( Eighteen minute read)

This might be a far flung proposition, but as we watch democracy diminishing around the world, replaced with tyranny, driven by social media lies and profit seeking algorithms, combined with climate change, we presently, live in societies that range from completely dysfunctional to marginally functional.

We cannot just fight back, mitigate harms and regulate retrospectively.

We must build a vision for a more positive future, where technology is shaped and harnessed as a force for good.

Why?

Because by imagining the future we want to see, we stand a better chance of reaching it.

Because we are now living in fragile times. One tipping point in climate change could trigger all the rest or Vladimir Putin’s current war in Ukraine could end in nuclear annihilation.

——————

History has a way of sticking around, teaching us how far we’ve come and illustrating how human nature has both changed and managed to stay the same all at once, but the coming age of technology changes and climate changes is going to change how history is made.

Even in the most advanced of our societies, immense problems threaten to overwhelm the citizenry in the decades ahead.

We have to place as much importance on political, social, economic, demographic and environmental trends as technological ones.

Most notably, technological, climate change, because either of these two mega-forces will precipitate, if not effectively countered in the near term will plunge the planet into a global war.

————–

We need to learn how to think in order to survive, and that is what we should do, and to do that, to learn how to think.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a difficult lesson in just how susceptible our world is today to human and economic turmoil, it has also – perhaps for the first time in history – necessitated global collaboration, data transparency and speed at the highest levels of government in order to minimize an immediate threat to human life.

We need to create a society that attempts to do so, in the experimental laboratory that is the earth.

Or we may not do so, fail to learn, and vanish:  Our choice.

———————

Apart from our bodies following some very strict and complex biological laws, without which we’d all be doomed, there has long been an appetite among some people for a less formalised society, a society without government, a world where individual freedom takes precedence.

Our thoughts, and the deeds that follow our thoughts, can make us greater than we have ever been, or they can destroy us utterly.

What is the ideal social and political structure for a modern society, if you had the ability to start from scratch?

Let’s take a look.

The trouble with anarchy, is that it is inherently unstable – humans continually, and spontaneously, generate new rules governing behaviour, communication and economic exchange, and they do so as rapidly as old rules are dismantled.

The same phenomenon of spontaneous rule construction when people had collectively to manage common resources such as common land, fisheries, or water for irrigation.

These rules aren’t just invented by rulers and imposed from the top down – instead, they often arise, unbidden, from the needs of mutually agreeable social and economic interactions.

Our relationship with rules does seem to be unique to humans hardwired into our DNA. In fact, our species’ ability to latch onto, and enforce, arbitrary rules is crucial to our success as a species.

One danger is that rules can develop their own momentum: And then there’s “rule-creep”:

Rules just keep being added and extended, so that our individual liberty is increasingly curtailed. Planning restrictions, safety regulations and risk assessments can seem to accumulate endlessly and may extend their reach far beyond any initial intention.

The biggest ways in which the world will change are not isolated technological advancements, but rather a paradigm shift resulting from the progression to an abundance-based, sustainable society that has been re-engineered from the ground up.

Individuals, and societies, face a continual battle over rules – and we must be cautious about their purpose.

Rules, like good policing, rely on our consent.

And those that don’t have our consent can become the instruments of tyranny. So perhaps the best advice is mostly to follow rules, but always to ask why.

—————-

What is the ideal social and political structure for a modern society, if you had the ability to start from scratch?

The first question you may ask yourself is, where do I even start, to create a new society.

What the purpose of your society will be, you’ll want to write your society’s constitution.

The society’s name, the structure of the society, the levels of membership and what each level means,

In a healthy society, money serves the economy and economy serves the people, so we need to make sure that what follows capitalism is human-centred and not oppressive.

Here is my blue print for present day.

• Harness digital technologies to improve lives and reorient technology towards more social ends;
• Empower citizens to take more control over their lives, and to use their collective knowledge and skills to positive effect;
• Make government more accountable and transparent;
• Foster and promote alternatives to the dominant technological and business models — alternatives which are open and collaborative rather than closed and competitive;
• Use technology to create a more environmentally sustainable society.

 A future technological society run by AI.

No distinction between race or sex.

No Government, the AI organise everything.

No exchange, all goods and services FREELY ACCESSED by everyone.

No Classes, no one can subjugate another as a class, wealth structure would be abolished.

