon that does everything on its own without human help. These weapons will be a threat to civilians? Can lethal autonomous weapons be made to comply with humanitarian law. No.
Sophisticated remote-controlled military robots are already in use with no tractability, that fire a weapon to AI algorithms is that not something to fear. We are programming them. If that’s not scary enough put a nuclear war head on one.
Smart weapons raises many questions on the price paid to develop these weapons; money which could be used to solve most of the world’s social problems such as poverty, hunger, etc.
Of course none of this is going to change anything as we are incapable of making war against Poverty or Inequality. Why? Because human intelligence can be viewed as being as diverse as its population. However this type of analysis of Intelligence leads us to the individual and becomes useless.
Over the last decade, electronic tiny minuscule signals have fundamentally revolutionized the way we live. People are spending more hours per day with machines than humans and in the future, computers will evolve quicker than the human race.
Sorry I am diversifying. Back to AI
An amazing a human-machine relationship is developing.
Fortuitously for us so far the possession of knowledge alone does not make a being or machine intelligent.
This is the problem when it comes to computer scientists and engineers understanding just how their work affects humans and human values.
So what role should computer scientists play in the law and ethics of AI development and use? None. They are focus on getting software products to market, regardless of whether they instantiated interesting principles of intelligent systems that could also illuminate the human mind.
How should lawyers, ethicists, and policymakers engage the public on these issues? Should such trade-offs be the subject of national standards?
Significant parts of the economy, including finance, insurance, actuarial, and many consumer markets, are already susceptible to disruption through the use of AI techniques to learn, model, and predict agent actions. These markets are identified by a combination of high complexity and high rewards for navigating that complexity. Artificial intelligence techniques can be applied to financial investing, especially in the areas of credit risk assessment and stock valuation.
In the future, we can expect that the techniques of artificial intelligence will be integrated into systems that simultaneously address investing activities.
The successes of industrial applications of AI, from manufacturing to information services, demonstrate a growing impact on the economy, although there is disagreement about the exact nature of this impact and on how to distinguish between the effects of AI and those of other information technologies.
Many economists and computer scientists agree that there is valuable research to be done on how to maximize the economic benefits of AI while mitigating adverse effects, which could include increased inequality and unemployment.
All that said; Artificial intelligence certainly has a place in the future of humanity.
The danger of machines taking over too much of human interaction and work, the human mind, is to far-fetched to my thinking.
There is no doubt that computers are being embedded in all of our life accessories like mobiles,watches, cars, even our bodies and brains.
These subsets of AI, such as data mining, neural networks, speech recognition and lip-reading, behavior recognition, and face recognition, to name a few, are becoming increasingly powerful—and indispensable—to human organizations.
The question of whether a human brain is necessary for thinking remains in Science Fiction Hollywood.
No one has agreed on a concrete definition of artificial intelligence, largely because there is insignificant understanding as to what comprises intelligence.
Professor Jefferson’s Lister Oration for 1949, from which I quote sums up the problem for me.
“Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain-that is, not only write it but know that it had written it. No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its successes, grief when its valves fuse, be warmed by flattery, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants.
Or a machine which is under interrogation”What do you think of Picasso?” Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humor, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjoy strawberries and cream, make some one fall in love with it, learn from experience, use words properly, be the subject of its own thought, have as much diversity of behavior as a man, do something really new.
AI will remain valuable regardless of whether we’re able to build fully- functioning robots or human-esque brains.
AI, the harnessing of intelligence on the computer, will turn complex thought processes into fast computer simulations; it will be used to analyze past events and predict the future.
The ability of these systems to explain the reasoning process through back-traces and to handle levels of confidence and uncertainty provides an additional feature that conventional programming can’t handle.
Intelligence is defined as the ability to achieve goals through computational process. Although intelligence is only studied in humans, is it possible that machines may be more “intelligent” than those who created the machines in the first place?
Will computers reach human intelligence someday. They have already surpassed our calculation abilities and our speed of processing information.
There is no indication that microchip speed will not be multiplied in the future.
As with every innovative technology there are positive and negative externalities involved.
No. This dream will remain elusive until machines attain the basic human virtue of common sense.
