Author Archives: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THEY THE TORIES ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.

23 Sunday Oct 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., Brexit., England departure from the EU., England in five years., England's future., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., Inflation., The cost of the Tories., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THEY THE TORIES ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.

(Seven minute read)

On a annual salary of £115,000  and expenses Liz Trust lasted less than fifty days in office.

She can walk away with £19,000 in severance pay plus her expenses.

Tony Blair and John Major also received the annual salary of £115,000 pounds.

Gordon Brown £114, 800. David Cameron £111,400.

Theresa May a sitting MP can claim a parliament staffing budget of £35,000 on top of the annual  salary.

So what does it all cost?

The Gravy House of the Lords.

800 members/ peer costing £30,000 per member at a total cost of around £117.4 million.

They are entitled to £323 pounds a day just for signing into the Chamber.

Houses Of Parliament Wallpapers - Wallpaper Cave

The Poor House the Common’s.

The total spend of members of parliament was £132.5 million in the 2020-21.

The average cost of an MP was £203,880 in 2020-21, a 29.2 per cent increase.

The Royal House. Buckingham Palace.

It cost the taxpayer a mire £103 million ( 2021-22)

————————

The Tories are throwing away any right to claim that they are the careful custodians of the public’s money.

The inglorious history of their follies are crying out with horror at the cost, crying with laughter at the sheer stupidity of so many bad decisions. They are now making a very strong bid to be the most blunder-prone regime of the modern era.

The net cost of the bank bailouts—once you factor in money recouped by the government—was £27 billion. Separate figures from the National Audit Office (NAO) in 2018 estimated the sum spent to stabilise the banks to be £133 billion.

Most of the trade deals with non-EU countries that the UK has signed have been small in their economic effect, and have merely been “rolled over” from identical ones when we were an EU member.

The impression was that there would be no downside. We would thrive outside Europe’s bureaucracy which was strangling our companies with red tape. The huge benefits of the single market – trading freely across borders, with common standards – were never highlighted.

Two new carriers that has attracted criticism over its £6.2bn cost more than £2bn over the original estimate.

The latest estimate of the cost of HS2 has spiralled to between £72bn and £98bn.

Then came the dispute over the Northern Ireland protocol, an issue that so infuriated the EU it has refused to ratify Britain’s associate membership of the €95bn scheme.

The final cost of the Tories is that 70% of economic turnover was international before Brexit. It went from 70% to 50% to 30%,  it would be twice the size if it were not for Brexit.

Then came Covid which compounded Brexit’s disruption to British government, while Boris Johnson’s cavalier approach to leadership and to constitutional norms puts stresses and strains on all of its institutions. The books on the history of Covid-19 will show the ways in which money was blown in such spectacular style. It was a vast pyrotechnic display of borrowed moola such as we’ll surely never see repeated. Much of it, in the UK, as with other countries, was spent without apparent constraint.

Furlough – or the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, to give it a name – cost a staggering £70bn.

The fiscal year 2020-21 was the first one in which government spending in the UK surpassed a trillion pounds, reaching £1096bn. That was a one-year increase of 23.5%.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, said:

“Economic growth isn’t some academic term with no connection to the real world. It means more jobs, higher pay and more money to fund public services, like schools and the NHS.

Leave the Tories in power and the results will speak for themselves.

The north-south divide has now least 85 years.

The UK has higher levels of regional inequality than any other large wealthy country.

Levelling up like Boris it is absolutely miles away. It would cost  hundreds of billions of pounds over decades if done properly. its

Nothing more than rhetoric in a country up to its neck in Debt.

The cost of Boris Johnson’s ‘levelling up’: £2tn.

A drop in the ocean of inflation.

Boris Johnson said at the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre in Coventry that regional inequalities are an ‘outrage’

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail,com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. BRITISH DEMOCRACY IS AILING. 

21 Friday Oct 2022

Posted by in England in five years., England's future., England., English General Election., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. BRITISH DEMOCRACY IS AILING. 

Tags

, , , , ,

( Three minute read)

Liz Truss was just the last in line. For the past dozen years, each leader has left the country poorer, weaker, and more divided than the last.

In her departure, Truss offered little defence and no apology, confirming her unfitness for office. The fact that she got there at all only reveals the smallness of the regime that awarded her the role.

So now Britain is once again looking for a new prime minister. Johnson is said to be flying home from the Caribbean to enter the fray, dreaming of a Churchillian redemption. The two men who declared him unfit for office—Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove—now also have another shot at power.

