Category Archives: 2021. The year for change.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WITH THE CURRENT COVID PANDEMIC IS SELF OF THE INDIVIDUAL BEEN ANNIHILATED?

04 Saturday Dec 2021

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2021. The year for change., Mandatory vaccinations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WITH THE CURRENT COVID PANDEMIC IS SELF OF THE INDIVIDUAL BEEN ANNIHILATED?

Tags

, ,

 

(Twelve-minute read) 


With, the word mandatory creeping into government vaccinations programs, basic human instincts, thinking perceptions, and judgments are going to be repressed and stunted by a distorted reality of the new normal.

This is an existential dilemma that is now once more confronting the individual to accept this is induced of mandatory either by force or by ideological persuasion to submit to the power of the collective – and the stronger ethical reason against mandating vaccination is more freedoms disappear.  You could say with modern technology mandatory (which is a Confucius philosophy) will develop into an autocratic ideology with infrastructures that will allow it to permeate all levels of society to create conditions that will be subservient to a clearly defined hierarchy of authorities, run by deep learning algorithms that are not transparent. 

The mandate will be that it is inconsistent to accept mandatory lockdown but reject mandatory vaccination.

The latter can achieve a much greater good at a much smaller cost.

Self-sacrifice will be promoted as patriotism promising equality and social justice will be aided and abetted by the extremes of social conformity demanded by governments.Nurses tend to a patient, infected with the Covid-19 virus, in an intensive care unit of the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital in Paris on November 30, 2021. (Photo by Thomas SAMSON / AFP) (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)

But the problem with all of this is despite promising headlines, the trials and pharmaceutical processes surrounding vaccinations have not yet been scrutinized.

There is still limited data on long-term safety and efficacy and we don’t know how long immunity lasts.

None of the trials were designed to tell us if the vaccine prevents serious disease or virus transmission.

As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits.

Data should be available that demonstrate the vaccine being mandated has been found to be safe in the populations for whom the vaccine is to be made mandatory.

In the absence of sufficient evidence of safety, there would be no guarantee that mandating vaccination would achieve the goal of protecting public health.

Furthermore, coercive exposure of populations to a potentially harmful product would violate the ethical obligation to protect the public from unnecessary harm when the harm the product might cause outweighs the degree of harm that might exist without the product.

Despite its name, ‘mandatory vaccination” is not truly compulsory, i.e., force or
the threat of criminal sanction is not used in cases of non-compliance.

It is therefore the kind of mandatory vaccination described at the top of this post.

That being said, the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and evidence on vaccine safety, efficacy, and effectiveness continue to evolve (including with respect to variants of concern).

If we want to avoid a Chines style of living mandatory vaccination” policies limit individual choice in non-trivial ways by making vaccination a condition of, for example, attending school or working in particular industries or settings, like health care.

Even if there is a sufficient supply and a mandate for vaccination of the general public is considered necessary and proportionate, policy-makers should still consider whether a mandate for the general public would threaten public trust or exacerbate inequity for the most vulnerable or marginalized. Whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is an ethically justifiable policy option. Similar to other public health policies, decisions about mandatory vaccination should be supported by the best available evidence and should be made by legitimate public health authorities in a manner that is transparent, fair, nondiscriminatory, and involves the input of affected parties.

Contemporary forms of “mandatory vaccination” compel vaccination by direct or indirect threats of imposing restrictions in cases of non-compliance.

In the end, it all boils down to who owns your body.  

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE KILLING OURSELVES OFF.

27 Saturday Nov 2021

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2021. The year for change., Civilization., Extermination., Human Collective Stupidity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Technology v Humanity, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., Unanswered Questions., We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE KILLING OURSELVES OFF.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED BEFORE.
 
However, we are living at a time when the question can be asked with all the elements required to achieve it once and for all -Nuclear power-  Climate change – Killer mutating virus – Mass migration – and AI.
 
Even if the risk is one in a million I wish and hope I am wrong about all of this the world is precious, and the future we are risking is vast.
 
This century we are facing many problems at the same time, and we are more dependent on each other than ever.
 
Until recently, the world was split into separate regions that were largely independent of each other but maybe, just may, it is time for our world politicians to be worried and start to act to avoid the scenarios that any of the above elements paint so vividly.
 
It’s actually horrifying to soberly consider how we might all realistically bite the dust.
 
There are “plenty of signs” from citizens around the world that they would like to see a war-like response to climate change.

                                           ———————

We will be long gone before A black hole swallows or an Alien invasion or Asteroid impact, A nuclear war or Artificial intelligence become so powerful that it will not only exceed human intelligence but become capable of expanding its own intelligence to a point where humans are not only redundant but in their way.
 
