We all know that massive changes need to be made to the way we all live on the planet, due to climate change.
However most of us are not aware of the effects that artificial intelligence in having on our lives.
This post looks at our changing understanding of ourselves, due digitalized reasoning, which is turning us into digitalized
citizens, relying more on and more on digitalized reasoning for all aspects of living.
Does it help us understand what is going on? Or to work out what we can do about it?
It could be said that the climate is beyond our control, but AI remains within the realms of control.
Is this true?
It is true that the human race is in grave danger of stupidity re climate change which if not addressed globally could cause our extinction.
We know that using technology alone will not solve climate change, but it is necessary to gather information about what is happing to the planet, while our lives are monitored in minute detail by algorithms for profit.
There are many reasons why this is happing and the consequences of it will be far reaching and perhaps as dangerous if not more than what the climate is and will be bringing.
While biology reasoning usually starts with an observation leading to a logical problem-solving with deductive conclusions
usually reliable, provided the premises are true.
Digital AI reasoning on the other hand is a cycle rather than any logically straight line.
It is the result of one go-round becomes feedback that improves the next round of question asking to ask machine
learning, with all programs and algorithms learning the result instantly.
Example One Drone to the next. One high-frequency trade to the next. One bank loan to the next. One human to the next.
Digital Reasoning, is combining artificial intelligence and machine learning with all the biases program’s in the code in the first place without any supervision oversight, or global regulation
It combined volumes of data in real-time to remove the propose a hypothesis, to make a new hypothesis without conclusively prove that it’s correct. An iterative process of inductive reasoning extracts a likely (but not certain) premise from specific and limited observations. There is data, and then conclusions are drawn from the data; this is called inductive logic/ reasoning.
Inductive reasoning does not guarantee that the conclusion will be true.
In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory.
In other words, there is nothing that makes a guess ‘educated’ other than the learning program.
The differences between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is a top-down approach, while inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach.
Inductive reasoning is used in a number of different ways, each serving a different purpose:
We use inductive reasoning in everyday life to build our understanding of the world.
Inductive reasoning, or inductive logic, is a type of reasoning that involves drawing a general conclusion from a set of specific observations. Some people think of inductive reasoning as “bottom-up” logic the one logic exercise we do nearly every day, though we’re scarcely aware of it. We take tiny things we’ve seen or read and draw general principles from them—an act known as inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning also underpins the scientific method: scientists gather data through observation and experiment, make hypotheses based on that data, and then test those theories further. That middle step—making hypotheses—is an inductive inference, and they wouldn’t get very far without it.
Inductive reasoning is also called a hypothesis-generating approach, because you start with specific observations and build toward a theory. It’s an exploratory method that’s often applied before deductive research.
Finally, despite the potential for weak conclusions, an inductive argument is also the main type of reasoning in academic life.
Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning, where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.
Deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical and true conclusion. In deductive reasoning, you’ll often make an argument for a certain idea. You make an inference, or come to a conclusion, by applying different premises. Due to its reliance on inference, deductive reasoning is at high risk for research biases, particularly confirmation bias and other types of cognitive bias like belief bias.
In deductive reasoning, you start with general ideas and work toward specific conclusions through inferences. Based on theories, you form a hypothesis. Using empirical observations, you test that hypothesis using inferential statistics and form a conclusion.
In practice, most research projects involve both inductive and deductive methods.
However it can be tempting to seek out or prefer information that supports your inferences or ideas, with inbuilt bias creeping into research. Patients have a better chance of surviving, banks can ensure their employees are meeting the highest standards of conduct, and law enforcement can protect the most vulnerable citizens in our society.
However, there are important distinctions that separate these two pathways to a logical conclusion of what Digitized reasoning is going to do or replace human reasoning.
First there is no debate that Computers have done amazing calculations for us, but they have never solved a hard problem on their own.
The problem is the communication barrier between the language of humans and the language of computers.
A programmer can code in all the rules, or axioms, and then ask if a particular conjecture follows those rules. The computer then does all the work. Does it explain its work. No.
All that calculating happens within the machine, and to human eyes it would look like a long string of 0s and 1s. It’s impossible to scan the proof and follow the reasoning, because it looks like a pile of random data. “No human will ever look at that proof and be able to say, ‘I get it.’ They operate in a kind of black box and just spit out an answer.
Machine proofs may not be as mysterious as they appear. Maybe they should be made to explain.
I can see it becoming standard practice that if you want your paper/ codes/ algorithm to be accepted, you have to get it past an automatic checker – re transparency because efforts at the forefront of the field today aim to blend learning with reasoning.
After all, if the machines continue to improve, and they have access to vast amounts of data, they should become very good at doing the fun parts, too. “They will learn how to do their own prompts.”
company will enable customers to spot risks before they happen, maximize the scalability of supervision teams, and uncover strategic insights from large
The Limits of Reason.
Neural networks are able to develop an artificial style of intuition, leverage communications data to spot risks before they happen, and identify new insights to drive fresh growth initiatives, creating a large divide between firms investing to harvest data-driven insights and leverage data to manage risk, and those who are falling behind.
This will bear out in earnings and share prices in the years to come.
The challenge of automating reasoning in computer proofs as a subset of a much bigger field:
Natural language processing, which involves pattern recognition in the usage of words and sentences. (Pattern recognition is also the driving idea behind computer vision, the object of Szegedy’s previous project at Google.)
Like other groups, his team wants theorem provers that can find and explain useful proofs. He envisions a future in which theorem provers replace human referees at major journals.
Josef Urban thinks that the marriage of deductive and inductive reasoning required for proofs can be achieved through this kind of combined approach. His group has built theorem provers guided by machine learning tools, which allow computers to learn on their own through experience. Over the last few years, they’ve explored the use of neural networks — layers of computations that help machines process information through a rough approximation of our brain’s neuronal activity. In July, his group reported on new conjectures generated by a neural network trained on theorem-proving data.
Harris disagrees. He doesn’t think computer provers are necessary, or that they will inevitably “make human mathematicians obsolete.” If computer scientists are ever able to program a kind of synthetic intuition, he says, it still won’t rival that of humans.
“Even if computers understand, they don’t understand in a human way.”
I say the current Ukraine Russian war is the labourite of AI reasoning this war with all its consequence is telling us that AI should never be allowed near nuclear weapons or….dangerous pathogens.
An inductive argument is one that reasons in the opposite direction from deduction.
Given some specific cases, what can be inferred about the underlying general rule?
The reasoning process follows the same steps as in deduction.
The difference is the conclusions: an inductive argument is not a proof, but rather a probalistic inference.
When scholars use statistical evidence to test a hypothesis, they are using inductive logic.
The main objective of statistics is to test a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a falsifiable claim that requires verification.
Most progress in science, engineering, medicine, and technology is the result of hypothesis testing.
When a computer uses statistical evidence to test a hypothesis it’s assumption may or may not be true. To prove something is correct, we first need to take reciprocal of it and then try to prove that reciprocal is wrong which ultimately proves something is correct.
Finally this post has been written or generated by a human reasoning, that see the dangers of losing that reasoning to Digital reasoning of Enterprise Spock.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
Unfortunately, the future isn’t talking. It’s just coming, like it or not being able to see the future might not play to our advantage.
Let’s not kid ourselves: Everything we think we know now is just an approximation to something we haven’t yet found out.
To imagine and think about the future, is a risky task that frequently ends up in an incomplete, subjective, sometimes vacuous exercise that, normally, faces a number of heated discussions.
Thinking about the future requires imagination and also rigour so we must guard against the temptation to choose a favourite future and prepare for it alone.
In a world where shocks like pandemics and extreme weather events owing to climate change, social unrest and political polarization are expected to be more frequent, we cannot afford to be caught off guard again.
Let’s look at some of the areas that are and will cause everything from wars to radical changes.
Every day, we use a wide variety of automated systems that collect and process data. Such “algorithmic processing” is ubiquitous and often beneficial, underpinning many of the products and services we use in everyday life.
This is why we now need to thoroughly understand what’s at stake and what we can (and cannot) do …today.
Otherwise it is an ill wind for the next 60/100 years.
But what does the future hold for ordinary mortals, and how will we adapt to it?
We have been searching the universe for signs that we are not alone. So far, we have found nothing.
Given our genome and the physiological, anatomical and mental landscapes it conjures, what could Homo sapiens really become – and what is forever beyond our reach?
It’s hard to know what to fear the most.
Even our own existence is no longer certain.
Threats loom from many possible directions: a giant asteroid strike, global warming, a new plague, or nanomachines going rogue and turning everything into grey goo or the dreaded self inflicted nuclear wipe out. However we look at it, the future appears bleak.
Where is all of this leading us?
What we do now set the foundations for a future.
The chaos theory taught us that the future behaviour of any physical system is extraordinarily sensitive to small changes – the flap of a butterfly’s wings can set off a hurricane, as the saying goes.
Computers simulations of future reality of a world are already producing ever more accurate predictions of what is to come, showing us that we are under immense stress, environmentally, economically and politically instabilities.
There is no God that’s is going to change the direction we on or save humanity from self destruction, its in our hands
ENGERY: FUSION POWER.
We already live in a world powered by nuclear fusion. Unfortunately the reactor is 150 million kilometres away and we haven’t worked out an efficient way to tap it directly. So we burn its fossilised energy – coal, oil and gas – which is slowly boiling the planet alive, like a frog in a pan of water.