No nation states, all states will be geographical areas freely accessed by the peoples of the world.

No property ownership the materials (land, fuel, transport systems, factories, machinery, technology etc) freely accessible for people to satisfy their needs.

No wages, people can freely take form what they and society produces.

All financial institutions Banks, Building societies, Insurance, Assurance buildings, automatically turned over to the people and their use decided upon by the people, whether for accommodation or local amenities etc.

All decisions within society are made by the people whether local or global as we have the technology to inform all those it concerns and everyone is accountable to the AI Cloud.  Accordingly, people would be responsible for the outcome of their decisions.

(John Dalberg-Acton), so no matter the apparent knowledge, etc., there can be no ultimate trust, only verifiable trust. And for all to receive, all must contribute.

All leaders would have a limited term, say two years.

Who fills which role and their respective duties within the society will be decided amongst the four people chosen and approved by the AI cloud, which should be clearly defined in a new constitution.

AI only task would be to review the decisions made by the people and if it found a decision to be potentially harmful, to put that decision on hold for a period not exceeding one year. At the end of the set period, the people would vote again, and the second vote would be binding, not subject to any further appeal.

These would be a president, a vice president, a treasurer, and a secretary with social media accounts ratifying outline for how to make amendments to the constitution.

But “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

Accordingly, all who comprise a society, are of age, and not disqualified owing to acts they committed or illness that affects their comprehension, should be able to decide directly (i.e. by means of internet or similar connection) on the issues that may affect them, and to decide on the budget that would be required, and to approve of the managers that would supervise the implementation of those decisions (a different manager for each project, so as not to consolidate power in one person).

They would then allocate resources (funds, people) to present to the people all available information on the topic pertaining to the people’s decision.

Good decisions would benefit them. Bad decisions would tend to encourage them to become more informed about the topics that they decided, as well as to consider the possibly adverse outcomes of their decisions before they made such decisions.

Engineering biology, machine learning and the sharing economy would be establish a framework for decentralising the healthcare continuum, moving it from institutions to the individual.

“Je pense, donc je suis” (René Descartes) is indeed existential, because we think.

——————-

Technologies may one day offer us the opportunity to live healthily well beyond 100 years, enhance our intellectual and physical abilities and control our emotions. Technology may also enable us to become producers of our own products, track what we think and guide our decision-making.

The questions are as evolution continues, as it will there are many. 

How will we safeguard the instincts that help us survive?

How will hard-fought-for values such as tolerance, individuality and freedom of choice evolve?

Who will control the ecosystem of data and technology that influence our decisions and what accountability mechanisms will be available to us?

What would changes brought about by such emerging technologies really mean for the real ‘us’?

If in the future we can enhance ourselves “on demand”, it raises the question whether advancements to our capabilities are a means to an end or whether they are ends in and of themselves?

What will drive and motivate us if we can enhance ourselves and if choices are made for us?

Will we still feel needed and in what way?

If for the first time in our species’ history we can actively influence our evolutionary process, what will happen if not everyone has access to these technologies or if some decide to “opt out”?

Will the absence of failure in an “enhanced” society hold civilization back and will “unenhanced” humans thus be needed to ensure disruptive progress?

How will emerging technologies interact with the value systems of traditional religions?

If in the future technologies merge with the body, it could become almost impossible to disconnect from networks.

People themselves would then be part of the “internet of things”.

Will the benefits of technology such as remote medical care, for example, offset the cost in the loss of intimacy associated with personal care?

For which benefits are we prepared to give up control over our bodies and to whom?

What areas of our lives will we expect to remain private and will we continue to need private spaces?

In addition, we now can receive real-time feedback about what and who is best for us through tracking and matching tools, which tend to ignore the contradictory nature of the human mind.

Will our decisions come to be based mostly on our intuition, on data analytics, or on peers’ recommendations?

Will we have “thought-police”, reinforcing the power of a few, or will civil society use technologies to place extra checks on decision-makers?

Will we trust each other or, instead, trust what data might tell us about each other?

Finally a plan for what should happen to your assets if your society were to dissolve.

—————–

By 2025, quantum computing will have outgrown its infancy, and a first generation of commercial devices will be able tackle meaningful, real-world problems

.The roll-out of 5G creates markets that we only imagine – like self-driving bots, along with a mobility-as-a-service economy – and others we can’t imagine, enabling next generations to invent thriving markets and prosperous causes.