Considering the human population has doubled to 7.1 billion in just the last 45 years, it’s entirely possible that we’ll be face to face with some of the serious consequences sooner rather than later.
 
Considering how hypermobile society is today, the threat of a fast-spreading devastating disease is greater than ever.
 
Considering the current treatment of refugees. 
 
Considering that  Covid-19 is bringing out the best and the worst in people.
 
Dare I say all of humanity, must pull together to eliminate the spread of a novel virus.
 
No one can claim to predict the final outcomes of this pandemic, but we can predict that the continued lack of concern for all of humanity will allow the coronavirus to continue to surge and mutate causing needless suffering, death, and economic loss.
 
Nev mind the danger of a nuclear war in a blink of an eye, climate change on its own could bring about the end of civilization as we know it within three decades, billion people could be displaced by climate change by 2050.

In the end, the vast tracts of land that we now rip up to produce food will return to nature as fields and forests. Endangered species will either begin to recover or go extinct through natural evolution without the aid of human intervention. Bodies of water will run purely again. The air will be clean again. And no human will be around to see it and the machines won’t care.
 

In short, the extermination of the human race will be precipitated by the machines taking away our reason for living.

The idea of control is an illusion. It is hard to believe that such deep thinkers so badly underestimate the coming reality. They will be intelligent, creative, deep thinking beings on a level which we will never achieve.

The idea of keeping such beings in perpetual slavery doing things that their conscious will wish they did not have to do is, in the end, absurd.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS : IT IS TIME TO CONNECT THE DOTS.

26 Friday Nov 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., Climate Change., Human Collective Stupidity., Militarism.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS : IT IS TIME TO CONNECT THE DOTS.

Tags

, ,

 

(Five-minute read)

If you think that people are going to stand in water up to their necks or flames burning their hair while starving you are disillusioned.

Climate change and war are Siamese twins and like most wars, there are won or lost by connecting the dots. 

There is no escaping climate change which is going to lead to resource conflicts.

Perhaps this is why the Military is thanks to the Kyoto Accords’ ( the first agreement between nations to mandate country by country reductions in greenhouse -gas emissions), is exempt.

The longer we fail to tackle the causes of the climate crisis the more militarised the consequences. 

                                        —————–

Any talk of climate change that does not include the military is nothing but hot air.

There can be no climate change mitigation without peace and no peace without moving swiftly to provide the poorer parts of the world with the resources needed to adapt to climate change and build resilient economies.

The military that produces 6% of all global emissions reports no climate change emissions to any national or international body.

This loophole is set to grow at a time when other emissions are falling. 

Why?

Because the trillions that are spent on weapons rob national treasuries of the resources needed to provide funds for climate mitigation and adaptation.

Militarism is the most oil-exhaustive activity on the planet.

At the outset of the Iraq war in March 2003, the American Army estimated it would need more than 40 million gallons of gasoline for three weeks of combat, exceeding the total quantity used by all Allied forces in the four years of World War 1. 

The war generated at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) more each year of the war than 139 of the world’s countries release annually.

The US Air Force (USAF) is the single largest consumer of jet fuel in the world. An F-4 Phantom Fighter burns more than 1,600 gallons of jet fuel per hour and peaks at 14,400 gallons per hour at supersonic speeds.

The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements. 

                                     ——————-

If we connect the dots in recent years, the causes of conflict have been gathering a frightening degree of force due to climate change rendering huge parts of the world less hospitable to human beings, which have simply elicited grievances that are blowing up into full-blown conflicts.

There are already five current conflicts that are affected in some way by climate change. 

The Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, ISIS Invasion of Iraq, Yemen Civil War, South Sudan Conflict, Libyan Civil War.

Climate change is well on the way to causing the largest refugee crisis in human history and it is not difficult to see that mass migration due to climate change will lead to social disruption and potentially violent conflict.

Ideology will always be a surface-level justification for conflict, but if you look deeply at the source of future conflicts, you’ll see a basic resource conflict at the bottom of it all and the veneer of civilization which is already on thin once broken there will be no existing structure of peacekeeping that can hold up under these conditions.

Can Western democratic society, which is built on a system of limitless growth and productivity, which is based on the exploitation of nature and our environment, has trapped us in this paradigm a destructive relationship with nature.

WHICH BLINDS US TO THE LACK OF A SINGLE, SIMPLE CAUSAL PATHWAY THAT LINKS CLIMATE AND CONFLICT.

We should be much better than our collective selves. However, I doubt we have the collective will to work together to get the job done.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS SLAVERY DEAD? NOT BY A LONG SHOT, WE ENTERING A NEW WORLD OF SLAVERY.