Our ability to take full advantage of the synergy between AI and big data will depend in part on our ability to manage and preserve privacy.
How we can ensure humans will be able to control AI once it achieves human-level intelligence? I would prefer humans maintain autonomy over technologies that could achieve sentience.
It is tempting to wonder what would happen if we spent more time focusing on helping each other directly, versus relying on machines to essentially grow brains for us.
We need to develop a science for understanding advanced Artificial Intelligence before we develop it further.
It’s just common sense. Intelligent machines won’t love you any more than your toaster does. Giving people a device that enhances intelligence may not be a terrific idea. What happens when a machine breaks the law?
Our AI systems must do what we want them to do. We ourselves don’t reason with precise truths. We don’t yet know really what consciousness is, what drives consciousness?
Why do we attend to only a portion of what we see and hear? It is obvious that given an event, observed by many, we each perceive it differently, and we take in differently. Do we each have individual filters that have to do with our own stories? Probably. But I think pondering this goes deeper. Is consciousness itself, somehow, directed? God forbid a machine is directing it.
John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Describes AI
Being human, has to have a component of humanity to it. The nature of the mind and of memory, and how intelligence can be manifested in physical form is a joke when it comes to a Machine.
For the robots or technology that may surpass our intelligence in the near future, observe my fleshy middle-digit and hear me cry: “I wave my private parts at your Auntie! Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberry!” —
Tell me how do you model thought? Give me a machine that can read a simple children’s book, understand what the story is about, and explain it in its own words or ask reasonable questions about it.
That is it. I have tried artificial intelligence and I don’t like it.
Artificial Intelligence Technology is learning by itself. The claim that a machine cannot be the subject of its own thought can of course only be answered if it can be shown that the machine has some thought with some subject matter.
Where is this technology going to be? No one knows for sure, what we can only say for certainty is that this Artificial intelligence, and Machine Learning will transform all software and hardware, all industries and businesses. Roads, bridges, Cars, Homes, will be connected to it.
While today we do not possess the technology to achieve a truly sentient machine we cannot because of that speculate too deeply as to the results of such an achievement.
Only if intelligence ceases to be a sacred mystery to us, and we can control our destructive nature should any of us accept an Apple from the Adam of AI.
One thing is for sure; We will sure need some kind of global governance in the interest of the individual.
We are just in the beginning in terms of where these technologies will take us. Mars and back.
≈ Comments Off on WE CAN ALL BE PROUD. Four million Syrian refugees in 2015.
We are made to believe that we are all connected in an interconnected world.
But in fact we seem to be shackled to fear, misconceptions, false ideologies, material reward and held ransom to rules and laws laid down to safeguarded the interests of the few.
Syria’s civil war is the worst humanitarian disaster of our time. The number of innocent civilians suffering — more than ten million people are displaced, thus far — and the increasingly dire impact on neighboring countries can seem to overwhelming to understand.
So take a few minutes to understand the magnitude of this crisis.
THEY CAN TAKE A BOW. YOU ARE ALL DOING YOUR PART.
Nearly four years after it began, the full-blown civil war has killed more than 220,000 people, half of whom are believed to be civilians.
The U.N. estimates that over 7.2 million people are internally displaced — an increase of more than three million in just a year.
23 million is need urgent humanitarian assistance, whether they still remain in the country or have escaped across the borders.
In 2012, there were 100,000 refugees. By April 2013, there were 800,000. That doubled to 1.6 million in less than four months. There are now more than three million Syrians scattered throughout the region — an increasing number that will soon surpass Afghans as the world’s largest refugee population.
The worst exodus since the Rwandan genocide 20 years ago. The majority of refugees — about 70 percent — live outside camps.
The UN is asking for $5 billion in humanitarian aid to help the millions affected by the Syria crisis.
In December 2014, the U.N. issued its largest ever appeal for a single crisis — according to their estimates, $8.4 billion is necessary to meet the needs of all those affected by the crisis, both inside and outside Syria, an increase from last year’s $6.5 billion.
Yet that previous appeal was only funded less than 50 percent.
After four years of conflict, it is clear President Assad’s allies have been more determined to keep him in power than his enemies have been to remove him.