Technology that accelerates our ability to rapidly sample, digitalize and interpret microbiome data will transform our understanding of how pathogens spread but history will be our judge

So far despite the heroic resolve and resiliency on a country by country basis, as a world we have underperformed.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

( Fifteen minute read)

This is a country lurching from one crisis to another, a country is crying out for hope. A country that no longer works.

We tend to think of the world’s most powerful nations as unshakable actors on the world stage, but of course they are not.

The grim reality for Britain as it faces up to 2024 is that no other major power on earth stands quite as close to its own dissolution.

Given its recent record, perhaps this should not be a surprise.

By leaving the European Union, achieving the rare feat of erecting an economic border with its largest trading partner and with a part of itself, Northern Ireland, while adding fuel to the fire of Scottish independence for good measure. And if this wasn’t enough, it then spectacularly failed in its response to the coronavirus pandemic, combining one of the worst death rates in the developed world with one of the worst economic recessions.

Reaping the rewards of the Maggie Thatcher years, the United Kingdom is being confronted with huge problems it can no longer wish away.

A victim of modern privatised capitalism’s, increasing fondness for stripping out, squeezing down, and chasing dividends, it has ignored the needs of its people for the sake of GDP.

From the divisive 2016 Brexit referendum and the years long turmoil of leaving the E.U. (the world’s largest trading bloc – one that is seven times larger than the UK by population), England is now losing its wealth through a stupid gamble based on a pack of lies.

To the COVID-19 pandemic in which the U.K. suffered the worst per capita death toll in Western Europe it was then hit by multiple blows in the span of just a few months.

The downfall of Boris Johnson following a series of scandals that engulfed his government, on July 7; the death of the country’s longest-reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, on Sept. 8; the crashing of the British pound two weeks later, after then Prime Minister Liz Truss unveiled a package of unfunded tax cuts for the superrich; and, finally, the collapse of yet another Conservative government on Oct. 20.

One only has to look, to see more and more appeals for help.  From charitable organisation, from the NHS, to RSPCA to the RNI, to Schools, to foodbanks, to see that it is plunging deeper into crisis by the day, with a government missing in action.

It is against this bleak backdrop that virtually everyone—from political analysts to pollsters and even most voters—expects that Starmer will become the U.K.’s 58th Prime Minister when the country holds its next general election by January 2025.

In the mean time Sunak (whose reported $837 million net worth makes him the richest-ever occupant of Downing Street) is Prime Minister without a peoples mandate.

As the U.K.’s latest leader, Rishi Sunak, emerged unelected by the people to replacement to Truss.

The fifth Prime Minister in just over six years.

A prime minister who has done more than any other person in Britain to enable division and stupidity, while life in the U.K. is becoming less hopeful, more expensive, and, increasingly, shorter.

Rishi Sunak was asked what “levelling up” actually means, he simply laughed. 

There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn.

There is something much deeper wrong.

It is the country itself that is now creeping out shamefacedly from its empire/ industrialist days into the light, wondering what, exactly, is wrong with it.

At the heart of Britain’s crisis is a crisis of identity. Put simply, no other major power is quite as conflicted about whether it is even a nation to begin with, let alone what it takes to act like one.

With the passing of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, it is now one of the rare states in the Western world whose name is not simply the nation it represents: The United Kingdom is more than Britain and the British. Some of its citizens believe themselves to be British, while others say they are not British at all.

For many, the root of Britain’s existential crisis today is Brexit—an apparent spasm of English nationalism that has broken the social contract holding Britain’s union of nations together, revealing the country’s true nature as an unequal union, of the English, by the English, for the English.

Although Brexit was carried by a majority of the U.K. as a whole, it was opposed by two of its constituent parts, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was the votes of England, its dominant nation, that carried the day.

Yet the truth is that the Englishness of Brexit only matters if people see themselves as something other than British.

The great British bake off, run badly, staffed by people who don’t care enough.

It has grown lazy and complacent, unable to act with speed and purpose.

The state had stopped paying attention to the basics of government, whether that was the development of its economy, the protection of its borders, or the defence of the realm.

Instead, it had become guilty of a failed elite groupthink that had allowed separatism to flourish, wealth to concentrate in London and its surrounding areas, and the political elite to ignore the public mood.