The genesis of Britain’s misfortunes could be dated to 1929, when the world economy imploded and a monstrous regime of little men took over in London.

The next prime minister, whoever that may be, will face an extraordinary set of challenges largely of their Conservative Party’s own making.

But when did this era of the small people begin? What was its genesis?

Calamities are always seeded by events that came before.

Some will argue it was the 2016 vote for Brexit, but that lets off the hook those who legislated for it without any plan to enact it.

Major’s European compromise left Britain inside the European Union but outside its single currency.

Tony Blair came to power. Blair proved unable to change Major’s compromise and pursued instead a series of radical constitutional changes that slowly undermined the unity of the country he thought he was building.

Gordon Brown, Blair’s replacement, watched everything explode in the great financial crisis.

For the past 12 years, Britain has been led by a succession of Conservative prime ministers—each, like Russian dolls, somehow smaller than the last—who have contrived to leave the country in a worse state than it was when they took over. By the time Liz Truss assumed office last month, she evidently had no conception of the damage done by this period of Tory rule, how exposed Britain had become, how fragile, how vulnerable. Without Truss realizing it, Britain had become too weak to cope with a leader so small.

Britain is now permanently under the threat of breakup.

Cameron had to keep his promise of a referendum on Europe, lost, and resigned. As with the Scottish case, he had refused to countenance any preparations for the possibility of a winning Leave vote. Cameron left behind a country divided and a Parliament that did not want Brexit but was tasked with delivering it without any idea how. By any estimation, it was a catastrophic miscarriage of statecraft.

Brexit became Theresa May’s. May was a serious, qualified, thoughtful Conservative who had opposed Brexit but now assumed responsibility for it. But she was simply not up to the job. Being prime minister requires not just diligence and seriousness but political acumen and an ability to lead. She had too little of either.

In 2019, Boris Johnson finally grabbed the long-sought crown—only to find a way to lose it in disgrace three years later. Despite his brief tenure, Johnson remains one of the most influential—and notorious—figures in post-war British history. Without him, the country likely would not have voted for Brexit in the first place, let alone seen it pushed through Parliament.

Now, surely, it is time for the CONSERVIT party that enabled the guilty of today to heed advice:

In the name of God, go!

Diagnosing the problem is one thing, and finding a way to deal with it is another.

Misperceive the views of one’s rival  political identity is formed more by despising the other side than by any particular affinity for the views of one’s own party.

What is now evident beyond doubt is the need for a leader to acting on his beliefs, rather than talking about them to get out of schizophrenia of announcements while nothing moves at the level of the means.

The White Saviour Industrial Complex of London allows white people of privilege to brush aside systemic racism, injustice, and corruption in favour of individual acts of charity..

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THIS IS WHY ENGLAND IS IN SUCH A MESS.

21 Friday Oct 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., British Culture., England in five years., England's future., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., English General Election., English parliamentary proceedings., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THIS IS WHY ENGLAND IS IN SUCH A MESS.

Tags

, , , , ,

It lack a culture of consensus, and has now lost the means of building and developing one.

Why?

Because it has a democracy that is managed by a narrow elite who for centuries have put power and wealth before its people.

The Brexit referendum and the increasing ideological polarisation in both main political parties are a sign of this.

Britain is about the only country in Europe with a primitive ‘first past the post’ electoral system rather than a proportional electoral system.

Why has this mess developed only now?

I am sure that few people in England are now really nostalgic for empire, although a great many don’t realise just what a hideous mess it often left behind.

Nationalism and sectarian politics feed on nostalgia like vampires feed on blood.

One outcome of the inability to compromise in Britain, has been the ‘austerity’ economics practised over the last eight years. More than anything else this is what is driving so many people into poverty (20% now below the official poverty line) It degraded health and education services, shutting museums and libraries, causing physical infrastructure to break up and much much more.

Britain does not have a constitution.

It is therefore ruled by antiquated institutions such a the Crown.

The set of laws, rules and yes, that great British favourite, the ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’, that make up what amounts to a constitution has evolved organically over time, but has not developed to reflect a world driven by theological data or a country that is populated by immigration on low wages and benefits.

The system does not cope when politicians that are intransigent and ideological as they are now.

The system is now essentially ‘presidential’, i.e. the Prime Minister has the power and Members of Parliament follow the party line.

There is no expectation that Parliament takes the initiative, so when they have done, as now, there are no rules to call a general election, the ship of state is left drifting and rudderless without the voice of the people been heard, so the elite consensus that managed the binary oppositions starts to fall apart.