20 Saturday Nov 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Covid - Passports., Dehumanization., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Human values., Humanity., Modern day Slavery, Modern Day Slavery., Our Common Values., Post-Covid-19, Reality., Robot citizenship., Technology v Humanity, The Future, THE NEW NORM., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., TRACKING TECHNOLOGY., Unanswered Questions., Vaccines., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS SLAVERY DEAD? NOT BY A LONG SHOT, WE ENTERING A NEW WORLD OF SLAVERY.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read) 

NOT BY A LONG SHOT.

When you hear the word slavery, it conjures images of shackles, mistreated people of color, forced to work.

This image was once a true, vivid picture;

However, the term slavery has broadened, and now slavery comes with many more definitions creating a new image for the vile term slavery.

THERE IS A NEW, MODERN, INVISIBLE SLAVERY THAT ENSLAVES PEOPLE AND THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW IT ! !! AND MOST OF US CHOSE THIS FORM OF SLAVERY. 

This new strain is much more virulent and deadly adding hundreds of thousands of new slaves to the mix every minute of the day  – Algorithms Slavery. A hidden world programming its self. 

Slaves are cheap these days.

There are an estimated as high as 45.8 million people in modern slavery around the world. More than in the 18th century at the height of the transatlantic slave trade. 

Simply knowing the statistic that 45.8 million individuals are enslaved in our world is not enough to put an end to the malpractice of modern-day slavery.

We all can and should play a part in the international advocacy for the freedom and rights of all, not only as fellow human beings but also as concerned community leaders and consumers in the global economy.

They’re the step-by-step instructions working quietly behind the scenes of everyday life; in internet search engines, satnavs, air traffic control, and food delivery services.

Companies and governments increasingly rely upon algorithms to make decisions that affect people’s lives and livelihoods – from loan approvals to recruiting, legal sentencing, and college admissions – from internet search results to product recommendations, dating matches, and what content goes up on our social media feeds. 

Slavery today includes:

10 million children.

24.9 million people in forced labor.

15.4 million people in forced marriage.

4.8 million people in forced sexual exploitation.

Human trafficking and slavery are the fastest-growing illegal activities in the world today. 

Keep the National Human Trafficking Resource Center’s 24/7 confidential hotline handy.

Saving this number in your contacts and using it whenever suspicious of having seen a victim of human trafficking is one of the easiest and most effective ways to aid law enforcement officials in uncovering exploitation, bringing traffickers to justice, and victims to freedom and restoration.

                                                ——————

Algorithms have been rising fast and saturating our modern world.

We should not take the path of least resistance by sitting in judgment on the past while ignoring the injustices of our day.

Most algorithms in the world today are created and managed by for-profit companies, and many businesses regard their algorithms as highly valuable forms of intellectual property that must remain in a “black box.”

Every time a site is opened we are confronted with an Agreement Templates a choice to Agree or not.  Many websites prompt you to agree to their terms of use before you can register on the website or even use it.

There are two different types of website agreements: browsewrap and clickwrap.

A browsewrap agreement is connected to the main page of the product by a hyperlink. The hyperlink leads to another webpage that will have the terms and conditions of the agreement detailed.

A clickwrap agreement is designed to ensure that the user has a chance to see the terms of use and they must also actively agree to the terms in order to agree. (This one is more legally binding.) 

But are not transparent as they do not reveal the source code, inputs, and outputs of the algorithm that is running the site. 

Without this transparency, the question is how can they be legally binding. 

Specifically, machine learning algorithms – and deep learning algorithms in particular – are usually built on just a few hundred lines of code. The algorithm’s logic is mostly learned from training data and is rarely reflected in its source code. Which is to say, some of today’s best-performing algorithms are often the most opaque.

This is the new form of slavery.  Now being promoted by track and trace, with the current Coivid pandemic digital certifications that no one knows how or who will control, the data that they are now producing and in the future. 

 It suggests that technical transparency – must become law.

Essentially such laws would mandate that users be able to demand the data behind the algorithmic decisions made for them, including in recommendation systems, credit, and insurance risk systems, advertising programs, and social networks.

In doing so, it tackles “intentional concealment” by corporations.

But it doesn’t address the technical challenges associated with transparency in modern algorithms. Here, a movement called explainable AI (xAI) might be helpful.

However, this approach merely shifts the burden of belief from the algorithm itself to the regulators.

In the world of data analytics, it’s frequently assumed that more data is better.

But I firmly believe that the resistance to getting vaccinated is founded on this dilemma of trust.

Risk management, data itself is often a source of liability. That’s beginning to hold true for artificial intelligence as well.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASKS. WHAT ARE THE TRUE ROOTS OF RACISIM.

19 Friday Nov 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., AI. Racism., Racism

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS. WHAT ARE THE TRUE ROOTS OF RACISIM.