In its scramble to survive, it forgot who it was, now destine to break up into its old component parts.

The U.K., is currently projected to be the G-7’s worst economic performer this year, is on track to become poorer than post-Communist Poland by the end of the decade.

Inflation, which reached a 41-year high in October, has barely eased. The worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation has led to crippling labour strikes, prompting hundreds of thousands of workers—among them doctors, nurses, train drivers, and teachers—to walk out in demand of better pay in the past year.

The cost of living crisis didn’t suddenly materialise in 2022. The living crisis is nothing new for millions of people who have lived in fear of hunger and homelessness for 12 years.

From 2010, a decade of austerity saw £37bn slashed from the welfare system. Food banks became a shameful fact of life. Wages have continued to stagnate and access to stable, even halfway affordable housing has become increasingly chimerical.

The most up-to-date figures show that 13 million people were living in relative poverty in 2020-21, with another seven million living in a state of perpetual “financial fear” At least 320,000 people are currently homeless in the UK.

As everyday costs continue to detach from reality, pressure has ratcheted up to new extremes.

Even the proposed solutions have their own built-in traps and inadequacies. It might mean being forced into predatory loans to make increasingly frayed ends meet, or living in a home with a more costly pre-payment energy meter. It might mean a lack of access to stable credit, or even a bank account.

If budgeting was torturous before, then it is becoming borderline impossible in the current climate. This is doubly true for those with existing debts with hidden tax costing some of the poorest people an estimated additional £430 a year.

How are you supposed to plan against the future when ends never quite seem to meet?

What is happing?

For example. Under Starmer, Labour’s policies for nationalizing public utilities have been side-lined by pledges to deliver the highest sustained economic growth in the G-7.

Decades of underinvestment have taken their toll on the UK. Major infrastructure projects, from broadband to sewers, were put on hold, leading to massive issues nationwide.

————-

The UK has endured a “lost decade” of productivity.

The UK is home to an ageing population. According to the latest statistics from Age UK, there are now nearly 12 million people aged over 65 in Britain.

What is certain is that it need to channel the surplus of money more effectively towards sustainable asset classes that deliver both economic and social returns, and to correct decades of underinvestment.

Its politicians, its business and banking leaders need to collaboratively join the dots.

Against this background what we see are two worthless new aircraft carriers, a highspeed railway costing trillions, as the government prepares to finalise a £24.5bn deal to build Hinkley C, the country’s first new nuclear plant for a generation. (A fifth more expensive than in France, a third more than the US and more than twice the projected costs in China or Korea.) Despite this, nuclear power continues to form a key plank of the UK government’s “portfolio” approach to decarbonisation.

It’s hardly news that life in the UK is becoming untenable.

As the days grow darker, so too does the mood in the UK as it head’s into yet another punishing winter.

Most people in the UK will see their quality of life deteriorate in the short term.

———

Benefit spending is constantly in the news but how much do we really know about where the benefits money goes in the UK?

£159bn was spent on benefits – an increase of 1.1% on the previous year. That is 23% of all public spending. With 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners. For 9.6 million families, benefits make up more than half of their income (30% of all families), around 5.3 million of them pensioners.

The UK is home to an ageing population. According to the latest statistics from Age UK, there are now nearly 12 million people aged over 65 in Britain^[

The NHS started in 1948 and now employs over 1.5 million people. This makes it the biggest employer in the UK, in Europe, and 5th biggest in the World.

The wage bill for the NHS makes up a substantial proportion of its budget. In 2021/22, the total cost of NHS staff was £66.2 billion which amounted to 45.2 per cent of the NHS budget.

• Day-to-day spending on the NHS will rise by 3.8% between 2021/22 and 2024/25, reaching a total of £166bn (in today’s prices) by 2024/25. The capital budget to cover NHS infrastructure costs will reach £10.5bn in 2024/25 (in today’s prices), in line with the REAL Centre’s projection of what is needed over this period. With a population of 67 million, that is about £2700 each.
• So here is a few radical suggestion.   
• England the country – not the football team – it needs to take a look at itself.
• Scrap first past to post voting. Replace it Proportional Representation to reflect its multi cultural population.  In doing so place the Monarchy on a historical footing paying for its self from its own wealth. This requires a written constitution.
• The central problem is this:
• With a separate Scottish Parliament, Scottish voters can elect lawmakers to the British Parliament in Westminster, whose votes decide policies that only apply in England. English voters, meanwhile, have no say over policies decided by the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, even though the money used to pay for these policies is raised by the British government. This structural problem has no solution, either, because to create an English parliament on a similar footing to the Scottish one would mean that the most important person in the country would no longer be the British prime minister, but whoever ran the new English assembly.
• Scrap the Benefit Society and charge a fees for hospital attendance while Introducing a Universal basic income for £1,600 a month for all those with citizenship earning less than living wage.