Its a country where anyone can call themselves a builder and start selling themselves as such, there are no identity cards so the government does not know who the **** we are.

There is no list of citizens. In fact the citizens are not really citizens at all they are surfs.

There is an electoral register (i.e. who can vote), passports (but if you didn’t travel you wouldn’t have one) and National Insurance numbers, which are about working and tax payments. There has never been a register of British citizens as such so in fact, government does not (or did not) really know who had a right to be here, and who didn’t.

Every country and ethnic identity is racist, that’s part of the human condition, but what is odd about a lot of English racism is that it is not directed so much at black or brown people but at other Europeans .

The ‘wogs begin at Calais’ attitudes, send them to Rwanda.

The EU is seen as a Franco-German plot, targeting Britain.

History shows that It made its wealth on the back of an navy that circumnavigated oceans and seas, which created an empire on the backs of slaves and sugar – a sad truth.

Who owns England?

Behind this simple question lies England’s oldest and best-kept secret.

It’s a secret that goes back to the Domesday Book – and an issue that goes to the heart of many of the biggest problems the country has – affordability of housing, unable to grow enough of its food, not much space left aside for nature. 

Rural landowners, meanwhile, are rewarded by the taxpayer for simply owning land through farm subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy has paid landowners according to the area of land they farm, rather than the public goods they deliver, thereby propping up a system of intensive agriculture that has decimated wildlife and natural habitats.

For most of the 20th century, the aristocracy showed itself remarkably indifferent to the welfare of the nation, After democracy finally shunted aside hereditary lords, they found new means to protect their extravagant riches. For all the modern tales of noble poverty and leaking ancestral homes, their private wealth and influence remain phenomenal. 

The British aristocracy’s defining feature is not a noble aspiration to serve the common weal but a desperate desire for self-advancement. They endlessly reinforced their own status and enforced deference on others through ostentatiously exorbitant expenditure on palaces, clothing and jewellery. They laid down a strict set of rules for the rest of society, but lived by a different standard. Such is their sense of entitlement that they believed – and persuaded others to believe – that a hierarchical society with them placed firmly and unassailably at the top was the natural order of things.

The secret of their modern existence is their sheer invisibility.

According to a 2010 report for Country Life, a third of Britain’s land still belongs to the aristocracy.

The financial sector is hailed as the crowning glory of the UK economy. A massive financial sector on the tiny island is making a visible minority filthy rich but as it blooms, everything else withers.

The power of London finance is hurting Britain, to the tune of £4.5tn.

Many people in Britain, it is true, are ambivalent about all this. They rightly fret that the City is a global money-laundering paradise, harming other nations, but (whisper it quietly) they like the hot money and oligarchs it attracts to its shores. There is a trade-off, they think, between doing the right thing and preserving our prosperity.

Underpinning all this is the fallacy of composition, of a trickle down economy, whereby the fortunes of big businesses and big banks are conflated with the fortunes of our whole economy.

This is where the myth of great, finally dies.

As Liza Trust now knows economies, tax systems and cities are nothing like companies, and don’t compete like she might think – scrap TAX ON HIGHT EARNERS.

The finance curse of Quantize Easing shows that too much finance harms your economy, then pursuing more finance through the competitiveness agenda only makes things worse.

There is no trade-off WITH CREDITORS.

Blaming the problems on Brexit and the Ukraine war, or the price of energy, inflation, does not close foodbanks, or stop zero- hours contracts, or attract investment.

Rule of law, a healthy and educated workforce, good infrastructure, access to prosperous, thirsty markets, good inputs and supply chains and economic stability. All these require tax revenues.

The race does not stop when tax rates reach zero.

To prosper, Britain should increase its effective corporate tax rates, at least for financiers and large multinationals, plus a surcharge to cover the roaming members of the billionaire classes who won’t. 

By leaving the EU and joining the “competitive” global race England has not only been beggaring others – it has beggaring its selves, too.

In order not to be stuck in ugly race to the bottom, THE COUNTRY NOW NEEDS A MASSIVE RESET.

A good place to start to create a future of largely harmonious multi-cultural society, would be to abolish students debt and start educating its young for free.

I recently heard a Labour Politician advocate that England should create an sovereign wealth funds, Fund. With what? It’s too late now:

There is only one way forward simply step out of the race, unilaterally by appealing not just to national self-interest, by mobilise the biggest constituency of all its people and put finance back in its rightful place: Serving Britain’s people, not served by them.