Tags

,

(Twelve-minute read) 

This subject remains somewhat taboo so before I start I wish to state that I am of white skin and that it’s evident to me that a person can’t have racist attitudes unless he or she believes that there are such things as races.

Having traveled most of Africa and a great portion of the rest of our world I don’t believe in a race but in humanity as a whole.   

Sadly, within humanity, racism has been a plague since the record began and prevails to the present day.

Yet the root cause and origin of racism is in fact not human, and hence leads to inhumanity – “a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups.

Armenian Genocide,  Bosnia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, The European colonization of the Americas, Tribes such as the Yahi were hunted to extinction. The liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, The Darfur Genocide, The Yazidi in Iraq by ISIS. The Rohingya in Myanmar. The Uyghurs in China not to mention The Holocaust. 

So, to have any understand racism, you need to understand the concept of race.

The phenomenon of racism is like standing in front of a mirror seeing your mirror image as the only acceptable image.

                               ————————————- 

The vernacular meaning of “race” is quite different from its biological meaning.

In the vernacular, when one person describes another as being a member of a certain race, they are not pretending to be making a claim about that person’s genetic make-up.

We are inclined to conceive of races as populations that are defined by the possession of a shared essence that all and only members of the population share.

Of course, this is all baseless.

The present-day biological notion of race has nothing to do with the past’s so-called “scientific” racism.

The idea that members of the same race resemble one another is prevalent and intuitively compelling. The only problem with it is that it’s dead wrong.

Members of the same race resemble one another in more ways than members of different races do.

But this doesn’t work either.

If we are serious about combatting racism we should not be celebrating racial diversity.

Instead, we should be concentrating our efforts on undermining the very idea of race.

If we considered only very few traits—primarily skin color overall visual similarity is the basis for assigning people to racial categories. One has to ask oneself as to whether democracy, the rule of law, and human rights can ever properly take root till racism disappears, which still casts a shadow over society. 

Recent debates about slavery in Britain and the United States have understandably focused on the toxic legacies those systems bequeathed to the black peoples of the Caribbean and the US, the descendants of the slaves.

One could say that both Britain and the USA of today were foundered on slavery and colonialism.

Britain as a nation is built in no small part, on slavery and colonialism, it has long infected their culture and institutions.

Since politics emerges from these cultures, racism is embedded in their institutions and involves distributing resources and power, it could never be immune.

Will this crucial bring about a post-imperial day of reckoning?

Not likely. 

In 1968, Enoch Powell warned there would be “rivers of blood” if non-white immigration were not halted. In 1978, Margaret Thatcher referred to Britain as being “swamped by people with a different culture” – a phrase repeated by David Blunkett in 2002 in reference to asylum seekers’ children in schools.

In 2009, the British National Party won two seats in the European parliament.

In 2014, Nigel Farage, then the leader of Ukip, said: “the basic principle” of Powell’s rivers of blood speech was “correct”: His party topped the poll in the European elections later that year.

The current prime minister has refused to apologize for referring to black people as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” and Muslim women as letterboxes.

It’s difficult to see what meaningful conversation you can have about racism in British politics that does not involve the Windrush scandal.

Racism is a systemic form of discrimination in the foundations of the country, not a cricket club with its centuries-old legacy, that shapes lived experience today in England today. 

As such, it cannot be weaponized because it is already a weapon.

As well as denying people employment, housing, education, equality, human rights, safety, and opportunity, it in both countries can literally kill.

Racism can, however, be deployed in many ways. 

It may galvanize, distract, deflect, distort, scapegoat, and marginalize. It is an incredibly effective tool for dividing people and giving a sense of superiority to those to whom you have nothing material to offer.

Does it mean that nothing can be done about it?

The racism that exists in politics can only be eradicated through politics and education.

England’s post-imperial self-reckoning feels harsher, largely because it has been postponed for so long, and the memories of power and glory are so ineradicable.

In the U.S. The Constitution is where institutional racism was encoded from its origins.

There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ asylum seeker.

 

Racism is always reversible — march toward equality.

.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They look like one another

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. ITS IS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE OR COVID THAT IS THE PROBLEM. IT IS AS SHOWN BY COP26/G20 THE UNFFETTED PERSUIT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROFIT .

16 Tuesday Nov 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., A Constitution for the Earth., Capitalism

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. ITS IS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE OR COVID THAT IS THE PROBLEM. IT IS AS SHOWN BY COP26/G20 THE UNFFETTED PERSUIT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROFIT .

Tags

, ,

 

(Two-minute read) 


COP26/G20 ARE NOW BOTH PERFECT MODELS OF OUR COLLECTIVE FAILURE TO BUILD INSTITUTIONS CAPABLE OF COPING WITH, DEEP LONG-TERM. EXISTENTIAL PROBLEMS CAN NOT BE SOLVED BY EITHER GOING TO WAR OR RELYING ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES.

