Category Archives: DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: SHOULD WE BE GIVING AWAY OUR PERSONAL DATA FOR FREE.

15 Tuesday Oct 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Big Data., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Face Recognition., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google Knowledge., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Robot citizenship., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WiFi communication.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

(Six-minute read)

 

Is it time we started to demand that if you use my personal data it’ill cost you because I am worth it.

We all make a trade-off between security and convenience, but there is a crucial difference between security in the old-fashioned physical domain, and security today.

Security is done digitally with algorithms exploiting and analysing your very mood.

In this digital lifestyle, it is nearly impossible to take part in the web world without leaving a trail behind.

Personal privacy is dead.

How to Protect Yourself From Mobile Data Collection

 

We have no clear sight into this world, and we have few sound intuitions into what is safe and what is flimsy – let alone what is ethical and what is creepy.

We are left operating on blind, ignorant, misplaced trust; meanwhile, all around us, without our even noticing, choices are being made.

With the increasing ownership of mobiles, marketing companies now have unlimited access to our personal data. Every site one opens has an agreement form to be ticked with terms and conditions that are all but unreadable on small screens.

It’s not a choice between privacy or innovation, it is the erosion of legally ensured fundamental privacy rights interfacing with apps.

Nuggets of personal information that seem trivial, individually, can now be aggregated, indexed and processed.

When this happens, simple pieces of computer code can produce insights and intrusions that creep us out or even do us harm. But most of us haven’t noticed yet.

Since there’s no real remedy, giving away our most sensitive and valuable data, for free, to global giants, with completely uncertain future costs, is a decision of dramatic consequence.

iCloud and Google+ have your intimate photos; Transport companies know where your travelcard has been; Yahoo holds every email you’ve ever written and we trust these people to respect our privacy.

You only have to be sloppy once, for your privacy to be compromised.

With your Facebook profile linked, I could research your interests before approaching you.

Put in someone’s username from Twitter, or Flickr and Creepy will churn through every photo hosting service it knows, trying to find every picture they’ve ever posted.

Cameras – especially phone cameras – often store the location where the picture was taken in the picture data. Creepy grabs all this geolocation data and puts pins on a map for you.

Then comes an even bigger new horizon.

We are entering an age of wireless information. The information you didn’t know you were leaking.

Maybe the first time you used a new app.

Every device with Wi-Fi has a unique “MAC address”, which is broadcast constantly as long as wireless networking is switched on.

Many shops and shopping centres, for example, now use multiple Wi-Fi sensors, monitoring the strength of connections, to triangulate your position, and track how you walk around the shop. By matching the signal to the security video, they get to know what you look like. If you give an email address in order to use the free in-store Wi-Fi, they have that too.

Once aggregated, these individual fragments of information can be processed and combined, and the resulting data can give away more about our character than our intuitions are able to spot.

When I realised that I’m traced over much wider spaces from one part of town to another I asked myself what is the point in giving you information away when you could franchise it out and get something back in return.

Public debate on the topic remains severely stunted.

Through the current trends in the globalization of technology is in the knowledge society, we have to start asking where is the world moving to?

The concepts and applications of biocomputing, medical informatics, anthropocentric computing, high-performance computing, technological diffusion, predictive analysis tools, genetic algorithms, and cultural informatics all in new or little known fields of information technology.

Many organisations create, store, or purchase information that links individuals’ identities to other data. Those who can access and analyse this personal data profiles can take deep insights into an individual’s life.

A law-abiding citizen might say “I have nothing to conceal.” This is a misconception.

In any debate, negotiation or competitive situation, it is an advantage to know about the other party’s position in order to achieve one’s own desired outcome.

Data brokers – buy and combine data from various sources (online and offline) to deliver information on exactly defined target groups to their customers.

“Click-world” merchants know a lot more about their clients’ private and financial habits than the individual knows about the merchant company or its competitors.

You, therefore, could not be blamed for asking -given the increasing bargaining position of merchants, is the consumer still getting a good deal?