Fusion would largely free us from fossil fuels, delivering clean and extremely cheap energy in almost unlimited quantities.
Or would it? Fusion power would certainly be cleaner than burning fossil fuels, but it …Fusion works on the principle that energy can be released by forcing together atomic nuclei rather than by splitting them, as in the case of the fission reactions that drive existing nuclear power stations.
Sadly it won’t help in our battle to lessen the effects of climate change.
Because there’s huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades. Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century.
THE INTERNET/ ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE/ SELF LEARNING ALGORITHMS/ROBOTS.
Billions of dollars continue to be funnelled into AI research. And stunning advances are being made but at what future cost.
Are we at the point in time at which machine intelligence starts to take off, and a new more intelligent species starts to inhabit Earth?
Synthetic life would make the point in a way the wider world could not ignore. Moreover, creating it in the lab would prove that the origin of life is a relatively low hurdle, increasing the odds that we might find life.
Neither physical strength nor access to capital are sufficient for economic success. Power now resides with those best able to organize knowledge. The internet has eliminated “middlemen” in most industries, removing a great deal of corruption but replacing it with profit seeking Algorithms that are widely used increasing the inequality gaps.
What does future warfare look like?
It’s here already.
Up goesdigital technology, artificial intelligence and cyber. Down goes the money for more traditional hardware and troop numbers.
The present war in the Ukraine is the laboratory for machine learning decision killing, with autonomy in weapons systems – precision guided munitions. (Autonomous weapon system: A weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator.) This includes human-supervised autonomous weapon systems that are designed to allow human operators to override operation of the weapon system, but can select and engage targets without further human input after activation.
(AI)-enabled lethal autonomous weapons in Ukraine, might make new types of autonomous weapons desirable.
There is still no internationally agreed upon definition of autonomous weapons or lethal autonomous weapons.
‘Fire and forget’
Many of the aspects of a major conflict between the West and say, Russia or China, have already been developed, rehearsed and deployed.
Global climate change is not a future problem with some of the changes now irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.
The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities.
Climate models predict that Earth’s global average temperature will rise an additional 4° C (7.2° F) during the 21st Century if greenhouse gas levels continue to rise at present levels. A warmer average global temperature will cause the water cycle to “speed up” due to a higher rate of evaporation. Which means we are looking at a future with much more rain and snow, and a higher risk of flooding to some regions. Changes in precipitation will not be evenly distributed.
Over the past 100 years, mountain glaciers in all areas of the world have decreased in size and so has the amount of permafrost in the Arctic. Greenland’s ice sheet is melting faster, too. The amount of sea ice (frozen seawater) floating in the Arctic Ocean and around Antarctica is expected to decrease. Already the summer thickness of sea ice in the Arctic is about half of what it was in 1950. Arctic sea ice is melting more rapidly than the Antarctic sea ice. Melting ice may lead to changes in ocean circulation, too. Although there is some uncertainty about the amount of melt, summer in the Arctic Ocean will likely be ice-free by the end of the century.
Abrupt changes are also possible as the climate warms.
Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound.
The consequences of any of them are so severe, and the fact that we cannot retreat from them once they’ve been set in motion is so problematic, that we must keep them in mind when evaluating the overall risks associated with climate change.
History—particularly migration history—has shown time and again, that large population movements are often a result of single, hard-to-predict events such as large economic or political shocks.
Imagining migration’s future is urgent, especially now, when we are witnessing the highest movement of people in modern history, which is presented in a political context with strong populist and nationalist overtones, peppered with growing inequality in and between countries; in addition to an environmental crisis and a growing interconnection and proliferation of information that is usually deliberately distorted.
In today’s acts rests the seed of what we will harvest tomorrow. What we do today with and for the migrants will define not only their future but also ours.
We will always struggle to anticipate key changes in migration flows but that it’s more important to set up systems that can deal with different alternative outcomes and adjust flexibly. Most Western countries no longer openly support or defend the universality of human rights. Most countries apply “multilateralism à la carte”, that is, they participate only in multilateral agreements that strictly benefit their national interest.
Migration control systems collapsed because the international community failed to develop multilateral migration governance regimes. The international protection system has ended up being irrelevant. Many people are moving, the number of displaced people has increased dramatically as well as the number of refugees – The Trojan horses.
Immigration isn’t a new phenomenon, but with the effects of the future climate the scale and variety of countries from which people are moving will be greater than ever.
The idea that you have to learn a foreign language to make yourself understood in your own country is no longer a probability.
We now have immigration from everywhere in the world.
Very few people have issues with genuinely high skilled migrants coming over to work as doctors or scientists. The anxieties are always around mass immigration of low skilled labour (and in particularly about those from diametrically opposed cultures with completely different norms and values). As for the ageing populations thing, replacing your population with younger migrants from different cultures does technically solve the ageing population problem but then you end up with a completely different culture and country…
What ever you think, it’s becoming more difficult to do the old-style identity politics where you found a particular group and did what they wanted. Effectively assimilating people from the Muslim world looks to be a particular difficult.
Nearly all nations are mongrels
By imagining alternative futures for education we can better think through the outcomes, develop agile and responsive systems
and plan for future shocks .We have already integrated much of our life into our smartphones, watches and digital personal
assistants in a way that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago.
The underlying question is: to what extent are our current spaces, people, time and technology in schooling helping or hindering
It would involve re-envisioning the spaces where learning takes place. Schools could disappear altogether.
Brute force algorithm: This is the most common type in which we devise a solution by exploring all the possible scenarios.
Greedy algorithm: In this, we make a decision by considering the local (immediate) best option and assume it as a global optimal.
Divide and conquer algorithm: This type of algorithm will divide the main problem into sub-problems and then would solve them individually.
Backtracking algorithm: This is a modified form of Brute Force in which we backtrack to the previous decision to obtain the desired goal.
Randomized algorithm: As the name suggests, in this algorithm, we make random choices or select randomly generated numbers.
Dynamic programming algorithm: This is an advanced algorithm in which we remember the choices we made in the past and apply them in future scenarios.
Recursive algorithm: This follows a loop, in which we follow a pattern of the possible cases to obtain a solution.
90.72% of people in the world cell phone owners. Algorithms are everywhere.
Algorithmic systems, particularly modern Machine Learning (ML) approaches, pose significant risks if deployed and managed
without due care. They can amplify harmful biases that lead to discriminatory decisions or unfair outcomes that reinforce
They can be used to mislead consumers and distort competition. Further, the opaque and complex nature by which
they collect and process large volumes of personal data can put people’s privacy rights in jeopardy.
Now more than ever it is vital that we understand and articulate the nature and severity of these risks.
Those procuring and/or using algorithms often know little about their origins and limitations
There is a lack of visibility and transparency in algorithmic processing, which can undermine accountability.
They are already being woven into many digital products and services.
Algorithmic processing is already leading to society-wide harms making automated decisions that can potentially vary the cost of,
or even deny an individual’s access to, a product, service, opportunity or benefit.
For example, using live facial recognition at a stadium on matchday could impact rights relating to
freedom of assembly, or track an individual’s behaviour online, which may infringe their right to privacy.
At the moment there is very little transparently in providing information about how and where algorithmic processing takes place
or how they are deployed, such as the protocols and procedures that govern there use, whether they are overseen by a human
operator, and whether there are any mechanisms through which people can seek redress. The number of players involved in
algorithmic supply chains is leading to confusion over who is accountable for their proper development and use.
As the number of use cases for algorithmic processing grows, so too will the number of questions concerning the impact of
algorithmic processing on society.
Already there are many gaps in our knowledge of this technology, with myths and misconceptions commonplace.
They are the TikTok erosion of human values for profit, that will become the full individual personalization of content and
pedagogy (enabled by cutting-edge technology, using body information, facial expressions or neural signals) for commercial
platforms to rival Government’s.
In a world of mounting inequalities, the question of who benefits and misses out from bioengineering advances looms large.
Unfortunately, we don’t have space here to talk about all the effects in the future concerning Bioengineering.
Artificial organs or limbs, the genetic synthesis of new organisms, gene editing, the computerized simulation of surgery, medical imaging technology and tissue/organ regeneration.
Like any other technology, bioengineering has damaging potential, whether it be through misuse, weaponization or accidents.
This risk can create significant threats with large potential consequences to public health, privacy or to environmental safety.
Foreseeing the impacts of bioengineering technologies is urgently needed.
All these issues have implications for academics, policymakers and the general public and range from neuronal probes for human enhancement to carbon sequestration.
These issues will not unfold in isolation:
Biotechnological discoveries are increasingly facilitated by automated and roboticides, private ‘cloud labs’.
The effects on biodiversity and ecosystems have not been fully studied.
Protein engineering and machine learning, leading to the creation of novel compounds within the industry (e.g. new catalysts for un-natural reactions) and medical applications (e.g. selectively destroying damaged tissue which is key for some diseases).
These newly created proteins have the potential to be used as weapons due to their high lethality.
Healthcare is facing a tug of war between democratization and elite therapies.
Plant strains which sequester carbon more effectively, rapidly and can even aid solar photovoltaics (the production of electricity from light) and light-sustained biomanufacturing.
Due to political unrest and the spread of fake news, citizens are scared about this approach and protest against it.
These issues will shape the future of bioengineering and must shape modern discussions about its political, societal and economic impact. This is now a very complicated question with no foreseeable answer.