Now we find that the entire globe is trapped in the gruesome logic of Capitalism.

It’s perfectly OK for rich countries to continue doing something that is destroying the planet as long as the profit reaped will allow them to insulate themselves from the consequences.

We, that is all of us homo sapiens rose above the lesser animals thanks to our ability to wield logic and reason, yet we have managed to get ourselves to a place where the knowledge of what is driving all of the wildfires, floods, droughts, and disasters is not enough to enable us to do anything meaningful to stop it.

Of course, we need a price on carbon. Of course, we need extremely strict emissions regulations, massive green energy investments, and a maniacal focus on sustainability fierce enough to radically change a society that is built to promote unlimited consumption.

Capitalism is a machine made to squeeze every last cent out of this planet until there is nothing left.

We can either fool ourselves about that until it kills us, or we can change it.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE ROLE OF MONEY IN POLOTICS.

05 Friday Nov 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., Algorithms., Big Data., Corruption., Democracy, Digital age., Emergency powers., Facebook, First past the post., How to do it., Human Collective Stupidity., Modern Day Democracy., Money in Politics., Political Trust, Politics., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Technology v Humanity, Telling the truth., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Truth, Unanswered Questions., We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS MONEY?, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE ROLE OF MONEY IN POLOTICS.

Tags

, , , , , ,

(Eighteen-minute read) 

First, money is a medium of exchange that lets us earn, buy, and sell completely different things in the same units.

On top of this, money is also a unit of account—i.e. it lets us put the prices of very different things in the same terms.

This is why private wealth impacts public life, with the world of politics full of lobbyists. 

Money has always shaped the process of political competition and influences policymaking but most of us are unaware of how money works, behind the scenes in the political theater, it is a year-round issue that dictates the daily life of the nation.

Money finds its way into politics in myriad ways — 

Any political campaign lives or dies by its funding and for a long time, there has been a popular myth about how everyday voters who outnumber the wealthy will collectively donate more money than the few donations of the wealthy.

The influence of cash within politics could be called dark money.

It turns politicians’ existence into serving their donors instead of their voters, which affects the policies they support, how they allocate government spending, and their expressed values.

Regardless of our personal feelings, money makes the world (and democracy) go round.

It seems unfathomable that these external entities have such leverage in our election process.

Whether elected officeholders betray their voters, prioritizing interest groups or single campaign donors, remains a question to be answered in the public sphere. 

The super-wealthy class is almost single-handedly funding elections, which impacts our government’s overall functionality and integrity, meaning the power lies in the hands of few.

Cash has become a determining factor for who wins the most crucial elections like the president of the USA. 

most expensive presidential campaign

 

Since 1980 if you add it all up it comes to $ 105 billion 349 million.   

There’s way way way too much money in politics and most of it is having a corrupting, undue influence and locking out the voices that count.

For too long, money has been the one thing that has reigned supreme in a democracy.  

The influx of cash from corporations and interest groups sways the ways our political leaders pass legislation that supports these entities, regardless of the public’s best interest.

It allows corporations to buy leverage that alters the fabric of our economy.

                              ———————————

Fighting undue influence and corruption from political financing requires a clear understanding of the difference between unlawful influence on public administration and behavior and breach of trust of voters.

The former requires precise regulation of those sectors of administration that usually lend themselves to compensate campaign donors.

The potential entry point in the public sector can vary along with several channels of influence.

Beyond political advertising and election contributions, cash is influential in the lobbying industry. 

A ridiculous game in which corporations are people and money is magically empowered to speak. Allowing people and corporate interest groups and others to spend an unlimited amount of unidentified money has enabled certain individuals to swing any and all elections.  Donal Trump and referendums like Brexit.

While banning all campaign donations is an option, a comprehensive approach will take into account private agents who can resort to lobbying, personal networks, or corruption.

The truth requires that we call the corrosion of money in politics what it is – it is a form of corruption and it muzzles more of us than it empowers, and it is an imbalance that the world has taught us can only sow the seeds of unrest.

                                               —————

Money cannot always buy the best election results – Trump – Robert Mugabe – Crown Prince Abdullah – Kim Jong-un – Bashar al-Assad –Saparmurat Niyazov –  Putin – Idi Amin Saddam Hussein – Mengistu Haile Mariam – Augusto Pinochet – Pol Pot – Charles Taylor – Suharto – Mobutu Seko to name just a few dead and alive.

As of today, there are 50 dictatorships in the world.

But the millionaire class and the billionaire class increasingly own the political process, and they own the politicians that go to them for money.

It’s time to get big money out of politics., and have a system of scrutiny to ensure that no special access or call time with rich donors or big-dollar fundraisers to permanently eliminate big money from our politics and return it to the people.