It would be interesting to know how good a deal consumers get when they exchange their data for free-of-charge online services.How to Protect Yourself From Mobile Data Collection

Data has become an economic good for which the “producer” is usually not remunerated.

Data privacy is a matter of choice and individuals should have the right to decide if a company can collect information on them.

Is there a solution:

Of course if you Google it what you will get will be all sorts of advice such as, avoid cookies, use the VPN or disabling the location tracking in your devices and use Browsers that don’t track your activities.

It’s tempting to just play ostrich and put our heads under the sand however data collection is affecting and will affect your life.

This is why we must preserve the right of individuals to know what kind of information is being collected and what is being done with that information.

You could say that the most valuable thing on your computer or network is the data you create. After all, that data is the reason for having the computer and network in the first place.

The first thing to understand is that there is very little that can “prove” that any company (whether an individual, government entity, corporation, etc.) is engaged in safe or adequate data handling processes.

Therefore :

We must retain the right to define our own privacy boundaries and then advocate for those boundaries before invasions in our daily lives become out of control and irreversible.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; IS THE NEW GREEN DEAL PRIMARILY A PETTY-BOURGEOIS ATTEMPT TO RESCUE CAPITALISM BY THE METHODS OF SOCIAL REFORMISTS UNDER THE CLOAK OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

09 Wednesday Oct 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Climate Change., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Environment, European Union., Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Inequality, Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Purchasing Power., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read) 

In politics, nothing happens by accident.

These days in the higher ethylene of the political world it seems you must be an accomplished liar and not a far-seeing planner to be successful.

With the advent of social media people’s day-to-day exposure to political discussion and disagreement has increased dramatically.

However what is worrying is that technology in the form of social media, the smartphone is continuing to create a contemporary problem that large sections of the public want ‘democracy’ but without the ‘politics.

As a result, were are seeing fake news driving populist politics that has no longterm objectives. 

There is nothing new about fake news it has been prevalent down the ages but the days when a lot of us believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way are all but disappeared.

However, with the media making very little effort to explain political decisions, rather than just jumping on any perceived gaffe or conflict ‘democracy’ remains an incredibly positive notion. 

With the public no longer thinking about the world within the silos of government departments governments need to engage people in solutions rather than top-down ‘vote for us and we’ll provide the answers.

Younger people don’t just copy their parents’ tribal loyalties. Voting is more like shopping, with preferences changing on a quim of twitter on social media.  

Unfortunately, our present-day political system has not yet caught up, it offers limited choice. What happens in between elections is for all attentive purposes driven by the smartphone that are monitored by unregulated algorithms owned by you know who.

What is been ignored is that this digital space in all its diversity represents a huge opportunity with the power to engage people in new ways. Online participation in local decision-making is one possibility. This would involve citizens outside election time-.

So we need to understand all the ways people behave and respond in the digital space and set clear and realistic goals for what they hope to accomplish.

However, people are now becoming slow and slower to engage with the internet due to the lack of security/ privacy/and a source of truth.

Why?

Because Capitalism is spending billion on digital marketing each year, and for good reason. Digital media has enormous power to reach and influence people. Over 2 billion people—about one-third of the global population—now access the Internet.

We all know if we are to avoid extinction due to climate change which poses real risks to our collective future we need a green energy transformation.

The problem is that behind a veneer of objectivity, Capitalism as always sees an opportunity to make a profit – Carbon Credits for instance, with more and more consumerism products being promoted as good for the environment 

With all the political goodwill the transfer to low carbon emission can only be achieved by offering citizens a means to get involved other than protesting.

How can this be done?

We must allow people to exercise democratic control over their money, finance, working conditions and environment ie De-politicising decision-making by limiting capitalism’s worst failing- profit for profit sake.

To have authentic democracy!

Citizens must be afforded the opportunity to get involved not just politically, but financially by creating Green Energy European Bonds that cannot be traded.  

These bonds will allow citizens to regain control over unaccountable ‘technocrats’, complicit politicians and shadowy institutions.