To answer we have to think about how we got here in the first place. Of course “The herd” might not want to think about something like this.
Our democracy is in crisis. Many institutions of our government are dysfunctional and getting worse.
Our politics have become alarmingly acrimonious;
Technology is enriching some and leaving the vast majority behind.
Democracy, has never been without profound flaws, cannot be taken for granted. Trust in political institutions – including the electoral process itself – are at an all-time low. Societies the world over are experiencing a strong backlash to a system of government that has largely been the hallmark of developed nations for generations
We don’t know where it’s heading as politicians are now basically middlemen to Social media which is changing the way people viewed their political leaders as under constant pressure promoted by populist as a result all decomacies are now “flawed” and exposed to the vulnerability of pure democracy to the tyranny of the majority
We don’t know how serious it is. So, what’s going on?
What’s behind the erosion of a political system that’s guided the world’s most developed economies for decades?
As a result government’s are becoming more and more soulless, in failing to talk about the things that mattered to people.
With political parties running away from talking about the issues that matter to people.
When people feel threatened, either physically – by terrorism, say – or economically, they tend to be more receptive to authoritarian populist appeals and more willing to give up certain freedoms. When people are saying they can’t stomach any more immigration, when they don’t know if they’re going to be able to retire or what kind of jobs their kids are going to get, the political elite needs to listen and adapt or things are going to unravel.
Some may argue that this is because governments no longer feel like they are “of the people, by the people, for the people.
Maybe we are going to have some shocking lessons about the durability of democracy.
Non-democratic states have many forms, like China’s meritocratic system – in which government officials are not elected by the public, but appointed and promoted according to their competence and performance – should not be dismissed outright.
A democratic system can live with corruption because corrupt leaders can be voted out of power, at least in theory. But in a meritocratic system, corruption is an existential threat. Elections are a safety valve that isn’t available in China so the government is not subject to the electoral cycle and can focus on its policies while the West has tried to export democracy not only at the point of a gun, but also by imposing legislation. The whole idea is wrong in principle because democracy is not ours to dispense.
The US and Western Europe have we hope abandoned most of their ambitions for regime change around the world.
So looking inwards may be no bad thing. If the West wants to promote democracy then they should do it by example.
How do we reconcile that with democracy millions of citizens?
Hence, the knowledge revolution should bring a shift to direct democracy, but those who benefit from the current structure are fighting this transition. This is the source of much angst around the world, including the current wave of popular protests.
Smaller political entities should find the evolution toward direct democracy easier to achieve than big, sprawling governments.
Today’s great powers have little choice but to spend their way to political stability, which is unsustainable, and/or try to control knowledge, which is difficult.
Each individual’s share of sovereignty, and therefore their freedom, diminishes as the social contract includes more people.
So, other things being equal, smaller countries would be freer and more democratic than larger ones.
I’m not sure we can. It worked pretty well for a long time but maybe, as population grows.
FINALLY THE LANDS WE NOW INHABIT COULD DISSAPEAR IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.
Rising seas could affect three times more people by 2050 than previously thought, some 150 million people are now living on land
that will be below the high-tide line by mid-century. Defensive measures can go only so far. We know that it’s coming.
The math is catching up to us – the amount of Co2 – the number of refugees / immigrants, the inequality gap, the numbers dying in wars~ natural disasters, the erosion of democracy, trust.
We need to know in plain English and without hype or hysteria of technologies ,social media, or selective algorithms news, only then will we begin to understand what’s coming and how to begin preparing yourself.
impossible to know everything about a quantum system such as an atom.
President Vladimir Putin cast the confrontation with the West over the Ukraine war as an existential battle for the survival of Russia and the Russian people – and said he was forced to take into account NATO’s nuclear capabilities.
Putin is increasingly presenting the war as a make-or-break moment in Russian history – and saying that he believes the very future of Russia and its people is in peril. “In today’s conditions, when all the leading NATO countries have declared their main goal as inflicting a strategic defeat on us, so that our people suffer as they say, how can we ignore their nuclear capabilities in these conditions?” Putin said.
completely unaware of the relentless pressure that’s building right now.
wasn’t always the United States. Nothing requires it to remain so. At some point, it will develop into something else.
THE COST OF THINGS.
Globalization vs. Regionalization, US-centric vs China-centric.
Modern Western economies have become knowledge based.
Technology and political trends are aligning against mega-powers like the US and China.
The West is beset with widening wealth gaps, shrinking middle classes and fractured societies.
There is only one country that has got it right Norway.
This small Scandinavian country of 5 million people does things differently.
It has the lowest income inequality in the world, helped by a mix of policies that support education and innovation. It also channels the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, which manages its oil and gas revenues, into long-term economic planning.
Norway does not have a statutory minimum wage, but 70% of its workers are covered by collective agreements which specify wage floors. Furthermore, 54% of paid workers are members of unions. The government has prioritised education as a means to diversify its economy and foster higher and more inclusive growth.
The Norwegian state heavily subsidies childcare, capping fees and using means-testing so that places are affordable, although some parents report difficulty in finding an available place. Norway has provided for 49 weeks of parental leave at full pay (or 59 weeks at 80% of earnings). Additionally, mothers and fathers must take at least 14 weeks off each after the birth of a child.
Currently some 98% of its energy comes from renewable sources, mainly hydropower.
While Norway is more fortunate than most, it does offer some valuable lessons to policy-makers from other parts of the world.
Religions never do really die.
We take it for granted that religions are born, grow and die – but we are also oddly blind to that reality.
When we recognise a faith, we treat its teachings and traditions as timeless and sacrosanct. And when a religion dies, it becomes a myth, and its claim to sacred truth expires. If you believe your faith has arrived at ultimate truth, you might reject the idea that it will change at all. But if history is any guide, no matter how deeply held our beliefs may be today, they are likely in time to be transformed or transferred as they pass to our descendants – or simply to fade away.
As our civilisation and its technologies become increasingly complex, could entirely new forms of worship emerge?
We might expect the form that religion takes to follow the function it plays in a particular society – that different societies will invent the particular gods they need.
The future of religion is that it has no future.
Perhaps with the march of science it is leading to the “disenchantment” of society so supernatural answers to the big questions will be no longer felt to be needed. We also need to be careful when interpreting what people mean by “no religion”. “Nones” may be disinterested in organised religion, but that doesn’t mean they are militantly atheist. Accordingly, there are very many ways of being an unbeliever. The acid test, as true for neopagans as for transhumanists, is whether people make significant changes to their lives consistent with their stated faith.
People have started constructing faiths of their own. Consider the “Witnesses of Climatology”, a fledgling “religion” invented to foster greater commitment to action on climate change.
In fact, recognition is a complex issue worldwide, particularly since there is no widely accepted definition of religion even in academic circles.
A supercomputer is turned on and asked: is there a God? Now there is, comes the reply.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. Please keep comments respectful. Use plain English for our global readership and avoid using phrasing that could be misinterpreted as offensive.
It seems to be easier for us today to imagine the thoroughgoing deterioration of the earth and of nature than the breakdown of late capitalism; perhaps that is due to some weakness in our imaginations.” — Frederic Jameson, The Seeds of Time
The stakes facing our generation are much more than they first seem, because our actions might have the potential to bring about a far better world, or cut it short.
The shifting meaning of “capitalism,” and how societies hide their downside with culture.
We’re unclear on what “capitalism” is supposed to be.
From the proletarians, nothing is to be feared.
Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is.” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Rather than us asking questions of this world, this world asks questions of us.
We need to listen to the world in new ways and hear the fundamental questions that it askes us.
WITH CLIMATE CHANGE – WARS – AI – INEQULITY. – UNITED NATIONS
ALL AT THIS VERY M0MENT ARE ASKING: DO WE WISH TO CONTINUE TO EXIST?
Might it be, then, that we have trouble imagining the end of capitalism because we think capitalism is great, and we’d fear that any alternative would be worse?
It is not we who are permitted to ask about the meaning of life — it is life that asks the questions, directs questions at us… our whole act of being is nothing more than responding to — of being responsible toward — life.
Have we been indoctrinated so that we subscribe to an ideology or a myth of capitalism?
All are questing, just what are our values.
We have an easier time imagining an apocalyptic death of the planet than capitalism being surpassed by a superior economic system, promoting equality.
Do we trust in capitalism on what are effectively theological grounds, so that the specious neoliberal arguments in capitalism’s favour are so many superfluous rationalizations?
Will AI Have a Soul? And does it even matter? Everybody uses the internet, but nobody trusts it.
The recent state of the world certainly hasn’t helped.
Even if capitalism is justifiable, it doesn’t follow that those who benefit from that system should be unable even to imagine a better kind of economy.
Neoliberals will say that we can imagine an alternative to capitalism, after all, namely the communist one that failed in the Soviet Union. But that, too, is a red herring since the question is whether we can imagine improvements to capitalism, not worse economies.
Likely, you find your smartphone handy, but that doesn’t mean you can’t imagine improvements to it. You’d prefer to keep your phone, of course, and you may even be addicted to social media. But science fiction is replete with re-imagined technologies. For instance, we could miniaturize smartphones and hardwire them into the brain.
Science doesn’t demonstrate that the quantityof life matters more than its quality, nor can science show which qualities of life should matter more than others.
How do I get people to do what I want them to do?
Unfortunately there are collective forms of self-deception.