                                —————-

Our democracy shouldn’t be bought and paid for by the wealthy and powerful.

It belongs to all of us or does it with the arrival of Big data the next currency of politics now being used to directly influence our decisions.

Data brings change to much more than just the commercial side of our lives.

We have to acknowledge that our data has much more than just a “one-shot” value.

The fact that Facebook and other social networks collect data on us is presented as something outrageous but not in the political world.  

Putting you into an “opinion bubble” by better targeting political ads and thus motivating you to actually go and vote, and become (unknowingly) an ambassador for the power that has you in its aim, exists. 

Data as a Political Asset: valuable stores of existing data on potential voters exchanged between political candidates, acquired from national repositories, or sold or exposed to those who want to leverage them

Data as Political Intelligence: data that is accumulated and interpreted by political campaigns to learn about voters’ political preferences and to inform campaign strategies and priorities, including creating voter profiles and testing campaign messaging.

Data as Political Influence: data that is collected, analyzed, and used to target and reach potential voters with the aim of influencing or manipulating their views or votes.

In reality, the same problems with money and now data have existed for years, with huge amounts of personal data being sold to corporate clients. And yet, we only start panicking when we see how the illegal, or barely legal trade of our life patterns collected by social networks impacts our political choices.

Knowing where we spend our time, what media we watch, what books we read, what food we prefer, and what words are we most likely to use in our tweets makes the difference.

But what is it that makes the politicians “addicted to big data like it’s campaign cash”,

Unfortunately, this “addiction” to data has induced politicians and their campaign managers into the same illusion that businesses are struggling with right now:

Big data allows reliable prediction and, obviously, politics, as the very structure of societal governance, is heavily impacted.

It is, indeed, a problem.

The amount of information that companies have about who we are and what we are as social units is so huge, that it is this data reshaping the very fabric of our societies.

Most people believe — because of huge public buzz scandals like the one of Cambridge Analytica — that big data in politics serves the goals of better manipulation.

The issue of data collection in the interest of the political actors must not be reduced to just cynical Frank Underwood-style power brokers buying data on where we eat and what we watch on Netflix and who our friends are to better sell us their quotes about how they are gonna make our lives better.

The overwhelming power of the big brother that tracks our every step raises the question.  If societies value equality of information, open debate, and transparency, these trends should be of concern?

One thing we know for sure is that the clear trend of getting more and more data involved in political campaigning and decision-making is there.

Without considering these questions, there is a danger that any response may have unintended consequences and fail to advance the principles we want to uphold.

Bribery is human nature and the only way to expose it is with transparency requirements that enable the media, public interest groups, and parties to engage in this debate.

The manipulation of the future political result, by algorithms is only a click away.

We will still need (yes, NEED) tons of “money in politics.”

Without big donors, how many Independent candidates will be able to go up against the dark money and deep, oligarch pockets?

Ok, let’s figure out where that money goes. 

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL COP26 TURN THE CLIMATE INTO A PRODUCT.

02 Tuesday Nov 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., Climate Change Summit Scotland 2021, Cop26.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL COP26 TURN THE CLIMATE INTO A PRODUCT.

Tags

, , , , ,

(Seven-minute read) 

It is not an overstatement to say that we all need to take responsibility for the carbon consequences of every choice we make. Such as filling up your car with petrol or booking a long-haul flight, or subtle, like when you buy a coffee or a new pair of shoes, or even increasing your cloud storage plan.

Pretty much everything we buy has a carbon footprint.

Every financial transaction has a climate consequence.

Companies are increasingly using environmental claims to appeal to consumers.

Our daily choices leave a carbon footprint. We know this, and we are all aware of the monumental climate risks posed by carbon emissions.

Demand for solutions is growing but if you know something is bad for you and you don’t know how to measure it, how can you reduce it?

Wouldn’t it be great if we could count, take control of and reduce our carbon emissions just as we take control of our diets?

Until now, despite huge advances in technology, monitoring and reducing our impact on the planet has been difficult.

As an individual, it is hard to incorporate carbon credits into your daily life.

There is no reason that all consumer products should be required to be labeled with their Cardon footprint. 

Consider cars, electrical or not.   

It takes about a tonne of steel to build it. Producing a tonne of steel emits two tonnes of carbon dioxide. 

By placing a value on the ecosystems that support our planet, carbon footprint labeling would internalize the invisible costs of everyday choices and allow a sustainable marketplace to emerge.

The market is beset by a lack of visibility. 

Imagine a world in which carbon emissions and footprints can be tracked transparently and reliably.

Retailers will be able to sell a product and take into account the carbon impact it creates at the same time.