  With such an income they are no longer entitled to benefits, must look after their own health and education. A UBI would directly alleviate poverty and boost millions of people’s wellbeing: the potential benefits are just too large to ignore.

  No one should ever be facing poverty, having to choose between heating and eating.

  Some serious consideration of reform is vital to how millions of National Lottery and public money is spent on sport which should be funded by income of Football worth trillions.

  This is the time to be talking about constitutional change in order to use money and investment as a force for good not profit. Integrate the action of individual agents, such as businesses, industries, banks and hedge funds, from the ground up because with technology these systems are suddenly become wildly unpredictable, exhibiting extreme fluctuations.

  It all points to governments worldwide and how they have bought into the idea that economic growth can be perpetuated for ever. But that isn’t strictly realistic without action.
  For instance:
  The green energy transition will affect every aspect of life. Armed Forces often have a strong influence on governments across the world and therefore if they act, governments are more likely to act. British military activity are responsible for approximately 50% of all UK government emissions, it plays a fundamental role in helping the country reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. Climate change is important, but the time scales being talked about (2050, or even 2030) are seen as distant – important, but not urgent when urgent is something faced today, tomorrow. The solution is to make the important urgent, and this is beginning to happen.
  ————

  England is so deep in places that its secrets remain hidden. 

  Does the future of the United Kingdom—a political entity only 100 years old—really matter?

  After all, the state that exists today is the product of Irish secession in 1921.

  One of the problems in Britain is that the loss of faith in the country is now so pervasive that it is hard to know whether it can be rebuilt.

  The union is not only being questioned by Welsh, Irish, and Scottish nationalists, but also, now, by the once-unionist middle classes in England for whom Brexit has broken a bit of the faith they had in Britain. Some simply no longer believe it’s worth saving.

  The Republic of Ireland in recent years must also acknowledge the uncomfortable challenge it presents to British unionism.

  And this is not just because it too is wealthy and settled, but because, in the imaginative sense, it knows who it is. Its national myths and stories might be just as bogus as any other country’s, but it believes them and promotes them through symbols and ceremonies. It is, in effect, a deeply conservative state that promotes a cohesive nationalism in a way the British state simply does not.

  For Ireland, this success carries its own challenge as it seeks to subsume Northern Ireland and its million-strong British Protestant population, who do not share these national stories.

  Look after the people first and GDP growth will follow.

  It seems to me that if Britain is to survive, it has to believe that there is such a thing as Britain and act as though that is the case.

  At root, Brexit was an assertion of nation—the British nation—but one mostly made by the English.

  Here in lies its essential paradox. It is a revolution that has the potential to accelerate the breakup of the nation by revealing its Englishness, but also one that carries within it the potential to slowly rebuild a sense of Britishness by creating a new national distinctiveness from the other: Europe.

  Outside the European Union, Britain’s collective experience becomes more national by definition.

  It is for this reason that Brexit makes Scottish independence more likely in the short term, but more complicated in the long term, because it would mean imposing a hard border across the island of Britain that would not have been necessary had the U.K. remained in the EU.

  In time, Brexit might prove to be the thing that finally breaks the union, or a shock that started the long, painful rebuilding process.

  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains an unusual country, but its vital memories are dying.

  To survive, it must be more than empty pomp.

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

  Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

( Five minute read) 

Most of the world is football mad however the world pays a high price for a goal considering the  amount of prize money that a victorious Gladiator could expect, which varied depending on the time he lived.

In the Year 177 AD, Gladiators could get between 12 and 60 Sesterces if they were slaves and 15 to 75 sesterces if they were auctoratii. Free Veteran Gladiators without an owner, could negotiate their pay.

Since they were Veterans with a huge reputation and a corresponding fan base they would make much more than 12-75 sesterces per fight.