Individuals, of course, can prevent themselves from reckoning with unwanted truths, in that they can underestimate obstacles, confabulate, procrastinate, and so on, unable to realize the meaning of the present moment.
“You can get everything in life that you want if you’ll just help enough other people get what they want.”
Give and you will receive.
Maybe there are social mechanisms that operate in an analogous fashion, protecting whole populations by steering them towards the party line. The analogue of the individual ego, or of the conscious self, might be the upper class that dictates mass media narratives, such as by instilling neoliberal values via Ivy League education, as Thomas Frank explains.
Societies have worldviews called “cultures,” along with institutions that enforce their biases.
Once large, sedentary societies emerged in history, so too did mechanisms for managing mass opinion. Religion was one such device, but we can speak more neutrally about “ideologies,” as Karl Marx did, to account for how we may protect capitalism, too, with myths and collective fallacies.
If you’re looking for signs of such capitalist myths, have a look at advertising, at how thousands of misleading slogans and manipulative, hyperbolic messages stream through everyone’s consciousness on a daily basis.
In the boom-and-bust cycle in which government spending alone can stabilize.
The recent pandemic, natural disasters, wars, all shine a light on the inequality that exist and have existed since time immortal.
If we want a world worth living in and on, we must make profit contribute to PROTECTING all the essential values of life, not the pockets of the few.
Whether it’s turning promises on climate change into action, rebuilding trust in the financial system, or connecting the world to the internet.
OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY MUST BE TO REPAIRING THE DAMAGE OF CENTURIES OF GREED.
To achieve these objectives we will need to address a host of issues, with more than common sense but with trillions and trillions pumped into removing and protecting before the planet becomes uninhabitable.
The Earth’s average land temperature has warmed nearly 1°C in the past 50 years as a result of human activity, global greenhouse gas emissions have grown by nearly 80% since 1970, and atmospheric concentrations of the major greenhouse gases are at their highest level in 800,000 years. We’re already seeing and feeling the impacts of climate change with weather events such as droughts and storms becoming more frequent and intense, and changing rainfall patterns.
By 2050, the world must feed 9 billion people. Yet the demand for food will be 60% greater than it is today. Despite huge gains in global economic output, there is evidence that our current social, political and economic systems are exacerbating inequalities, rather than reducing them. Rising income inequality is the cause of economic and social ills, ranging from low consumption to social and political unrest, and is damaging to our future well-being. More than 61 million jobs have been lost since the start of the global economic crisis in 2008, leaving more than 200 million people unemployed globally.
To function efficiently, the system needs to re-establish trust.
The internet is changing the way we live, work, produce and consume. With such extensive reach, digital technologies cannot help but disrupt many of our existing models of business and government. We are entering the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a technological transformation driven by a ubiquitous and mobile internet. The challenge is to manage this seismic change in a way that promotes the long-term health and stability of the internet. Within the next decade, it is expected that more than a trillion sensors will be connected to the internet.
By 2025, 10% of people are expected to be wearing clothes connected to the internet and the first implantable mobile phone is expected to be sold.
Equality between men and women in all aspects of life, from access to health and education to political power and earning potential, is fundamental to whether and how societies thrive.
The growth of the digital economy, the rise of the service sector and the spread of international production networks have all been game-changers for international trade. Despite fundamental changes in the way business is done across borders, international regulations and agreements have not evolved at the same speed. In addition, negotiations to reach a new global trade agreement have stalled. There is a pressing need to reform the global trade framework.
Investing for the long term is vital for economic growth and social well-being, serious challenges to global health remain.
The number of people on the planet is set to rise to 9.7 billion in 2050 with 2 billion aged over 60. To cope with this huge demographic shift and build a global healthcare system that is fit for the future, the world needs to address these challenges now.
In short, the most pressing problems are those where people can have the greatest impact by working on them.
As we explained in the previous article, this means problems that are not only big, but also neglected and solvable. The more neglected and solvable, the further extra effort will go. And this means they’re not the problems that first come to mind.
First, future generations matter, but they can’t vote, they can’t buy things, and they can’t stand up for their interests. This means our system neglects them. You can see this in the global failure to come to an international agreement to tackle climate change that actually works..
We can’t so easily visualise suffering that will happen in the future. Future generations rely on our goodwill, and even that is hard to muster.
We all know where the Solutions are to be found – in how wealth is distributed.
We should go beyond the focus on reducing the global poverty rate to below 3% and strive to ensure that all countries and all people can share in the benefits of economic development. Nearly half of the world’s population currently lives in poverty. 2/3 of the population in low-income countries is under 25 years old.
The world is facing multiple converging crises — growing food insecurity, rising fuel prices, economic instability, and the climate crisis — and they are all hitting poor countries the hardest. With 349 million people across 79 countries facing acute food insecurity, this is the worst food crisis in decades. While COVID-19, climate change, and conflict have been major drivers, political action has also fallen short.
Poverty entails more than the lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education and other basic services, social discrimination and exclusion, as well as the lack of participation in decision-making.
And we still wonder why the world we live in is going down the tube.
It is quite obvious that there is no point in been rich without giving – the power to solve some of the most pressing global challenges is not to be found in the words of the United Nations Declaration to end poverty in all its forms everywhere is Goal 1 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Because it has to beg for funds to implement any of its aspirations.
What is needed is a preputial Fund to create a World Aid system with clout.
HERE IS HOW THIS CAN BE ACHIVED.
We now live in a world driven by technology – Apps for this and Apps that – Smartphone – Algorithms running world stock market, plundering everything for the sake of profit.
Why not introduce a World Aid commission algorithm to collect 0.05% on all activities that produce profit for profit sake.
This funding could be delivered by non repayable grants prioritising adaptation re climate change, vetted projects to reduce poverty, food sustainability, environment protection, etc ( Unlike The International Monetary Fund (IMF) the lender of last resort.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
Human brains are the product of blind and unguided evolution, therefore one day hit a hard limit – and may already have done so.
So a population of human brains is much smarter than any individual brain in isolation.
But does this argument really hold up?
Can our puny brains really answer all conceivable questions and understand all problems?
What made our species unique, is that we were capable of culture, in particular cumulative cultural knowledge. With the arrival of Artificial Intelligence this applies as we now have Apps that select what we hear, see and believe to be true.
Considering that human brains did not evolve to discover their own origins either, and yet somehow we managed to do just that. Perhaps the pessimists are missing something.
It is right that our brains are simply not equipped to solve certain problems, there is no point in even trying, as they will continue to baffle and bewilder us. Assuming we could even agree on a definition of “truth,” the list of reasons we can’t or don’t wish to know the truth would be quite long and well beyond the scope of this blog post.
We all know that we are destroying the planet we all live on. One of the reasons that we have difficulties with perceiving this truth, is with seeing reality, has to do with the purpose of truth.
The purpose of truth is rooted in the purpose of life itself. Truth isn’t desirous for its own sake, it serves a higher master than AI.
Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness.
Our ancestors needed to be able to discriminate friend from foe, healthy from unhealthy, and safe from dangerous (e.g., “It is good to eat this and bad to eat that.”).
Within an evolutionary framework, ignorance of what is true or real could be dangerous or deadly.
In order to survive, it was critical for our ancestors to learn to make predictions based on available information. It motivates them to move from a state of not knowing to knowing.
Thus, our ancestors didn’t need to see the world for what it reallywas. They just needed to know enough to help them survive. For example, the world looks flat. It looks like the sun rises in the sky and is a relatively small object. Our eyes (or our brains) deceive us though. The Earth, as well as other planets, are roughly spherical in shape. A million Earths could fit inside the Sun, and it is 93,000,000 miles away from us.
If our ancestors had no need to understand the wider cosmos in order to spread their genes, why would natural selection have given us the brainpower to do so?
At some point, human inquiry will suddenly slam into a metaphorical brick wall, after which we will be forever condemned to stare in blank incomprehension.
We will never find the true scientific theory of some aspect of reality, or alternatively, that we may well find this theory but will never truly comprehend it?
No one has a clue what this means.
To day, why is it that some cannot accept the Truth?
Truth is something we have to face now or after some time..
I think its mostly because of the fear of having to accept it, face it and deal with it, even though it may contradict what one might already believe.
A person’s belief system is built on a foundation. If the facts are outside of the foundation and cannot be supported by it, the person may not believe it, or remain very sceptical about it.
Lets take a few examples.
While no master list of those who perished in the Holocaust exists anywhere in the world. The shelves of the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem contain four million pages of testimony in which survivors and families have contributed information, but for those who were never known, there can be no record.
Towards the end of the war thousands of Hungarians Jews could have being saved if the the railways were bomb.
They were not because the reports of what was happing were not believed.
An Asteroid or Meteorite heading towards earth. Most of us would have no comprehension of such an event and would probably not believe it to be true.
This talk about man-made climate change.
People have been predicting catastrophic events for the last hundred years or so. None of them have happened, so people have a hard time believing new predictions.
Today, fewer and fewer people understand what is going on at the cutting edge of theoretical physics – even physicists.
The unification of quantum mechanics and relativity theory will undoubtedly be exceptionally daunting, or else scientists would have nailed it long ago already.
The same is true for our understanding of how the human brain gives rise to consciousness, meaning and intentionality.
But is there any good reason to suppose that these problems will forever remain out of reach? Or that our sense of bafflement when thinking of them will never diminish?