Tragically we are watching a country of Plenty turning to poverty for the sake of short-term profit.

That last word, unilaterally, is key.

The land of the few.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. TO SECURE A FUTURE ALL OF US MUST FIGHT THE RIGHT WAR RIGHT NOW.

19 Wednesday Oct 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., Climate Change., Disconnection., Earth, Education., Energy, Environment, Evolution, Extermination., Human Collective Stupidity., Human Exploration., Human values., Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Nuclear power., Our Common Values., Profiteering., Purpose of life., Real life experience's, Reality., Renewable Energy., State of the world, Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., THIS IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD.  , Truth, Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, VALUES, We can leave a legacy worthwhile., What is shaping our world., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. TO SECURE A FUTURE ALL OF US MUST FIGHT THE RIGHT WAR RIGHT NOW.

Tags

, , ,

If humanity wants to hope to contain global warming below 1.5°C – Governments must close the gap between net zero rhetoric and reality.

There can be no more hiding, and no more denying deluding yourself with a lot of greenwashing.

Political leaders, blinded by capital and powerful private interests, have long decided Earth is a small price to pay for the yachts, mansions, private jets and record profits of the one percent.

In Glasgow at the COP26 climate conference we watched as world leaders came up with new excuses, symbolic targets and new ways to silence the progressive voices who opposed them.

Global heating is supercharging extreme weather at an astonishing speed, this life-altering issue which we are NOW all witnessing daily – Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, is not getting the urgency and attention it demands.

Exploitation and development of new oil and gas fields must stop this year.

If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year.

It’s Now or Never.

A huge part can be done with existing technologies.

These technologies can and will create billions of jobs to drive a sustainable world, but it remains a fight of David against Goliath, because of how we measure our well being.

How we evaluate what we are doing needs to change.

GDP is a totally numbers-driven index that does not produce the true picture.

There are growing calls to find GDP alternatives to measure countries’ wealth and welfare.

GDP can’t accurately represent the wealth of a country when it ignores how money is divvied up.

Considering GDP alone, a rich country where 10% of the population controls 75% of the wealth (looking at you, United States) may rank higher than a poorer country with a more even distribution of wealth.

One of GDP’s biggest flaws is that it counts tragedies as economic bonuses. If a hurricane or tornado hits and a country spends millions of dollars rebuilding, those expenses boost GDP, even though people lost their homes, jobs, and lives.

GDP ignores many crucial ways to measure the wealth of a country: clean air, health, life span, gender equality, opportunity, education, and more. This is understandable – GDP wasn’t developed to rank countries’ welfare, but simply to measure money as the world recovered from the Great Depression.

Of course GDP cant be replaced over night, but it can be complemented by a Thriving Places Index (TPI) and this index could easily be expanded to other parts of the world.

TPI’s primary focuses are sustainability, equality, and local conditions. Unlike GDP, this index measures equality by investigating how evenly distributed life expectancy and wellbeing are across a country.

Interestingly, the U.N. encourages nations to use it alongside their gross national income data. They say that it can help governments assess national policy by “asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes.”

By factoring in the ecological footprint, inequality, wellbeing, and life expectancy of a country, it provides a simple but rounded glance at the wealth of a country.

This alone will not however solve the problems that are now on the horizon.

We must implement measurements by monetising environmental damage factors to help countries better understand exactly where they stand environmentally.

The Green GDP is a noble effort to factor in the cost of climate change in a way that people whose focus is money can appreciate. While subjective data can immediately turn some financially conservative parties off, putting a number on the impact of environmental negligence could potentially hit home.

Our Profit driven societies focused too much on an idea that futuristic technologies will save the world from climate chaos, rather than focusing on what can be done today. If cuts to carbon are left to the future and not made in this decade, it will be too late to stay within the 1.5C limit.

What are the crucial new technologies in development for combatting Climate Change?

Clean energy is perhaps the biggest issue to tackle.

Convert carbon dioxide into a usable energy source using sunlight.

There are numerous projects trying to achieve this, but most of the hydrogen used today is extracted from natural gas NG00, -3.93% in a process that emits carbon dioxide as well as the more-fleeting, but more-potent, methane.

Electrical transport and advanced batteries?

Particularly for use in electric vehicles; hydrogen; and carbon capture appears to be the miracle solution to reduce the heavy ecological impact of transport. This technology is not all green under the hood. Even before having driven a single kilometre, the electric vehicle has emissions almost twice as high as those of a thermal vehicle.