They can be sold like lotto tickets. Forging a common agenda.

Emancipating citizens from all levels of government from bureaucratic and corporate power. Allowing direct investment into shared, green prosperity.

Politics has never been popular and never will be:

The more disengaged, the less likely that political parties will deliver. 

We’re able to measure things in a way that we’ve never been able to measure them before. So why not measure the wealth of a nation by the financial investment support it gets from its citizen’s. Rather than encompassing every possible thing that can go under the rubric of “green.

I suppose my goal here is to propose something vague enough that no one will object to it.

Have you wondered how you got to where you are today?

Greed.

Is technology taking control of our lives or our destiny?

Yes.  We’ve ditched reality.

The very data on which we measure the economy is disconnected from

the reality, with political leaders using high soaring” words “which often

imbibe emptiness.

Communication and leadership are key elements in elections these days

but you can’t sell a bad product, can you? 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. WE MUST REIN IN THE TECH GIANTS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

20 Friday Sep 2019

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Capitalism, Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Purchasing Power., Reality., Social Media., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( Fifteen-minute read) 

WHY?

These days we are allowing Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook do whatever the hell they want. The US sees them as winner-takes-all markets as the law of the capitalist jungle; the EU sees them as an intrinsic threat to consumers.

Because four companies dominate our daily lives unlike any other in human history: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. They have aggregated more economic value and influence than nearly any other commercial entity in history.

Because the concentration of wealth leads to concentration of power. Their massive size and unchecked power have and are throttling competitive markets and are keeping the economy from doing its job—namely, to promote a vibrant democracy.

Because all of them have managed to preserve their monopoly-like powers without heavy regulation. 

Because they have effectively ripped the heart out of the journalism, publishing, music, and entertainment industries but, even worse, they are demolishing the ranks of both corporate middle-management and entry-level service jobs and crushed commercial real estate and retail shopping malls, all for the enrichment of a very few.

Because they’re tracking your movements — or, even better, getting you to track yourselves for them, whether it’s “checking in” on Facebook or leaving your cell phone switched on while you travel (and who doesn’t?).

Because as we have seen the harvesting of the personal data use for political purposes.

Because the amount of money they generate, and the volume of content they accumulate, most of it provided voluntarily by you, for free, is stupefying.

Because with the coming of 5G technology they will have  too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.

Because using black-box algorithms to surface content to users they will have control over the way we use the Internet.

Because they are exploiting their monopoly power to stifle competition; they are spreading fake news; their fantastically rich owners portray themselves as right-on yet go to a great deal of trouble to minimise their corporate tax bills; they are ripping the heart out of communities through the closure of brick-and-mortar retailers.

Because social media is an increasingly key part of how we communicate. Yet legally, nothing stops Facebook from simply banning users from its platform, for any reason it wishes.

Because we’re heading for an Orwellian nightmare the shape of which is just now becoming apparent with climate change is being turned into a product. 

Because this isn’t just abstract concern about what could possibly happen in the future – market power of this magnitude isn’t unprecedented.

Because with a sprawling array of loosely related businesses under one roof they are becoming worldwide conglomerates.

Because no one or any company is now going to penetrate online shopping or the search market.

Google, Amazon, and Facebook are colossal companies. Together they make up almost 10% of the S&P 500. Together, they have a market capitalization of the GDP of France.

These are the 3rd-, 4th-, and 6th-largest companies on earth. Combined, they are worth over $2 trillion. And they’ve grown 470%, 175%, and 95% over the past five years.

Because they will take our choices away.

Because they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else.

Because country and companies that dominate technology will gain more power with time and 5G technology, gene editing, nanotechnology, creating what only can be called a profitable circle of global oligopolies.

Because they will soon be introducing their own cyber currencies.

Because our existing computers can’t even scratch the surface of what quantum computers will be able to do via the cloud quantum computers will. Those who own this technology will make supremacy an arbitrary goal.

Such computing power will change the way we do business and the security we have in place to safeguard data, how we fight disease and invent new materials, and solve health and climate problems.