Who knows what other mind-extending devices we will hit upon to overcome our biological limitations? Biology is not destiny.
As soon as you frame a question that you claim we will never be able to answer, you set in motion the very process that might well prove you wrong: you raise a topic of investigation.
With all the data that is at our disposal theses days, Truth is analysed by Algorithms and self learning software programs.
The data-driven revolution is prefaced upon the idea that data and algorithms can lead us away from biased human judgement towards pristine mathematical perfection that captures the world as it is rather than the world biased humans would like.
Truths that do not always align with our values. “Truth” told by data with the preordained outcome they desire.
Algorithms And Data Construct ‘Truth,’ Not Discover It.
There is no such thing as perfect data or perfect algorithms.
All datasets and the tools used to examine them represent trade-offs. Each dataset represents a constructed reality of the phenomena it is intended to measure. In turn, the algorithms used to analyse it construct yet more realities.
In short, a data scientist can arrive at any desired conclusion simply by selecting the dataset, algorithm, filters and settings to match.
It is more imperative than ever, that society recognizes that data does not equate to truth.
The same dataset fed into the same algorithm can yield polar opposite results depending on the data filters and algorithmic settings chosen.
But the important thing to note about these unknown unknowns is that nothing can be said about them.
The basic premise of the data-driven revolution in bringing quantitative certainty to decision-making is a false narrative.
To presume from the outset that some unknown unknowns will always remain unknown, is not modesty – it’s arrogance.
There’s always a human strategy behind using algorithms.
The exact details of how they works are often incomprehensible. Is this what we really want?
I think we need more transparency about how algorithms work, and how owns and operated them.
The problem with this is that demanding full transparency will have an adverse effect on the self-learning capacity of the algorithm. This is something that needs to be weighed up very carefully indeed.
There are certainly causes for concern but the need for regulations as profit seeking algorithms are plundering what is left of our values.
If not regulated, I think that we’ll also see lots more legal constructions determining what we can and cannot do with algorithms.
Algorithms are aimed at optimizing everything.
They can save lives, make things easier and conquer chaos.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is naught but algorithms.
The material people see on social media is brought to them by algorithms.
In fact, everything people see and do on the web is a product of algorithms. Every time someone sorts a column in a spreadsheet, algorithms are at play, and most financial transactions today are accomplished by algorithms. Algorithms help gadgets respond to voice commands, recognize faces, sort photos and build and drive cars. Hacking, cyberattacks and cryptographic code-breaking exploit algorithms.
They are mostly invisible aids, augmenting human lives in increasingly incredible ways. However, sometimes the application of algorithms created with good intentions leads to unintended consequences.
We have already turned our world over to machine learning and algorithms.
Algorithms will continue to spread everywhere becoming the new arbiters of human decision-making.
The question now is, how to better understand and manage what we have done?
The main negative changes come down to a simple but now quite difficult question:
How are we thinking and what does it mean to think through algorithms to mediate our world?
How can we see, and fully understand the implications of, the algorithms programmed into everyday actions and decisions?
The rub is this: Whose intelligence is it, anyway?
By expanding collection and analysis of data and the resulting application of this information, a layer of intelligence or thinking manipulation is added to processes and objects that previously did not have that layer.
So prediction possibilities follow us around like a pet.
The result: As information tools and predictive dynamics are more widely adopted, our lives will be increasingly affected by their inherent conclusions and the narratives they spawn.
Our algorithms are now redefining what we think, how we think and what we know. We need to ask them to think about their thinking – to look out for pitfalls and inherent biases before those are baked in and harder to remove.
Advances in algorithms are allowing technology corporations and governments to gather, store, sort and analyse massive data sets.
This is creating a flawed, logic-driven society and that as the process evolves – that is, as algorithms begin to write the algorithms – humans may get left out of the loop, letting “the robots decide.”
Dehumanization has now spread to our, our economic systems, our health care and social services.
We simply can’t capture every data element that represents the vastness of a person and that person’s needs, wants, hopes, desires.
Who is collecting what data points?
Do the human beings the data points reflect even know or did they just agree to the terms of service because they had no real choice?
Who is making money from the data?
How is anyone to know how his/her data is being massaged and for what purposes to justify what ends?
There is no transparency, and oversight is a farce. It’s all hidden from view.
I will always remain convinced the data will be used to enrich and/or protect others and not the individual. It’s the basic nature of the economic system in which we live.
It will take us some time to develop the wisdom and the ethics to understand and direct this power. In the meantime, we honestly don’t know how well or safely it is being applied.
The first and most important step is to develop better social awareness of who, how, and where it is being applied.”
If we use machine learning models rigorously, they will make things better; if we use them to paper over injustice with the veneer of machine empiricism, it will be worse.
The danger in increased reliance on algorithms is that is that the decision-making process becomes oracular: opaque yet unarguable.
If we are to protect the TRUTH. Giving more control to the user seems highly advisable.
When you remove the humanity from a system where people are included, they become victims.
Advances in quantum computing and the rapid evolution of AI and AI agents embedded in systems and devices in the Internet of Things will lead to hyper-stalking, influencing and shaping of voters, and hyper-personalized ads, and will create new ways to misrepresent reality and perpetuate falsehoods to the point of no return.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
Today’s wars are mostly undeclared, undefined and inglorious affairs typically involving multiple parties, foreign governments, proxy forces, covert methods and novel weapons.
We have just had the season of good will, with every war movie made from Dunkirk to Dancing with the wolves’ presented on TV as Entertainment.
It is sad that we have to continue to confront the pernicious argument of the “deep roots” of warfare in humanity. There is absolutely no scientific evidence in either biology or archaeology (the only two disciplines that really count in this debate) for human warfare going back more than 10,000 years.
While in the real world we go about our lives as if it is the norm to witness more and more Conflicts/Wars.
The world is scary enough without forever imagining smoking guns morphing into mushroom clouds.
If one quality characterizes our wars today, it’s their endurance. They never seem to end. Our media outlets, intelligence agencies, politicians, foreign policy establishment, and bureaucracy are so intertwined with military priorities and agendas as to be inseparable from them.
One does not have to go back too far to remember hearing. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, the government of Hamid Karzai will collapse, the Taliban will surge to victory, al-Qaeda will pour into Afghan safe havens, and Pakistan will be further destabilized, its atomic bombs falling into the hands of terrorists.
The truth is that no one really knows what would happen if a war starts.
60% of the world’s wars have lasted for at least a decade,
Because we’ve managed to isolate war’s physical and emotional costs however we do well to have an understanding of how they broke out in the first place.
Started on Oct 1968 when a banned civil rights march in Londonderry led to clashes between police and protesters, it sparked widespread disorder and rioting across Northern Ireland. For many, this is the moment 30 years of violent conflict known as the Troubles began.
Ethiopia’s Tigray war:
A dispute over territory along their shared border was the cause of a war fought between Ethiopia and Eritrea from 1998 until 2000.
The roots of this crisis can be traced to Ethiopia’s system of government. Started on 4 November, when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed ordered a military offensive against regional forces in Tigray.
America’s Afghan war is now its longest ever, part of the open-ended US “global war on terror” launched after the 2001 al-Qaida attacks. The US invasion initially aimed to kill or capture the al-Qaida terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But it quickly expanded into a “regime change” operation tasked with eliminating the Taliban and creating a functioning, democratic state.
Turmoil in Libya actually began in October 2011 when the dictator Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown in a popular revolt backed by the UK, France and the US. Libya’s civil war entered its 7th year this month.
The conflict is in its sixth pitiless year. The Yemeni government, led by exiled president Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, and the Houthi rebel movement, which represents Yemen’s Zaidi Shia minority – are backed by regional rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively.
Started with an uprising against the autocratic presidency of Bashar al-Assad formed part of the 2011 Arab Spring revolts. It quickly turned into full-scale war as Assad’s regional foes, notably Saudi Arabia, seized a chance to overthrow a regime allied with Iran. Since then upwards of half a million people are estimated to have died.
Democratic Republic of Congo:
How this started is Anyone’s guess. The country experienced an extraordinary civil war between 1997 and 2003 when an estimated five million people died. Continuing instability in lawless areas of north-eastern DRC bordering Uganda stems from that period. Across the country the security situation has deteriorated markedly as government authority has collapsed, emboldening rival militia groups who hold sway over large areas of territory, often competing for the DRC’s rich resources.
Started after world war two when Jews fleeing Europe where given Arabic land now conflict over who owns the region.
In Israel-Palestine, war – or rather the absence of peace – has characterised life since 1948.
Somalis have endured 40 years of fighting. These are but a few examples in a world where the idea of war without end seems to have become accepted, even normalised.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, broadly speaking, wars commenced and concluded with formal ultimatums, declarations, agreed protocols, truces, armistices and treaties.
A classic case of a state of chaos deliberately fed and manipulated by external powers, in this instance Turkey, Qatar, Russia, Egypt and the UAE. Here, as elsewhere, rival rulers claim to be upholding order or fighting “terrorism” while, in reality, they seek to extend national influence and economic advantage. As long as these aims remain unmet, they show scant interest in peace.
Russia Ukraine war:
Started in 2014 after the people of Ukraine elected a new president, Petro Poroshenko. This was not welcomed by Russia, which saw Ukraine as its own territory. In response to the election, Russian troops invaded Ukraine and took control of Crimea.
In most cases wars are initiated by governments, not by populations. And, most of the time, they are the result of disputes over resources and land, or of a government’s desire to increase its influence and power.