Big data has big implications in creating awareness about the consequences of climate change but it’s harvesting with the use of non transparent and unregulated algorithms.

Crowdsourcing for environmental solutions by gathering journalists, scientists, technologists, and people passionate about sustainability is creating a new wave of environmentalism.

Mobile apps such as Oroeco is an app that tracks your carbon footprint by placing a carbon value on everything you buy, eat, and do. However most Apps are profit seeking and like Big data they remain un -transparent and unregulated.

Interactive maps really drive home the point of climate change.

All of these technologies use microchips in order to operate and these are made from rare finite resources.

For the first time, a mining company is preparing to mine the seabed to collect rocks rich in metals for the batteries of electric cars. A practice that promises to destroy ecosystems that are still unexplored and that could constitute a ticking “climate bomb”. Poisoning of fresh water reserves, artificialization and loss of biodiversity, toxicity for humans, radioactive pollution, occupation of agricultural land… The extraction and transformation of raw materials are much more polluting than for the fossil car.

In the end here is where we are.

Some of the highlights included a prediction of violent conflicts and civil wars, extreme poverty and the loss of several points of gross domestic product in some developing nations, mass extinctions, and an intense, regular pattern of natural disasters.

The average decline of the species analysed was 68% in 2020, and 60% in 2018, revealing an accelerating collapse of biodiversity around the world. “We can tell ourselves that 1% is not much, but losing 1% in two years is absolutely colossal. The mere fact that this index is not improving is a disaster in itself

Taking into account a global population rise of about 2 billion people, as well as the need to supply electricity to 785 million people who do not have access to it, and clean cooking to the 2.6 billion people who currently lack it there is no more time for multinationals to obtain justice.

Governments must fine them.

Instead we see governments like the UK licensing new oil and gas fields in the North Sea and has also mooted a new coalmine for coking coal alongside introducing fracking.

Instead we see Energy being use a a weapon of war.

We all know what is necessary for life however in the age of instant gratification, we have little appreciation of where it all come from and we remain unwilling to pay for a future that only exists on the planet we all inhabit.

A large-scale nuclear war would, by all scientific projections, be a planetary disaster of the highest order.

A large -scale climate event would be far worse. Here to day gone to morrow against watch our demise over a few generations.

So every one of us must engage now. ( See previous posts as how this can be achieved)

The simplest thing you can do is educate others.

Tell people there are other ways to measure a country’s wealth.

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

Contact: bobdillo33@bobdillon33

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL RUSSIA INVADING UKRAINE LEAD TO WW3?

16 Sunday Oct 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Human Collective Stupidity., Mr Putin., Our Common Values., Reality., Russia / Ukraine ., RUSSIA/ UKRAINE/ US/ NATO/ EU., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Telling the truth., The cost of war., The state of the World., The Ukraine., The world to day., Truth, Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, War, We can leave a legacy worthwhile., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL RUSSIA INVADING UKRAINE LEAD TO WW3?

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

No one knows and no one wants to find out.

Let’s cut right to the chase here:

The only certainty about the war over Ukraine is that all existing certainties have been shattered.

If one listens to main media it would be fair to say that it is in a warp way encouraging Mr Putin to use nuclear weapons, ( not that he needs encouragement )

So how worried should you be?   How does this end?

It is difficult to see how Putin “wins.” But he cannot accept defeat.

As long as there is no direct conflict between Russia and NATO then there is no reason for this crisis, bad as it is, to descend into a full-scale world war.

Is this true?

It’s always hard to predict what Mr. Putin is going to do, and anyone who says they know him really well … would not be telling you the complete truth.”

The hard facts are that this has now developed into a NATO backed war.

So what are the likely outcomes?

The spectrum of possible outcomes ranges from a volatile new cold or hot war involving the United States, Russia, and China; to a frozen conflict in Ukraine; to a post-Putin settlement in which Russia becomes part of a revised European security architecture.

That is as honest an assessment as anyone who isn’t Vladimir Putin can give you.

But the wild card here is the state of Putin’s mind.

The whole idea after the Second World War was we’re going to try to set up a system whereby we live in a world in which big countries cannot just decide we’re going to send in our military and take this territory that belongs to this other country has never worked.

There is almost zero mutual trust remaining between Russia and the West.

While the conflict is tragic for the Ukrainian people, it’s unlikely to lead to World War III because, at the moment, it appears that no world leaders want it to escalate to that degree, and efforts are being made to make sure fighting stays within Ukraine’s borders.

There are three major factors that make Europe today different from in the 1930s and ’40s and could prevent World War III.