It is already clear that international divisions over the greatest crisis of the 21st century have contributed to its severity and longevity.
With China – which had also opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein – it vetoed a UN resolution condemning Syria.
The paralysing cold war-style battle lines that split the UN’s top table have not changed since.
There is little or no clear Arab demand for intervention.
Iraq and Algeria backed Assad while Saudi Arabia and Qatar encouraged the flow of money and weapons to rebel units, some linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, others to hardline Salafis.
Syria’s bloody stalemate thus seems destined to continue indefinitely beyond this anniversary.
So we are looking at another 10 years, or more, of conflict?
And what, in the meantime, is the best way to support people caught up inside Syria and in refugee communities?
Germany has provided 30,000 places. Norway and Sweden have taken 2,500 each.
In January 2014, Britain announced its own scheme to help the most vulnerable – victims of torture or rape, or suffering severe ill-health. So far, the scheme has helped exactly 143 people.
Here is the proud list March 2015.
Pledges received since 2013: 61,648
Visas granted under other forms of admission: 12,354
Resettlement submissions made to the USA: 10,715
TOTAL confirmed pledges to date: 84,717
Country Total confirmed pledges (persons) received since 2013
Argentina humanitarian visa program.
Australia 5,600 resettlement and Special Humanitarian Program.
Portugal 23 resettlement 70 emergency scholarships for higher education.
Spain 130 resettlement.
Sweden 2,700 resettlement.
Switzerland 3,500 resettlement and humanitarian visas.
United Kingdom Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme.
United States of America open-ended resettlement.
Uruguay 120 resettlement.
TOTAL 61,648 + additional number to the United States of America IN ADDITION…
Brazil has so far issued 6,053 humanitarian visas. Individuals admitted to Brazil under this program have the right to apply for refugee status.
Switzerland initiated a temporary extended family reunification program for Syrian refugees from September to November 2013. Under this program, 8,200 applications were received, and nearly 4,700 visas have been issued to date.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has so far accepted 143 Syrian refugees under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme (number of arrivals as at last quarterly published statistics).
Ireland has accepted 111 Syrian refugees under the Syrian Humanitarian Admission Program.
Since 2012, France has provided close to 1,400 asylum visas for Syrians, which enable them to travel to France for the purpose of applying for asylum.
UNHCR has so far submitted 10,715 Syrian refugees to the United States of America for resettlement consideration (as of 28 February 2015).
A number of scholarship programs have been created for Syrian students whose education has been interrupted by the conflict.
“If you think we’re electronically dependent now, you haven’t seen anything yet.”
Wireless communications will dominate everything, everywhere.
“Humanity will change more in the next 20 years than in all of human history.”
From the web to wildlife, the economy to nanotechnology, politics to sport, even transforming what it means to be human.
In my last three post I addressed the subject of Society changes due to Technologies : The Internet, Big Data, and Smart Phones. So it would seem remiss of me not to inform the sixteen years old of today what is in store for them when they are, lets say 65.
It’s hard to focus on the future when the present is changing so rapidly before our very eyes let alone what will happen in 50 years’ time.
I could predict that this and that is going to happen.
From the capturing and digitizing the entire information content of your brains to chips that will eventually may have the ability not just to store information, but to learn and remember, just as real brain cells do to create complete copies of our brains’ content.
I could draw up a list of WHAT IF’s:
Like: Like what if you could finding a method of copying and uploading human consciousness into a machine, or even a holographic virtual body — basically, a software replica of a person. Or what if Traditional pharmaceuticals is replaced by hyper-individualized medicines that are manufactured at the time they are ordered, or that most people will have stopped taking pills in favor of a new device that causes the body to manufacture it’s own cures.
I am sure they are (without looking) many sites that are doing exactly this; covering Science, Nature, Transport, Medical, and every other aspect of Life.
Happiness is a direction, not a place or perhaps it is dark matter yet to be discovered.
One way or the other it’s pretty clear that the future remains radically uncertain, and there’s not much we can do about it.
Living a public life is the new default.
It is not possible to live modern life without revealing personal information to governments and corporations. Few individuals will have the energy, interest, or resources to protect themselves from ‘data surveillance’; privacy will become a luxury.