It binds people together – not just the army engaged in battle, but the whole community. It brings a sense of cohesion, with communal goals, and inspires individual citizens (not just soldiers) to behave honourably and unselfishly, in the service of a greater good. It supplies meaning and purpose, transcending the monotony of everyday life. Warfare also enables the expression of higher human qualities that often lie dormant in ordinary life, such as courage and self-sacrifice.
War used to creates a sense of unity in the face of a collective threat but now new technologies and weapons such as drones and cyber warfare are lowering the up-front cost of conflict while enlarging potential theatres of war. Global warming is turning the newly accessible Arctic into a vast, pristine battleground. Outer space presents infinite possibilities for violence.
For many people, if they are honest, war has a fatal attraction. As WB Yeats noted after the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland, violent conflict can spawn a “terrible beauty” – a mix of fascination and horror that is difficult to forswear. This seems tantamount to suggesting that human beings fight wars because we enjoy doing so.
Warfare provides people with a semblance of psychological positivity in oppressed societies where other outlets are lacking but this sort of fatalism undermines efforts to achieve permanent peace.
Believe it or not it was not until January 22, 2021, when the requires 50 states signed up to the he UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons it entry into force, and became law. AS IF PEOPLE MATTERED.
Let’s reject the idea that war is either admirable or good.
Let’s reverse the militarization of so many dimensions of our society.
Let’s recognize that expensive high-tech weapons systems are not war-winners.
Let’s retool our economy and reinvest our money, moving it out of the military-industrial complex and into strengthening our anaemic system of mass transit, our crumbling infrastructure, and alternative energy technology.
It’s time to make war a non-profit, last-resort activity.
Many people think that if war is ancient and innate, it must also be inevitable, militarism remains entrenched in modern culture however the archaeological record, for 190,000 years of human existence, there is simply no evidence of warfare in the human repertoire.
War stems primarily not from our warlike nature or competition for resources but from “the institution of war itself.” represented by NATO which lacks factors that distinguish peaceful from nonpeaceful systems. These include “overarching common identity; positive social interconnectedness; interdependence; non-warring values and norms; non-warring myths, rituals, and symbols; and peace leadership. Only when we have a shared commitment to “non-warring norms and values,” which can make war within the system inconceivable.
War’s roots extend back hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, and that war is an adaptive trait, favoured by natural selection. The evidence however is overwhelming that war is a relatively recent cultural invention. War emerged toward the end of the Paleolithic era, and then only sporadically.
We have to find alternative activities to give us that sense of feeling alive, of belonging and purpose.
If these needs are unsatisfied, and if there is an obvious enemy or oppressor to direct them towards, then warfare is almost inevitable.
We know that any stable, lasting peace depends on creating societies with a richness of opportunity and variety that can meet human needs. The fact that so many societies throughout the world fail to do this makes our future prospects of peace look very bleak.
So can we end wars?
Actually, that’s the wrong question. The right question is: How do we end war?
Ending war, which makes monsters of us, should be a moral imperative, as much as ending slavery or the subjugation of women Presently it can only be aspiration
As inequality is the root of violence, it is also rooted in the climate crisis and resulting resource scarcity, poverty and dislocation.
Fitna (which can mean both “charm, enchantment, captivation” and “rebellion, riot, discord, civil strife is a fitting word for describing not only the Islamic sphere but the troubled state of the world as a whole in 2020, beset as it is by wars without end.
Another related factor is the collapse of the western-led consensus favouring multilateral, collaborative approaches to international problems. This is matched by the parallel rise of authoritarian and populist regimes that prioritise narrow national interest over perceptions of the common good.
It is obvious that the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia has now turned into another proxy war.
Ukraine was a part of the Russian empire until the fall of the USSR in 1991. This war has been going on for seven years developing into an ugly strain of Ukrainian nationalism that made life difficult for ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Ukraine has since tried to align itself with the West.
After citizen protests led to the removal of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 (who leaned toward Russia), Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. Last year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked to be able to join the intergovernmental military alliance NATO.
Russia feels strongly against NATO’s eastward expansion. According to Russia, this would provide NATO members the opportunity to establish military bases in the region.
Supplies of weapons and large-scale financial assistance are important, but not enough to bring a end to this war which is developing into a war conducted by drones, laptops, Mobil phones, in its current phase, the conflict appears to have become a war of attrition.
The current war will change the perception of traditional alliances, Russia’s containment and possible future threats.
The war will continue to transform the world.
Depending on when and how it ends, and providing that Heir Putin doesn’t push the button, we will find out how far back history has rolled for Europe.
On a global level the war may be seen as a manifestation of power transition and a struggle for dominance. No military is perfect. Putin has repeatedly made nuclear threats since he began the invasion of Ukraine.
All wars come to an end, either by the fighting reaches a stalemate, but a frozen conflict that can heat up or cool down depending on the range of factors.
Not all wars end with a clear victory for one side but with this conflict, a peace deal, though a settlement is difficult, because of Russia’s and Ukraine’s different goals and what they both view as their rightful territory.
It is unlikely now that Russia would be able to turn the war around entirely and achieve its original aims, but it could accept a “victory” in the form of a peace deal in which it takes more territory than it had before the invasion began.
As long as Putin is at the country’s helm, it would be very unlikely that Russian forces would retreat entirely. The chances of him being overthrown in a coup are perhaps higher than ever, but this will not happen while the war remains active. However, a total Russian retreat could be possible if Putin were to be ousted or die.
Ukrainians believe outright victory is possible.
In the end countries will use Ukraine as a battering ram for reasons of their own.
NATO declaring war on Russia would be too create a major war that could pull in other countries like China.
The notion of Russia’s absolute incompetence must be eliminated before Heir Putin is back into pushing a button.
If a year or more of fighting will achieve nothing, then why prolong the bloodshed?
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
We all know that Global leaders face formidable challenges, from dizzying technological progress and geopolitical tension to climate change to growing inequality but ours is an age of culture wars, identity politics, nationalism and geopolitical rivalry, all driven by smartphones.
An age of division, within and among countries with a global downturn that has meant that many of the foundation stones that we used to mark adulthood no longer exist.
This means international treaties and agreements must be framed or reworked to be sensitive to these requirements, including those relating to trading rules, investment agreements, intellectual property regimes and not world aid budgets becoming trickles of political conscious.
Monetary and financial policies need to be reoriented, to encourage greater inclusion of those excluded and to make the financial system one that provides financial security.
Of course the likely hood of achieving any of this in our life times is zero, and will remain so, till our goals in education changes from needles consumption towards non-material goals, to protect the earth which we all rely on for life.
Indeed extreme wealth now needs to be eliminated and replaced by extreme generosity.
Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the survival of an overarching concept of “one world” seemed at least conceivable, however difficult. But wars are transformative. The primacy of economics can no longer be assumed.
While technology continues its transformative march the Earth’s ecological and human systems are in severe crisis.
Although there is a wealth of information available, much of it is fragmented and the convergence of issues facing the earth are so interrelated that most of them cannot be fully understood out of context.
So here is some of that context:
33% of the world’s people live under authoritarian, non-democratic regimes.
On any given day at any given moment in your life, there are at least 15 wars and armed conflicts actively going on all around the world. Most are dismissed, forgotten, ignored and under-reported while the world stays busy looking the other way.
Civilians are being murdered, tortured and displaced due to terrorism, government instability and human rights violations. When these wars are completely forgotten and ignored, each and every death is even more tragic.
Over 100 million people live in slums.
3 billion of the world’s people (one-half) live in ‘poverty’ (living on less than $2 per day).
Poor countries (which contain 4/5th’s of the world’s people) pay the rich countries an estimated nine times more in debt repayments than they receive in aid
The richest 1% of the world’s people earned as much income as the bottom 57%. The wealth of the world’s 7.1 million millionaires ($27 trillion) equals the total combined annual income of the entire planet.
17 million people, including 11 million children, die every year from easily preventable diseases and malnutrition.
Nearly 160 million children are malnourished worldwide.
1.1 billion do not have safe drinking water. By 2025, at least 3.5 billion people or nearly 2/3rd’s of the world’s population will face water scarcity.
3.4 million people died prematurely as a result of outdoor air pollution.
The development and release of genetically engineered organisms and their products has proceeded globally at a rapid rate.
Millions of patents are in process and all living creatures are considered potential candidates for genetic modification and cultivation as bio-factories for human purposes and profit.
An estimated 27 million people are enslaved around the world, including an estimated 20 million people held in bonded labour (forced to work in order to pay off a debt, also known as ‘debt bondage’)..
700,000 people annually, and up to 2 million, mostly women and children, are victims of human trafficking worldwide (a modern form of slavery — bought, sold, transported and held against their will in slave-like conditions)..
About 246 million, or 1 out of 6, children ages 5 to 17 worldwide are involved in child labour.
275 million children never attend or complete primary school education. 870 million of the world’s adults are illiterate.
Half of the forests that originally covered 46% of the Earth’s land surface are gone.
Between 10 and 20 percent of all species will be driven to extinction in the next 20 to 50 years. 60% of the world’s coral reefs, which contain up to one-fourth of all marine species, could be lost in the next 20-40 years.
Bee numbers decreasing worldwide,
Global warming is expected to increase the Earth’s temperature by 3C (5.4F) in the next 100 years.
There are over 45 million refugees and internally displaced people in the world.