The first is the NATO alliance.

The second factor is the presence of nuclear weapons.

The third is that the Ukraine is not a NATO member, so there is no formal obligation to come to its defence.

Where is this war going to go is however the big question keeping the world on edge:

It is fair to say that China or the USA would not allow their countries to be surrounded by nuclear missiles.

So be in now doubt that intellectual laziness, historical amnesia and dishonesty will take lives in the years to come.

History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.” – Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) or to quote the late Norman Mailer, “Whatever else it is, history is a bitch.”

There is a saying that nothing unites a country better than being invaded by an enemy but Putin’s actions have far-reaching implications for global politics and democracy.

This is a dangerous backdrop against which to have a blazing public row over who is to blame for the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

Europeans need to ask themselves hard questions. Are they willing to confront Russia? Is Russia going to challenge the borders of NATO? And how should Europe respond?

The immediate question is how to diminish Russia’s ability to threaten its neighbours.

The West’s political, economic, and military posture toward Russia is obviously in a state of flux at the moment. As a result unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is no longer a global competitor to the United States and there is no strong ideological component that unifies and divides the international community with regard to Russia.

Rather, what we see is a revisionist Russia (with somewhat limited capabilities to project force beyond its borders) that is challenging core principles of the international community.

So we have a long and potentially very unsettled period ahead of us that no radiation will cure.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OUR FINITE EARTH CANNOT FULFILL THE RESOURCES – PROFIGATE DREAMS OF SO MANY PEOPLE.

17 Saturday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Inflation.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OUR FINITE EARTH CANNOT FULFILL THE RESOURCES – PROFIGATE DREAMS OF SO MANY PEOPLE.

Tags

, , , , ,

Ten minute read.

THE MAIN QUESTION IS WHERE WILL THE CURVE OF EARTHS TEMPERATURE INFLATIONS TAKE US FROM HERE?

Right now the scientific consensus is that the population of the world will reach a peak some time later this century. The world population is projected to reach 10.4 billion people sometime in the 2080s and remain there until 2100, according to the United Nations Population Division.A 3D illustration of a woman watching a climate change simulation of Earth.

How many people can the earth support?  What is it carrying capacity?

When it comes to carrying capacity, it’s a matter of mode of production, mode of consumption, who has access to what and how.

Not all human activities have to be environmentally costly but the future of the world population is driven by a mixture of survival and reproduction. As a result more and more countries, once they reach a certain stage of socioeconomic cultural development, tend to converge towards about two children [per couple] or fewer.

In 1679, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, a scientist and inventor of the microscope, predicted that Earth could support 13.4 billion people.

From 1930 to 1974, the Earth‘s population doubled again, in just 44 years.

Everybody knows that environmental changes, such as pollution or disease, and climate change can increase or decrease a habitat’s carrying capacity but there is little consensus in how many Homo sapiens our planet can support.

But is the human population expected to continue growing at this rate?

Is there an upper limit to how many humans our planet can support?

Before the twentieth century no one ever lived through a doubling of the entire human population and the enormity of this and our predicament is now prevenient in climate change.

For instance, natural constraints include food scarcity and inhospitable environments.

If the Earth System gets into the region of chaotic behaviour, we will lose all hope of somehow fixing the problem. The result will be the inflationary economic paradigm itself will be the long term disaster.

If we want to affect how many people planet Earth can support, we will need to decide how many people want Jaguars with four wheels and how many want jaguars with four legs.

————————-

Here is a broad sketch of what is in store and where we’re heading. if we don’t curtail climate change and our unchecked use of fossil fuels.

Where is Earth’s climate headed?

That depends significantly on exactly what our activity is over the next few decades.

For example, the human population can only grow so large and can only have so many carbon-emitting activities; and pollution will eventually degrade the environment. At some point in the future, carbon output will reach a maximum limit.

In the worst cases, the researchers found that Earth’s climate leads to chaos. True, mathematical chaos. In a chaotic system, there is no equilibrium and no repeatable patterns. A chaotic climate would have seasons that change wildly from decade to decade (or even year to year). Above a certain critical threshold temperature for Earth’s atmosphere, a feedback cycle can kick in where a chaotic result would become unavoidable. There are some signs that we may have already passed that tipping point, but it’s not too late to avert climate disaster.

We are now entering a new phase, one driven by human activity. As humans pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we are creating a new Anthropocene era, a period of human-influenced climate systems, something our planet has never experienced before.

We will see mass migration, with one war after another for resources.