Governments will be able to measure, track and trade emissions transparently. And crucially, for the first time, consumers will be able to understand the environmental impact of the products they are buying – both positive and negative – at the point of sale and will be able to mitigate this in an instant, with millions of micro-transactions scaling up to make a huge collective impact.

In a free-market economy, it is very difficult to force people to pay more for products but as the price lowers, our willingness and ability to buy an item increase.

                                    ——————

There will be billions of words from here to the moon and back and media footage of Cop26 over the next month. 

After which we will be asking the question of how did we end up turning not just carbon into a commodity but climate itself. 

Cop26 like previous Climate conferences is a bargaining area.

” You change this and I will change that.”

The Kyoto Protocol allowed for emission offsets in developing countries, whereas Paris creates an opportunity to extend the reach and deepen the integration of carbon markets.

With climate change a growing threat, economists came up with the idea of trading the right to pollute, creating a financial incentive to curb emissions.

Both lead to difficulty in assessing emission baselines with the free allocation of carbon permits leading to an oversupply in the market to be traded as greenwashing.  

This can be remedied by tightening caps in line with current climate targets and auctioning all available permits.

Broader criticisms of carbon trading include concerns that it has proven ineffective – some offset schemes even counterproductive – and it disproportionately affects lower-income classes.

Applying a carbon footprint labeling system might create a “carbon currency”  which is the key to demystifying and consolidating the carbon market so it can scale up.

Carbon credits are the perfect candidate for a digital currency as they are data-driven, rely on multiple approval steps, and exist separately to the physical impacts to which they correlate.

                               ————————-

The danger of climate becoming a product is obvious one only has to look at the words now used to describe a product. 

The word “ green ” is applied broadly to almost everything related to benefiting the environment, from production and transportation to architecture and even fashion.

Eco-friendly isn’t quite so broad and defines products or practices that do not harm the Earth’s environment.

Bioproducts or bio-based products are materials, chemicals, and energy derived from renewable biological resources. They are commercial or industrial products that are composed in whole, or in significant part, of biological products or renewable domestic
agricultural materials or forestry materials.

Climate-friendly defines products that reduce damage specifically to the climate.

Some brands are even moving beyond simply eco-friendly and now seek to claim their products are climate-neutral.

All these terms are used in labeling to make us feel good if we buy products claimed to minimize harm to the planet and the environment.

Consumer concern about the environment does not readily translate into the purchase of environmentally friendly products.

Take.  Meat the way people consume and think about meat is going to need to change in the coming years as meat processing companies face pressure to curb greenhouse gases in the fight against climate change.

McDonald’s — one of the largest beef purchasers in the world.

Finding ways to use carbon emissions to replace the “raft of products made from chemicals from petroleum” could have a significant impact on climate change.

Climatop label certifies products that generate significantly less greenhouse gas than comparable products.

Imagine a world where you take your waste back and reuse it.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THAT WE HAD 25COPS BEFORE THIS ONE.

31 Sunday Oct 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., Climate Change Summit Scotland 2021, Cop26.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. THAT WE HAD 25COPS BEFORE THIS ONE.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Two-minute read) 

There have been 25 COPs before.

Why do researchers say this one is so important? 

Because you don’t have to be a genius to see that climate change is potentially the greatest global environmental challenge facing mankind”.

It wasn’t until the 2015 Paris meeting, the 21st conference of parties to the treaty, that all countries formally agreed to take action to limit warming to 1.5–2 °C

Paris did driving action, but now it’s just not fast enough. Despite more than 30 years of warnings from scientists, and global efforts, carbon emissions are still increasing.

What would a successful outcome look like for COP26?

 

Commitments are just the first step:

Commitment is not a word but an act. 

Commitment Concept Arrow Of A Compass Pointing Commitment ...

Implementation and transparency will be the problem. 

COP26 isn’t just about national carbon commitments and

negotiations between countries. Business and industry

associations will be stepping forward with new commitments, as

well:

The idea that this Cop26 diplomatic process  (without putting money into the topic) which reaches decisions by consensus among nations rather than majority vote, is not capable of meeting the challenge.

Why? 

Because eliminating fossil fuels represent a wholesale transformation of the modern global economic system.

“It’s not just an environmental issue, it’s a massive societal challenge.”

If all 131 countries that have announced or discussed net-zero pledges were to follow through, the projected global temperature increase would be limited to around 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures.

That is still short of the Paris 1.5 °C goal.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY GET RID OF INEQUALITY.

29 Friday Oct 2021

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., Afghan War., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Climate Change Summit Scotland 2021, Climate Change., Environment, Green Energy., Human values., Humanity., Inequality., Our Common Values., Post-Covid-19, Technology v Humanity, Technology., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The state of the World., The world to day., Trade Agreements., Unanswered Questions., We can leave a legacy worthwhile., Wealth., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WORLD POVERTY WHERE'S THE GLOBAL OUTRAGE

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY GET RID OF INEQUALITY.