Desertification and land degradation threaten nearly one-quarter of the land surface of the globe.
Over 70,000 new chemicals have been brought into commercial production and released to the environment in the last 100 years.
Higher sea level (a consequence of climate change), particularly in low lying areas, will contaminate groundwater by pushing to the surface toxic substances that have been underground for many years.
Global co-operation remains essential. However deep the rifts become, we share this planet. We still need to avoid cataclysmic wars, economic collapse and, above all, destruction of the environment. None of this is at all likely without at least a minimum level of co-operation. Yet is that at all likely? No.
Given the immense political and organisational challenges, the chances that humanity will prevent damaging climate change are slim.
The whole human race will run out of ‘Patience’
Smartphone is now ‘the place where we live’ however free speech is a power now being bought by the rich – Twitter – Elton Musk who will not ensure that unless it is controlled it will be offensive to someone.
Microchip technology has modified existing patterns of human activities such as personal, social, political, and economic spheres.
However making the production process safer for the environment might be the hardest problem they have faced.
Every microchip is a metropolis.
Unfortunately, like every city, these chips consume an immense amount of resources and generate truckloads of waste. The microchip is essentially made from sand—albeit sand that has been melted, purified, and refined until it is over 99.9999 percent pure silicon. Overall, a microchip is a structure that stands in abject defiance of the second law of thermodynamics: It creates a region of extreme order from a whole lot of chaos, and that does require a lot of energy.
The comforts of modern life gifted by these wonder chips come at the expense of a vast amount of resources.
One or more microchips runs every one of the 40 billion connected devices currently in use—a figure that’s expected to jump to 350 billion by 2030.
They have created a storm of microchip embedded devices which affect our daily lives.
There is enough depleted uranium in the world.
Even though it may feel there hasn’t been much uplifting news lately, there are still a lot of reasons to be optimistic.
The smartphone is changing the world, its vastly different uses are reducing corruption, enabling transparency, making it possible to document both good and evil political debate.
We’re close to eradicating some diseases, a vaccine against Malaria is one step closer. Cancer deaths are dropping.
More and more people are moving to alternative media sources in order to find truth. We are seeing this happening in real time.
There is amazing amounts of information are at everyone’s fingertips, and instantaneous communication to almost anywhere is essentially free. We all live our lives awake and a sleep, in small bubble of self awareness, unaffected or detached or deceived by a politically noxious combination of lies as to what is happing around us, till it comes home to roost, then its to late.
The word apocalypse has its roots in the Latin word apocalypses, meaning to uncover. That is what we are experiencing right now—the uncovering or revealing of the truth. The sooner we all come together to embrace this, the sooner it will become our reality.
All human comments appreciated . All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin 🚮
With the current frangible condition of the world the question is, should we be focussing more on local and community resilience rather than trying to address climate change on a world scale.
Of course it is only natural that all of us look to ourselves but “The economy comes first,” seems to make less and less sense.
This time is undoubtedly critical, to decide on our definitions of economy or wealth?
What, indeed, is most precious to us?
Covid, of course, may have shifted the landscape, not necessarily of our wants, but of the possibilities available to us, and how we order our list of priorities.
Taking account of the increased threats to global stability posed by “a nuclear blunder”, aggravated by the gradient of climate change and combine this with technologies that are wreaking the cultural web of civilization, as the loss of biodiversity begins to fracture the web of the biosphere, with consequences that are both wholesale and probably irredeemable. The question must be broader than our “wants” at the personal, or even national level, but must consider “the world” in its full dimension.
Hence, our choices made on the local scale must further consider their impacts more globally not only in a geographical sense, but across the swathe of beliefs and views that different cultures hold as their framework to make sense of existence, to give value and meaning to life, and to decide upon which goals count as being worthy of achieving.
The intermeshing quality of the world’s many woes has been conveyed by the term “changing climate” (i.e. climate change per se being just one item on the list), and amid a morass of such magnitude, positives are apt to remain obscured and muffled.
In the industrialised West, we have become increasingly focussed on money as a goal and the accumulation of personal wealth, and it’s trappings, as our measure of success.
In short, the time is now or never, yet as set against a backdrop of “business as usual”, beyond the confines of human cultures, and considers more broadly our place on this planet, within the context of all life.
Opportunities to address climate change are not merely slipping through our fingers, but wilfully being cast aside.
Thus, the message is not just one of yet another traditional way of life being driven to extinction by climate change, but that because the Earth system is an interconnected and “living” organism, impacts on any component of it will be felt throughout, causing the body to sicken and die.
Change is frightening, and uncertainty even more so; thus we tend to cling to a familiar craft, even as it sinks.
But, if we want a world that is both habitable and agreeable into the future, for all Earthlings, our choices are limited to those which also reduce the conjoined burdens of our rapidly consuming finite resources and the carbon emissions and other pollution that are discharged in the process.
However, due to the tardiness of our efforts, the scale and rate of the changes now required are staggering, amounting to an 8-10% reduction in carbon emissions per year in the wealthiest nations of the world, which presents as a practically insurmountable challenge.
If Capitalism in all its forms usher in a definite of sustained mitigation of carbon emissions, it is highly unlikely that climate targets will be met.
Full collapse is not yet inevitable, or already crumbling out of our hands change might yet be managed.
Albert Einstein is quoted, perhaps apocryphally, as saying (something like):
“The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking. If we want to change the world we have to change our thinking…no problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it. We must learn to see the world anew.”
Is this the world you want.
The perils of treating natural capital as income, are evident to all.
We do not have enough fresh water for the people.. Billions of people are subject to hunger today. So the new model must consider all these needs. This model must be more human and more nature oriented… We are all interconnected but we keep acting as though we are completely autonomous.”
Change requires all of us developed a deeper recognition of our common humanity.
Instead of merely documenting loss of habit, bio-diversity, air and water quality, and more, we have to work with the larger society to do a better job of maintaining invaluable and irreplaceable ecosystem services.
This can only be achieved by education. Education that balances the sciences with the humanities.
Education that prepares children to live in a changing world by emphasizing critical thinking and learning-to-learn as much more than rote memorization.
(The below video ALUNA should be shown in all schools.)
Such a world won’t be achieved overnight.
BECAUSE THE CAPITALIST WORLD IS NOW WITH THE HELP OF ALGORITHIMS GOING UNDERGROUND.
If there is to be any movement in the right direction we can only make the Capitalists world change its short term model of profit for profit sake with our buying power. By boycotting any corporations/ companies/ organisations/ etc that dont have sustainability at their core of their business models.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
“What makes a life worth living?” “What is a life worth? ” are both questions that nobody can answer and should perhaps remain unanswered.
These questions once came pre-answered—by culture, by religion, by tradition—but these days, because of capitalism we each have to ask and answer for ourselves, with an answer not in poetic words or any words but an answer in pounds and pence or dollars and cents.
The “real question today is not when human life begins, but, what is the value of human life?”
The task of valuing life has many competing truths with no simple answer.
“Price tags are being continuously placed on our lives. If we care about equity, we need to ensure that the science behind these estimates is not oversold and that fairness is always a consideration when cost-benefit analysis is performed.”
Howard Steven Friedman
Valuing some lives more than others seems logical and natural to many of us.
We value human life in a way that assumes we possess a sacred something.
Aristotle concluded that we should value human life, due to our inherent capacity for reason.
So what reasons can we give for calling human life valuable?
The question’s complexity resides in the fact that how we arrive at a price tag on human life says a great deal about our priorities. A lot of the value we attribute to human life comes from religion. However, when you remove religion, what philosophical arguments are left?
This is were it gets tricky.
The philosopher’s job is not to accept the assumed inheritance of our forebears.
Do we determine the value of a human life based on the value we place on our lives in private decisions, and do we accept policy choices that puts future generations at risk.
Do we continue to value human life, especially above and beyond animals? If you value rationality, why is that? And does rationality, alone, bestow value on a human life?
How should we proceed?
We teach each generation that human life is valuable beyond all else.
.Is this good enough today?
Government officials are supposed to put numbers on the pros and cons of these questions but how to assess the value of a human life in financial terms is riddled with conundrum based on our behaviour which has no common denominators to adjust our assessment of a life’s value based on its quality or the probability of death?
How much should we pay today to prevent an event that would result in the loss of ten billion human lives in 50 years? Climate Change.
So, how much is a life worth?
It seems so inhumane to put a monetary value our modern sentiments tell us that costs should not dictate life-and-death decisions. But those modern sentiments do not fit our modern experience.
We know that not all lives are valued by society equally.
Over the past four centuries, generations of black people have asked the question: What is a black life worth?
The summation of historical facts and statistical data clearly shows that the prices of black bodies in America are worth more imprisoned, enslaved, and dead than educated.
Here in Europe depending on all sorts of assumptions arisen by the Covid pandemic and now the war in the Ukraine there are a lots of conversations (right now) that seem to pit economics against life and health.
The result is the cost of living is mounting day on day while its value is descending but don’t worry your value is being look after by the invisible hand of the market run algorithms is giving your value the finger.
Unfortunately GDP distribution issue are now surfacing, like where is the GDP growth actually coming from? Who’s losing income? Does it increase equity in society?
How much a person is willing to accept to risk their own life – Climate change.
In the end the answer is my life is worth everything to me.
How much money do you get for losing a limb? It depends on where you live.
Foot note . What’s wrong with killing people?