Just like humans, artificial intelligence machines powered by the insights from quantum commercialising technology computers that will learn from experience and self-correct.

They’ll be able to use quantum simulations to design entirely new molecules for use in medicine making it possible for chemists to determine viable drug options quicker. Instead of troubleshooting issues bit by bit as we do now with classical computers, they will allow for a person’s genes to be sequenced and analyzed much more rapidly tackling the entire problem at once.

How do they do it?

By creating what we now perceive to be free platforms run by algorithms.  

( To Big Tech, you’re not the customer, you’re the product they’re selling to others:)

Google offers a vast bounty of free services in order to maximize its data collection and optimize its advertising capabilities. Similarly, Amazon is credibly accused of hurting suppliers, hurting competitors, and even hurting its own employees — but nobody can deny that it’s a cheap and convenient way to shop for a staggering array of things.

Amazon is keeping tabs on you, monitoring your purchases, pushing other products on you and, in the form of the hideous Alexa, listening in on you while you sleep. Throw in the electronic snooping of Facebook, Google and your iPhone.

We know the problems; they’re easy to diagnose, however shaping the solutions is going to be more difficult.

So what if anything can be achieved to restrain their coming power?

The difficulty lies in defining what the real harmful effect is of these companies and establishing a causal link between their creation, their products, behaviour, and trends such as populism, depression, and manipulation. The contribution to society of these companies’ products is not as black and white as some would like them to be. 

We’re heading down an entirely new field of physics, and by its very nature, there will be discoveries, innovations and solutions we have never dreamed of yet.

However we’re living in a capitalists world we should be empowering people to choose where to sell their information, personal data so it would no longer be monopolised by the tech giants.

Competition authorities need to move beyond a reliance on prices towards an analysis of the impact of takeovers and mergers on societal welfare.

As we grapple with how best to protect ourselves against the risks of new, disruptive technologies, policymakers need to understand the roles that ethics and law can and should play. 

If human rights are at risk, and existing law is found wanting, we may need new, legally enforceable rights and mechanisms to grapple with emerging technologies. Citizens should not need to rely on the “ethical conscience” of tech companies to know their fundamental rights are protected. Ethics are laudable—but sometimes they are not enough.

At their core, Google’s mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” and while Facebook’s goal was to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together” are both truly admirable and few people would disagree with them but ethical promises made by tech companies are not good enough.

Instead of adding value to our societies, Facebook,  Twitter, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Apple have sucked the data out of us.

They or at least their free platforms which have become essential to daily life should be regulated as public utilities.

Failing to do so risks a backlash which will be bad for everyone.

Why? 

Because there is one indisputable fact.

In front of every great fortune lies a great crime, Immense wealth translates automatically into environmental impacts regardless of the intentions of those who possess it. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Google does the same by using algorithms to decide what comes up on an internet search. They hardly pay any taxes and their business practices and technology will help crush industries and companies left and right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 “platform utility.” A platform utility would be barred from owning any of the participants on the platform.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S : IS 5 G GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN?

17 Tuesday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Dehumanization., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Inequality, Medical, Modern day life., Reality., Robot citizenship., Sustaniability, Technology, The cloud., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Internet., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., War, WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

 

Right now nobody knows for sure but it is going to radically upend many aspects of our lives, as it is a technological paradigm shift.

3G or 4G was just a trailer, and the movie is about to begin.This picture, posted on Twitter by Inga Sarda-Sorensen, shows dark storm clouds over the New York skyline

Why?

Because it is going to marry data collection and computation with billions of devices.

But there is a debate on the necessity for it, considering human physical and mental limitations.

It will become the underlying fabric of an entire ecosystem of fully connected intelligent sensors and devices, capable of overhauling economic and business policies, and further blurring geographical and cultural borders.

It will create a world populated by digital citizens in continual interaction with their surroundings, their peers and public services.

It will enable communications & computing power to come together creating a hyperconnected ‘Internet of everything’ world.