Animals can keep giving birth, increasing their numbers, but they reach a limit when they consume all the food in their environment (or their predators get too hungry and consume them). Put another way, climate change impacts might not directly cause humans to go extinct, but it could lead to events that seriously endanger hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives.

There’s no reason to exaggerate the climate threat. The truth is bad enough, and reason enough to take dramatic action because today, we live in a global, interconnected civilization, so there’s is every reason to believe our species will not survive its collapse.

Despite massive landscapes and endless blue, our planet is limited in its resources and capabilities to support its inhabitants. According to the Global Footprint Network, “Humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste.

It now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year.

All over the world we are witnessing the effects of using more resources than the Earth can provide in the form of diminishing forest cover, disappearing coral reefs, collapsing fisheries, biodiversity decline, increasing greenhouse gases, depleting fresh water systems, acidifying oceans, disease, famine, mass migrations, depleting arable land, resource conflicts and wars, just to name some of the more noticeable effects.

So we are left to cope with limited resources or pursue unconventional methods, which can create a disproportionate impact on the poor, and the ones that can are finding that even the furthest and deepest corners of the Earth are being exploited, leaving fewer and fewer resources for future generations.

A sustainable future cannot be achieved without conserving biological diversity – animal and plant species, their habitats and their genes – not only for nature itself, but also for all  people who depend on.

Our moral obligation is to support both ourselves and our planet. it.

Our old solutions – which address only environmental conservation or short-term human gains – are no longer enough.

We need innovative approaches to guide our civilization toward a sustainable future and the only way this can be done  this requires a substantial behavioural modification of the most impactful species on Earth—humans.

I think it is becoming increasingly important for us to be conscious of our consumption. If we can see through products on the shelves, and understand that human labour, sacrifice and resources have gone into anything and everything we consume, we can begin to empathize with and work for the well-being of populations around the world.

Technology is distancing our relationship from global issues, often perceived as too large to concern our own respective lives.

How can we begin this personalization in the midst of a global crisis of endless dimensions and stakeholders?

We can begin by making profit seeking algorithms be transparent. By removing all media advertising that prompts consumption. By focused efforts and productivity within our own communities. By fostering the rights and access to medical care universally.

Finally. Government should enable individuals to see their own capabilities in organizing and protecting the environment, instead of simply reporting on the problems. Media coverage, literature, and written discussion in any capacity should lean towards a definitive—within scientific bounds—attribution of our existing catastrophes to our own actions. We must try to stray from merely stating that a given problem exists, and rather begin our discussions and postulations with the probable causes of that problem.

By getting communities, urban or rural, to visualize and feel the influence of their actions on water, soil, and air would be to enliven a group solely based on protecting and preserving life itself. We must work to re-associate with the resources of the environment that have long been exploited, and communicate across a global spectrum regarding how we have and will succeed in creating a sustainable future existence.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

A photo of a male Neanderthal replicate at the​ Natural​ History​ Museum, London.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WITH THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZIBETH II DEATH IS IN THE AIR FOR ALL OF US .THE LONG SHORT AND THE TALL.

15 Thursday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, Death, Denial of Death.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WITH THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZIBETH II DEATH IS IN THE AIR FOR ALL OF US .THE LONG SHORT AND THE TALL.

Tags

,

( Seven minute read)

The mystery of death is so profound that, despite the millennia of religious doctrine, mythology, scientific research, and the many theories and explanations that exist on the subject, people today are more confused than ever about it.

On the other hand, death is also a topic that few of us like to talk about. We may, on a subconscious level, understand that we are mortal. But, we continue to live our lives as if we will be here forever.

Saying that dying matters, seems so obvious that it’s not worth mentioning. After all, what could be more important than our mortality? We are here on this amazing planet for such a short period of time. Death is the ultimate destination that, in many ways, gives our lives meaning.

We have medicalized every aspect of the dying process. Is it a disease that will be cured in the future?

  • No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Steve Jobs
  • Once quantum computers become mainstream, the cost to sequence an individual genome could be cheaper than flushing the toilet! This could lead to mass customized medicines, further decreasing human mortality rate. The introduction of CRISPr allows scientists to cut out and replace living DNA; effectively eradicating almost all diseases and rewriting the genetic code that governs life expectancy.
  • AI to determine genetic diffusions, R&D into reversing aging, 3D printing organs, or human augmentation to the point of ‘the singularity’.

In fact, one of the reasons there are so many opinions about death is the diverse array of religious doctrines on the subject. So how do we know which text, if any, will guide our search correctly?