Abortion kills babies, and its advocates are loudly telling us the value they place on human life.
The idea is that we can best understand what life is worth by first understanding what death means.
All human comments appreciate. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.
The Global Goals are a set of universal Goals, which set out a plan to tackle the issues that affect us all, no matter where we are in the world, from climate change to health, from gender equality to peace and justice.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set in 2000 are.
Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.
Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.
Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.
Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries.
Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.
Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.
Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.
They are intended to be universal in the sense of embodying a universally shared common global vision of progress towards a safe, just, and sustainable space for all human beings to thrive on the planet.
The different goals and targets however represent different degrees of challenge and ambition for different countries depending on their present state of development and other national circumstances. The balance between the social, economic, and political efforts needed to deliver the different objectives is also likely to be different in different countries.
There are all verbal Goals with no legal binding, interconnected to each other and so far we have failed to provide the support to turn any of the desired goals into reality.
The U.N. can’t compel any country to do any of the things required.
The rationale for any goal must increase everyone’s stake in the goals so that when they come into effect, countries will swiftly incorporate them into national policy decisions — in other words, take them off the page and into practice.
There’s a real danger they will end up sitting on a bookshelf, gathering dust as there’s still no clear consensus on where exactly the money will come from to achieve any of them.
In the end, we are one people living in one world and all Goals require financing.
So the goals are a waste of time and money and won’t matter unless we as individual and national governments take them seriously.
The only way to combat the changes we are now witnessing in our plant is if we all start financing the changes required.
One of the first things you would hear in economics class is that there is no free lunch, meaning that nothing in life is free. Everything exists in a limited supply. That means that everything has value.
We also know that governments and countries can’t tackle anything that requires a long-term commitment.
The bead eye has been promoting the following solution to creating a worldwide value that would afford an opportunity for all of us to invest in a just future.
A perpetual funded Fund of trillions, totally transparent, with rewards to all investors that would transfer the UN verbal into positive actions.
Here is the idea again.
Can you improve or find fault with it? (Comments below)
It would give all of us an opportunity to invest in the sustainability of the plant.
It would give the United Nations clout not just worthless resolutions.
The United Nations-backed by world governmentsissues Non-tradableGreen PRIZE Bonds,
These Bonds would pay interest dividends that move in line with inflation rates, guaranteeing a percentage yearly return depending on the value of the bond.
The interest is guaranteed by all world governments.
Bought online like lotto tickets each bond carries an identification number that is entered into a weekly prize draw, and a yearly prize draws equivalent to 0.005% of the funds raised.
Draws are fully funded by the players, through revenue made from ticket sales.
Most of the biggest and most popular lotteries on the Lotter have some form of prize guarantee.
Take EuroMillions, for example. The EuroMillions jackpot starts at €17 million, which means that there is a €17 million guaranteed jackpot.
The pan-European EuroJackpot is similar, with a guaranteed minimum jackpot of €10 million.
The UN green Prize bond would be a progressive jackpot one in which if the jackpot is not won, it will carry over and grow for the next drawing.
The distribution of the funds raised by the Bonds must also be transparent and distributed as non-repayable grants.
This would be undertaken by an executive non-departmental public body not attached to the UN to avoid any vetoing.
It would vet all applications for funds to verify that they meet the values set by the UN, peace, dignity, and equality on a healthy planet.
Once accepted all projects would enter a draw for funding which would ensure that no lobbying and corruption with money going to community groups and health, education, and environmental projects.
There is considerable work to be done to create a realistic, coherent approach to improving our divorce from reality.
You only have to look at what has happened to the climate change goals.
Just as leaders around the world were starting to think seriously about tackling global warming it is now derailed for a decade by the Ukrainian/Russia conflict.
We’ll have to wait and see if that will really happen.
What if every child was aware of the key global challenges of our time?
We all know that there is an invisible world and that today it is undeniably digital.
This invisible world is becoming both powerful and dangerous leading to digitalizing without a system of oversight of the way we operate in the world, resulting in not just hidden powers but a decoupling between human rights and democracy.
On one hand, digital democracy, or eDemocracy, uses the internet, social media, and technology to improve our democratic systems of governance.
On the other with our electronic overlords, ( Smartphones, Pads, Apple watches, TV, Web Services), this world of invisibility is been driven by non-accountable, non-transparent commerce, operating profit-seeking algorithms, with self-learning data collection codes, that no one comprehends.
As our day-to-day lives are increasingly immersed in technology, it is easy to lose perspective on things that matter.
The capitalist world of profit and power is disappearing underground.
New technologies – from social media and GPS systems to artificial intelligence and digital twins – make the planet we inhabit unrecognizable from even 20 years ago and it’s only going to get faster, changing how we live.
The rise of the sharing economy, online marketplaces, and digital platforms are shattering old barriers and reducing the distances between industries, societies, and places, all of which are without adequate regulations are vanishing from scrutiny and accountability.
While it’s true that today, leaders need to deal with unprecedented changes and an unpredictable and challenging future due to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Climate change, and the covid pandemic they need to be more agile, to deal with sudden changes and challenges that any one of these will bring.
Because the status quo as the inertia of past success can be crippling for the future.
The paradox of leadership lies in staying focused on the present, while also visualizing the future and creating a roadmap to reach it.
This is a major problem requiring Statmanship on a global scale.
Why is all of this happening now?
What’s interesting about this question is, there’s no answer to that question.
What I think is so true about that is, with technology even nonconformists are conforming.
Because these days it’s difficult to not see how real the invisible world is affecting our lives and the systems that govern life.
Today, with the covid pandemic’s we see it is very rare that you find someone that’s not influenced by anyone else.
You don’t have to be a digital native to behave like one.
It’s the invisible world we want to connect with in order to maintain the magic in life.
Because a world without emotions will be a sterile world.
Yes, the invisible world is real.
It is the limited life of a limited mind.
Increasingly, this limited value is delivered through new cross-sector, outcome-based propositions, rather than traditional sector-specific products and services.
We have all experienced trying to get to speak to a human to solve a problem with a service – press one press two – listen to music – you inquiry- will be answered – press 3 if – till you give up.
If you can spell it you can’t enter it. A society that is dependent on technology can create inequality.
To stopthis invisible world people must take ownership of things as the digital world is not about technology, but people.
At a time when geopolitical tensions are on the rise are at their highest level this century. And this turbulence is escalating. Even nuclear non-proliferation can no longer be taken for granted.
At the same time, we see trade and technological conflicts that fracture world markets, undermine growth and widen inequalities.
And all the while, our planet is on fire. The climate crisis rages on.
With Climate Change, we are risking a ‘great fracture’ between world powers, each with their own internet and AI strategy, as well as dominant currency, trade, and financial rules, and contradictory geopolitical and military views.
With dwindling natural resources, an unstable world climate, viruses on the rampart, not to mention the effects of pandemics on world trade, inequality, the world does not need politicians that do not think of the next election but statesmen of the next generation.
It is crucial to ensuring a united world.
Those yet to be connected remain cut off from the benefits of this new era and remain further behind. People need money to access the internet and buy the latest devices.
By 2050 there will be 9 billion people to feed, clothe, transport, employ and educate.
Maybe that’s not really bad when you think of what’s coming next. You couldn’t call it a fully digital world yet. It’s not even close.
However, there’s room to dream about building the world we want, instead of the one we’re turning into.
As we pursue unlimited growth, our limitless consumption threatens to crowd out everything else on Earth. We are warming the climate, overspending our financial resources, requiring more fresh water than we have, increasing income inequality, diminishing other species, and triggering shockwaves whenever we can’t cope with a problem. Billions are committed to a growth-driven world economy.
Our world is full of screens. We keep them in our hands, purses, and pockets, next to our beds while we sleep, and surround ourselves with screens on our desks and countertops. Our TV sets are morphing into interactive screens as we put them online so they display everything for free.
What if that networked system brought everyone the world’s best services, resources, and knowledge-based on what we do, as a normal part of everyday life?
The top-down approach is no longer sustainable in the Economic/ Power/ or Democracy Capital Accountability. Leadership needs to be vigilant and create a long-term sustainable value proposition for all stakeholders.
The same technologies are giving rise to new business models, with organizations using digital to create and monetize new forms of value. Disruptions in the digital world occur at a phenomenal rate.
They have the power to impact the way entire industries operate reshaping entire industries with profit-seeking algorithms.
Although giving up your data was once an afterthought when gaining access to the newest internet services such as Facebook there aren’t many great options available to limit what is seen and known about you online.
YOU BECOME A DIGITAL FORM OF YOURSELF IN THE VIRTUAL WORLD OF THE INTERNET.
How do we define what a digital human is?
Worthless, a form of entertainment to have conversations with yourself without being able to show emotion and behavior as a real human.
So, is the invisible world the real world?
Hard to say, but I think it’s what makes the visible world worth living in.
When someone dies, the essence of that being merely inhabited that form – the life within the form was always invisible.
Digital leaders will have the power to shape the future of our world.
When we want to believe, there is still time to interrupt the announced disappearances of so many plant and animal species which, if we are not careful, will lead to our own end.
This situation cannot go on. It is our common duty to avoid it.
While risks intersect and technologies develop quickly, too often our institutions for governing international security remain reactive and slow-moving.
ALL HUMAN COMMENTS ARE APPRECIATED. ALL LIKE CLICKS AND ABUSE CHUCKED IN THE BIN.