It will release the spectrum for mobile devices, bring about dramatic transformations in our daily lives.

It is going to change everything about everything else.

It will rock the world economy over the next decade as we haven’t yet

conceived that will be tied into the 5G network.

For example:

Your car will know your every move faster than your mind. Cars will be able to use 5G to talk to other cars and sensors built around cities, from street lamps to gas stations.

Think about your relationship between the smart city and an autonomous car.

Think about predictive care. It will enable advanced data transfer from wearables and sensors, facilitating remote clinical decisions and robotic surgery

Think about bring virtual reality into the classroom, allowing students to face real-life situations without real-life consequences.

Think about living in a world of always-on, always-sharing, cloud applications and services.

Think about it leading to seamless and ubiquitous information control.

It will potential to unlock trillions of revenue across a broad range of industries creating a different hidden economy with wireless consumption.

This revenue will be equivalent to total U.S. consumer spending in 2016, and more than the combined spending of China, Japan, France, Germany, and the U.K. This revenue also represents about 4.6 per cent of all global real output in 2035.

Another words countries without 5G will become less competitive globally, spreading inequality on a scale not seen before. This inequality leads to more than just differences in consumption and wealth distribution. It affects access to healthcare, education, nutrition, employment, financial and technological platforms; it exacerbates poverty, exclusion and violence.

By 2020, analysts estimate that there will be more than 20 billion installed IoT devices around the world, supporting 22 million jobs generating massive amounts of data.

With access to this kind of information, industries of all kinds will be able to reach new levels of efficiency as they add products, services, and capabilities.

It will mean that a surgeon may not need to be in the same room as a patient in the future. A surgeon could use a VR headset and special glove to control a robot arm that would perform an actual operation in another location.

With haptic feedback, you’ll be able to transmit the tactile sensation of experience, enhancing the sights and sounds of a video experience.

It will make drone warfare affordable and drone defence essential.

It will make consumption and production distant and broad concepts that are somehow unattached from us.

So what can we, as consumers, do, instead of feeling powerless and distraught?

We must ensure that 5G respect nature, and the interconnectedness of everything that matters for humanity.

An unofficial trade war is already afoot in the tech industry due to the imminent rise of 5G technology.

But it will not happen overnight. Think in terms of a decade or more for it to fully unfold.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT MODERN DAY POLITICS.

02 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Dehumanization., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections., European Union., First past the post., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Political voting systems., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Social Media, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read) 

My vote makes no difference is plausibly a part of the modern-day phenomenon of algorithm analyse voting that has lead to both the election of Donal Trump and Boris Jonhson.

It is resulting in the loss or deliberate yielding up of decision-making power by national governments to other organisations with Social media platforms both domestic and international— Like Facebook, Twitter,  etc. 

Combine this with Ngo’s, quangos, the law courts, business corporations, central banks, the E.U., the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and its no wonder that many are no longer content as voters to be the foot soldiers of a social or religious bloc.

They want to make a difference individually and although in a mass democracy this may lead to inevitable frustration, few would want to return to a time of extreme political polarisation or digital dictatorship. 

The symptoms of short term popularism driven by social media platforms and the smartphone are leading to a no-deal Brexit are the same worldwide. 

Denunciations of the system, citizen disengagement from mainstream parties, electoral volatility and/or apathy, the rise of dissenting movements that appeal to large numbers who are, or feel themselves to be, disfranchised or ignored by an establishment dominated by uncontrollable and often faceless forces are replacing old political systems. 

Hence the perception that parties and politicians are no longer willing or able to represent their voters, that they are “all the same” and that politics has become an irrelevant smokescreen for the machinations of special interests and lobby groups.

When relatively few people are losing out—these changes may not seem to matter much. They may even seem desirable: “pooling of sovereignty,” removal of political interference from civil society, increasing checks on the executive by domestic and international courts, subsidiarity in decision-making, encouragement of inward investment, and so on.

This creates a political and administrative burden that can neither manage nor surrender—a great cause of popular discontent.