The highest-paid gladiators might make up to 5000 sesterces around £50 “of our present money”.

Well here is the answer.

Top 10 highest-paid soccer players in the world (September, 2022)

1. Kylian Mbappe = $125 million total ($105 million salary + $20 million endorsements)

2. Cristiano Ronaldo = $113 million ($53 million salary + $60 million endorsements)

3. Lionel Messi = $110 million ($62 million salary + $48 million endorsements)

4. Neymar = $91 million ($56 million salary + $35 million endorsements)

5. Mohamed Salah = $39.5 million ($24.5 million salary + $15 million endorsements)

6. Eden Hazard = $31.3 million ($28.6 million salary + $2.5 million endorsements)

7. Andres Iniesta = $30 million ($23 million salary + $7 million endorsements)

8. Raheem Sterling = $29.4 million ($21.4 million salary + $8 million endorsements)

9. Kevin de Bruyne = $29 million ($25.5 million salary + $3.5 million endorsements)

10. Antoine Griezmann = $27.5 million ($22 million salary + $5.5 million endorsements)

                                            —————————-

When it comes to matchday income, gate receipts is by far the most significant resource. However, its importance varies between one club and another based on several factors, including the capacity of the stadium and the general status of the club.

Matchday income is the total revenue generated by a club when hosting a match on home turf. In the Premier League, the home side exclusively receives the money generated from gate receipts. Every season, each club hosts 19 league fixtures, and is entitled to earn all the cash generated from its home games.

Naturally, box office income is the largest percentage of the matchday revenue, but it also includes food and beverage sales, as well as merchandise sales. For instance, Tottenham Hotspur is believed to generate around £800,000 per game from food sales. 

On the other hand, TV money made up almost 60% of the clubs’ incomes, while commercial revenues averaged around 27% of the total income.

The Premier League clubs paid out an astonishing grand total of over £261m on striker salaries last season, this divided by how long the strikers spent playing shows just how much they pay per minute.

Arsenal pay their strikers the highest amount of £3,721.37 per minute,

The average Blues fan (who regularly attended matches at the Stamford Bridge) spent £1,648 during that campaign.

The up and coming World cup tournament in Qatar has also incurred a human cost as well as a financial one. The total outlay paid out by Qatar is staggering, around $ 7 billion.

————————– 

I want you now to close your eyes and picture the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,

Now what comes to mind?

Membership has its privileges. And before you can buy a ticket for 19 grand, you must be a member of the Economic Forum which costs a mere 52,000. And remember, that’s only if you’re invited.

For most it’s billionaires, CEOs, and world leaders hobnobbing in the Alps, but not for me.

It’s the $43 hot dog or Caesar salad, just short of $ 60 bucks.

Don’t get me wrong I love sport.

But how did we get here?”

The answer lies in decades of peddling the myth that wealth and success flow from personal endeavour and skill, and that poverty and failure are due to personal shortcomings.

The reality that most wealth and success stems from a mix of good fortune and the appropriation of other people’s resources and labour over centuries. 

Yes, a handful of individuals with exceptional talents can make a quantum leap from poverty to fortune, but most are constrained by the realities of an economic system that has, for decades, seen a reduction in the share of  wealth going to those reliant on their own labour for income. 

I’d be interested to see what responses would be to questions such as this (considering that poverty is the main cause of world problems nowadays)

It’s 2020 now. Look what’s happened because of humanity! Australia is on fire! The endangered list is now 41,416! You know how big that number is, that’s a really big number! People think climate change doesn’t exist, yeah, people only believe things when they cause problems. Maybe people will believe climate change exists if every country is on fire.

People make fun of this topic but don’t! It is a serious problem and if we don’t solve it we all will die because of our actions.

Is there such a thing as Global Cooling? Probably not, but I like the sound of it.

There are too many people who don’t and can’t have enough, and it’s detrimental to continue to add to the population so rapidly. Of course, if those who selfishly own so much for themselves or to save so future generations of their family will also be wealthy would just share with those who are here and in need..

At the moment we have the Woman’s world cup , Harry Kane – Spurs – just sold to Bayern München – 86 million.

So why pressurise FIFA the world governing body to let every goal in the coming World Cup in Qatar to contribute to reliving poverty.  Lets say 50,000 per goal.  

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com