It is also clear that there will be a need for a trusted infrastructure to be created in order to prevent massive fraud and massive public distrust in online transactions, and in online life, in general.
We will have to reinvent the entire Internet as we know it, shifting power from a few American tech companies to the individual who creates, and therefore owns, the data.
It is also clear that greed makes monsters of men and unless we put a harness on greed and make it serve the needs of humanity the next 50 and beyond will not be worth living.
We will need to create a personal dashboard, a safe haven, for every individual’s dossiers, transactions, money, and profiles. In this dashboard, you could set your privacy and communications settings.
All of this will create a big struggle about the question: Who owns (my) data?
My statement:
There is no way the world’s varied cultures, with their different views about privacy, will be able to come to an agreement on how to address civil liberties issues on the global Internet.
In 2065, we will have a post-Facebook and post-Google world.
We will have new business models in which facilitating data is more lucrative than owning data. As I have said if we do not make this transition, we face a privacy and fraud nightmare in which our lives are dominated by a few global tech companies.
We will have new generations of psychoactive drugs and eventually emerge, cognitive technology is likely to really, really rock our world.
We will run out of resources. We will have Climate change. We will have wars, and massive inequality, we will get humans to the nearest stars, we will be using English if not in the same form.
We will be wearing smart cloths connected to the internet (and even have linked stuff inside their bodies), we will be walking into internet-connected rooms and down networked streets, driving in the connected cars and public transit, get food and other goods from smart refrigerators/toasters/ovens, move through spaces bristling with connected sensors, and monitor remote places via apps and cameras.
The backlash against this most egregious privacy invasions will bring a new equilibrium between consumers, governments, and businesses—and more-savvy citizens will get better at hiding things they do not want others to see.
However predicting how it will all shake out is just fantasy.
Governments trying to protect themselves and their cultures might split the global internet into divided mess of networks.
The situation will worsen as the Internet of Things arises and people’s homes, workplaces, and the objects around them will ‘tattle’ on them.
The incentives for businesses to monetize people’s data and governments to monitor behavior will become extremely potent.
On the other hand citizens and consumers will have more control thanks to new tools that give them the power to negotiate with corporations and work around governments. Individuals will be able to choose to share personal information in a tiered approach that offers varied levels of protection and access by others.
The constellation of economic and security complexities will get bigger and harder to manage, belittling micro religions and what it means to be ‘educated’ will be replaced by other capacities.
People will get used to this, adjust their norms, and accept more sharing and collection of data as a part of life—especially Millennials and the young people who follow them some will complain but most will not object or muster the energy to push back against this new reality in their lives.
Society’s definitions of ‘privacy’ and ‘freedom’ will have changed so much by 2025 that today’s meanings will no longer apply.
We will certainly leave nothing behind that survives long in the digital age other than a future of “unevenly distributed” one with more social fissures might arise, presenting hurdles to people who do not have the resources to afford the gadgetry or the skills and tech-literacy to navigate the more complicated environment of 2025 never mind 2065.
Over 50% of today’s Fortune 500 companies will have disappeared.
The terms of citizenship and social life will rapidly change.
70% of today’s occupations will likewise be replaced by automation, with most coming back in different forms in different industries, with over 50% structured as freelance projects rather than full-time jobs.
50% of traditional colleges will have collapsed, and India will have overtaken China as the most populous country in the world.
Advocacy groups, service providers, large e-commerce companies, Google/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter, secret services, security officers in companies and consultancies, and individual Internet users… will also be very much involved with ongoing tension between these groups,
We’ll play games to solve problems.
There will be an extensive rise of anti-capitalism.
The Future will be an eerie spot.
Predicting the Future is much like predicting the weather, the farther we move into the future, the less accurate our predictions become. So why do we make them?
So we don’t wake up one morning and get a shock.
Feel free to giving serious consideration to each of them and deriving your own conclusions for good or bad.
Technology always changes social relationships so it stands to reason that the relationship of patient – doctor is also going to change.
THEY CAN TAKE A BOW. YOU ARE ALL DOING YOUR PART.
The majority of refugees — about 70 percent — live outside camps.
bobdillon33blog 