Not so, of course, when things suddenly go wrong.

One has only to look at England:

A combination of capitalism and socialism in a highly centralized system without a nationally elected government makes England today a very unusual place.

This oddity has opened up a constitutional free-for-all.

However, national identity, not administrative or economic efficiency, is the core of both devolution and independence— and the rest is window-dressing with the past affecting us all in more complex and deep-seated ways than in countries that have experienced violent historic ruptures.

Community loyalties, however deep-rooted, are not permanent.

Whatever happens in England, there will remain the question of how to govern a big, growing, diverse, crowded, and increasingly self-conscious England.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: THESE DAY’S IS THERE ANYTHING SUCH AS POLITICAL SCIENCE.

30 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Elections 2019, Fake News., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( Twenty-minute read)

 

Call it what you want:

Political Science,  Political theory, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Methodology. It all leaves you scratching your head and wondering what is Political Science exactly?

Political Science is a social science that focuses on government institutions and political behaviour, but how exactly did it come about?

When one watches gatherings such as the G7/8 of world leader one would have to ask where are we going.

Every major media outlet has a political scientist on call to commentate about likely voter reactions to the candidates’ stances on hot-button issues.

The behavioural models that political scientists create can practically forecast the outcome of an election before a single vote has been cast.

However in the 21st, it means “democracy”, is the crowd-sourcing of politics run by algorithms.

So political science is governed by five myths:

That it is possible to study politicsn> That it is scientific > That it is possible to study politics separated off from economics, sociology, psychology and history > That the state in our democratic capitalist society is politically neutral, that is available as a set of institutions and mechanisms to whatever group wins the election > That political science, as a discipline, advances the cause of democracy.

For me it is “superficial and trivial”, and that concept formation and development is “little more than hair-splitting and jargon”

These days we are told if something can’t be measured, then that’s not it, and if an event didn’t happen twice, then it didn’t happen.

One way or the other all the more interesting questions falling outside the bounds of scientific investigation, the internet age is gradually forcing itself upon our leaders but it is unlikely to make them reconnect with voters “less because they see the light, and more because they are beginning to feel the heat”.

For all the talk about politics, political science has never decided what exactly it should study.

The result is that many trivial matters receive an inordinate amount of attention and many important ones go untreated like climate change.

In short, political science seems to have turned around the order in which any person not trained in the discipline would try to answer the questions.

We will soon learn that political science is not about the real world but only about those features of the world that can be studied by methods deemed to be scientific.

“What should I study?” and “How should I study it?”.

What has political science found out about the political sphere that we didn’t know before, or that isn’t abysmally trivial?

It makes even the worst real-world inequalities acceptable (not worth bothering about) by rendering them irrelevant to the task at hand. Guess to whose benefit?

Few things are more important to the legitimation of capitalist rule than the assurance given by political science that the dictatorship of the capitalist class in which we live is really a democratic state of the whole people.

If political science really wishes to advance the cause of democracy (as one of the myths of our discipline already has it doing), we should help people understand that the main barrier to democracy today is capitalism.

Given the importance of the capitalist context for everything that goes on inside it, this is also a first step toward making our research truly scientific, that is capable of uncovering how the state and politics really work, and how—with the democratization of undemocratic capitalist relations of production, distribution and exchange—they might yet come to work for everyone.

Now here is a non-trivial agenda worthy of political science that aspires to advance the cause of democracy through the use of scientific

The rational choice carries the miniaturization of political science one step further by dismissing what people actually do politically and concentrating on their decisions to do it,

We see news reports, headlines in the papers and if one checks the details you find that the headlines are misleading or half-truths.

I accept that all news, in whatever medium, is subject to some editorial bias but the days of reporting the facts dispassionately are gone due to social media.

Take Brexit for example:

Parties that had strong collective identities are now falling asunder all being lead by popularism into political cul-de-sacs. The loyalty and cohesion of political parties now depend much more on short term smartphone mass memberships.

The results are tragi-comedy modernisation and public mistrusted.