The concept of death is a key to humans understanding the phenomenon of all life its nearly as old as life itself.  An irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. From Wikipedia.

Death is inevitable to whatever is born. Wherever there is birth there is death.

What is God’s vision about death? Why did God permit Satan to live when the rest of us must die.

In God’s vision, no one ever dies. If God were to give you this vision, some day, then no number of deaths would affect you in this world. This is because of this right vision (Gnan)

Throughout history, different mythologies and theologies have explained the nature of death in countless ways, ranging from total annihilation to immediate life after death in the presence of God … or in torment.

Regardless of a person’s particular belief system, however, the fact remains that death is the end of life … or at least life as we know it. Human beings are totally powerless to prevent or overcome death.

Any study of the nature of death begs an important foundational question:

Why must things die in the first place?

To |make way for others. Like the Cambrian explosion which made way for major changes in the dominant sorts of living creatures, like us to flourish. But death is an unnatural part of life on a cellular level, because it does not automatically include a self-destruct mechanism for death.

So the question of the nature of death also brings profound implications about the nature of God.

Maybe, some reason, God is not as powerful as He says, since the problem of death remains.

Those who do not believe in reincarnation, Moslems, Christians believe that it does not return.

The rest of Indians, the Hindus, it does return. This is the result of the grace of your God that you believe in reincarnation. The moment you die, the Soul immediately enters another womb.

In reality, there is only one collection of texts in existence that makes the bold claim to contain direct communications from God: the collection we call the Bible. Over and over again, it records God speaking directly to mankind;

In my opinion, becoming an organ donor is one of the best decisions that you can ever make. Most people aren’t against being an organ donor.

Some people seemed to find the right moment to die,  to hold off dying until some particular event of importance to them had come to pass. Links between mind and body are little understood.

What if Queen Elizabeth 11 was an organ donor.  Don’t worry the chances of inheriting the crown is at the moment around 8 billion to one and in 31 years from now 2050 is estimated is expected to rise to 37.9 billion to one.

Since time immemorial, humans have tried to find out ways to achieve immortality.

As the search continues to date but how far are we willing to go to achieve it.

Bezos has invested in a company called Altos Labs which is trying to find a way to make humans immortal. The company aims to do this through ‘cellular reprogramming’ which means reprogramming human cells to make them new again. A human body is made up of 724 trillion cells.The Immortalists - can science defeat death? © Getty Images

This dream of making humans immortal is not just based on cell reprogramming.

A certain kind of nanorobots will be invented which can be released in the human body along with the bloodstream. These nanorobots would be able to eliminate viruses, bacteria, clean the blood, prevent clotting, and even kill tumours in the body, and repair your cells if needed.

Some scientists want to upload the feelings and thoughts present in the human brain to a computer so that even after the death of the person, their feelings and thoughts can be kept alive.

The Israeli writer, Yuval Noah Harari, wrote in his famous book Homo Deus that for religious people, death may be a decision made by God. But for scientists, death is merely a technical glitch in the body. He says that scientists can correct this technical glitch in labs and death can be avoided.

At this point, it is hard to predict if and when science will conquer death. But if one really wants to be immortal, they can make their life so memorable that even after they are gone, the things and memories related to them will endure.

Demographers estimate that before our generation roughly 100 billion people lived and died, and not one of them has returned to confirm the existence of an afterlife, at least not to the high evidentiary standards of science.

I’m sceptical that death will ever be conquered or understood as it is abstract a conceptual metaphor in the term of something else that determines the expansiveness of our reality.

As humanity confronts the present global challenges this reality is that we have evolved into a killing species, detached from the very thing that gives us life the Earth.  Our limits are self-imposed – ignorance, inertia –  greed – fear – fanaticism and fatalism.

Up to now the natural world has always been humanity’s main source of metaphors, but with science our natural world now includes the nuclear bomb, the black hole of profit seeking learning algorithms.

If we not wiped out by climate change we have ever change of being wiped out by an Asteroid – a burst of Gama rays or a Nuclear explosion, a Pandemic, if not, we have 6 odd billion years to go before the sun fry us all.

Advances in technology will definitely drive the upward age of longevity toward the 200 mark. However, there are a number of considerations – both moral and social – that we have not begun to think about, as a species. Ultimately, the question is no longer if death (like taxes) is inevitable, but rather: even if we can conquer death – should we?

Even if I could live thousands of years, I would want a better world than this one. So, is there any hope?

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com