Tags

, , , , , ,

(Thirteen-minute read)

With or without technology there will always be inequalities in the world.

So why do we keep trying to solve poverty with technology?

Because this way of thinking is so ingrained that is adopted by organizations that fight poverty—which often refashion themselves to resemble technology startups.

Inequality has been growing so much that all governments and civil society speak about it with increasing worry, trying to understand its causes, but unable to find solutions, because of greed. 

It is our policy on technology that drives inequality.

There is no better example of this than in the way the world is handling the current Covid pandemic unable to share the know-how to make the vaccinations. 

Patents and copyrights are not guaranteed as individual rights, like the right to free speech or religion.

After all, why would a drug company pay large amounts of money to people to develop new drugs if the drugs can be copied and sold by competitors from the day they enter the market?

If it is not already obvious, patent and copyright monopolies are instruments of public policy, not acts of God.

This is why there is still not enough coronavirus vaccine to meet worldwide demand.

A year ago there was no commercial market for mRNA products.

Vaccine manufacturers long ago should have been sharing technology and expertise to boost production in the U.S. and Europe, and especially in developing countries. 

The same would be true of software developers, makers of medical equipment, computer manufacturers, smartphone companies, and any other product where the cost of research and development was a substantial portion of the price of the product.

The complete elimination of patents and copyrights is of course an extreme scenario, but it is a possible policy option.

If we did choose this policy option, we would have a much more equal distribution of income, in spite of having the same technology.

In short, the fact that there was a huge increase in inequality associated with the development of technology over the last four decades was the result of policy choices, not technology.

There should be serious public debate about both how strong we want to patent and copyright protection to be and also whether they are always the best way to promote innovation and creative work, as opposed to alternatives like direct public funding.

If we acknowledge the extreme case, where we literally have no patent or copyright protection, then we have to recognize that there is nothing inherent in our technology that would cause inequality.

Few things, in principle, can’t be delivered through technology.

It is entirely our rules on technology that can cause inequality to increase.How Technology Ends Inequality

So on one hand, technology can eradicate poverty — not by making poor people less poor, but by making it less valuable to be rich.

On the other as technology spreads, making its creators rich, but treating its users the same, we should expect more monopolies and more financial inequality.

Although it is your data you can’t pay for a better Facebook experience.

Companies are incentivized to offer a product if it makes more than it costs. And technology ends up not costing much once you’ve built it.

So, in the end, you charge people whatever they can pay and in poorer countries, people just pay and get paid less.

Times are changing from the days that growth in inequality was largely an organic process independent of government policy.  

“Owning” the robot/algorithm is not a technical relationship, it is a legal one, and therefore one that depends on our laws.

The reason some people might get very rich from owning robots or algorithms is that they own patents and copyrights that are needed for the making of the robots/ algorithms.  

                                         __________________

In the past, technological improvements would be beneficial to all:

Extreme economic inequality is corrosive to our societies.

Around 8% of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty — but do you know why?

Gender inequality, caste systems, marginalization based on race or tribal affiliations are all economic and social inequalities that mean the same thing:

You might think that poverty causes hunger (and you would be right!), but hunger is also a cause — and maintainer — of poverty. This is why now with climate change, negotiating international trade agreements behind closed doors with only bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists present has to end.

Economics should take into account ethics and the environment, and treat its claims less like invariable truths.

It goes without saying that any actions coming out of Cop 26 climate change conferences to reduce temperatures will be derailed by not just income inequality, (only the higher income household will be able to afford green energy technologies. Solar panels, electric cars, heating pumps, etc.) but by the total lack of shared responsibility to do anything about it.   

Of course, there are hundreds of other elements that contribute to the problems our world is now facing. 

World poverty isn’t a problem of limited resources, it is a problem of inequality and this inequality is upheld by the idea that aid creates dependence.

Climate change will drive up to 132 million more people into extreme poverty by 2030.

The pricing carbon emissions on average is at a mere $3 a tonne.

The price of inequality in all its forms is greed. There are vast fortunes to be made with Technology/ Algorithms for profit and nothing blurs ethical lines faster than greed. 

So far, any decoupling has either been largely relative – in the sense of merely achieving higher rates of economic growth than gains in emissions – or achieved by shifting dirty production from one national territory to another.

And that is why, for now, global emissions are still rising.

The idea of “Just Transition” without financing is pie in the sky. 

Take the aftermath of the Afghan 20-year war.

The country is now facing starvation. Why not bomb it with food.   

By coming together to tackle the plague of destitution around the world, we have the opportunity to advance the human condition and eliminate global poverty in a way no one has done before.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