This is what motivated the In or Out referendum not an understanding of the long term consequences.

Annexing subjects like the European Union affects all lives in countless ways –

I don’t think that any political science predicted a Party without power or fame the Brexit Party. It now represents a piece of evidence about how the ground is shifting.

Thus to ask today, in the middle of Mitteleuropa, where political science has been heading is also to ask whether the new beginnings of the discipline in Eastern Europe should or should not follow the path entered by our “big brother,”

The digital revolution will do to grand planners in the West what the collapse of Communism did to socialist planners in the old Soviet bloc”.

THE PROBLEM IS:

Are we somehow going to see sense and see through the lies?

How have rampant inequalities shaped electoral campaigns and promises?

We don’t need political science to say that global climate change is real.

If you don’t believe it you’re anti-facts.

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS, to open up politics with the right of “recall” against MPs with whom constituents were dissatisfied.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN?

01 Thursday Aug 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Dehumanization., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Life., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Technology, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

Answering this question is not as straightforward as it might appear.

There are billions of us alive all consciousness of each other but unable to explain why.

Perhaps this is why religions were created.

Consciousness is everything people experience.

However, there are different levels of consciousness and they can be related to other global changes in conscious level. All are private and inaccessible to observers.

(Conscious level (how conscious one is) and conscious content (what one is conscious of) are related to each other.)

So at what is a structure complex enough to become conscious.

Why am I human instead of a particle?

If we are particles we are no longer dealing with a purely material theory of consciousness because the source of the conscious particles cannot itself be material.

Its source requires an immaterial intervention.

I will return to consciousness later in the post.

The role that technology plays in human life is becoming an increasingly urgent question not just in tackling climate change but what will be considered in the future to be human.

Where we’re headed and what it will mean for humanity is a question seldom discussed.

Bioelectric implants, genetic modification packages, the ability to tamper with our very biology —  there won’t be enough time to adjust or to reassess who we are and what it means to be human.

Our technology is developing so much faster than our culture and our institutions, and the gap between these things can only grow so far before society becomes dangerously unstable.

It’s hard to really know what we are becoming because so many of these changes are unforeseen or unpredictable.

At the moment computers and robots interact with the world without being conscious.

Are we at risk or are we becoming semi-machines who are like the marionettes of our own moment-to-moment experiences?

We’re losing our ability to be in the world in a way that isn’t mediated by some electronic appendage.

The more we live through screens, the more we are living in a narrow bandwidth, an abstract world that’s increasingly artificial the more we are becoming non-human.

The virtual world might be safe and controllable, but it’s not rich and unpredictable in the way the real world is.

What is all this doing to our habits, to our cultural sense of who we are?

With synthetic biology, which is basically human beings redesigning their biological structure we are distant to lose our connection to reality altogether.

Why?

Because it’s about us modifying our very genetic code which is extremely dangerous if it’s not controlled and safeguarded.

Intelligence is the most powerful instrument around.

If you’re embodying that kind of intelligence in increasingly sophisticated machines we will be coming to depend on them more and more over time.

(What worries me is that we’re headed in the direction of building AI technologies that are at the human level and, eventually, far beyond that.)

If AI becomes so intelligent that they can perform an infinite variety of tasks across domains of activity. We’ll continue to make them smarter and more capable and more powerful until we reach a point at which they start to learn on their own and start to modify themselves. Once that happens, they’ll be fully unpredictable — and then who the hell knows what happens next.

Any fool on the street can tell you that with nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, machine learning, bioengineering, brain implants, quantum computers, algorithms, robots that technology is changing at a whiplash-inducing pace.

So because there is no widely accepted theory about what happens in the brain to make consciousness possible what is it about being human that really matters?

Back to look at Consciousness.

Nothing has authority over it but is it what makes us human.

Nothing is above it. Nothing rules it.

Since everything exists within it, it does not exist within anything.

Since it is not dependent on anything, it is eternal, it is outside of realms of being and time.

In fact, consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity. It is not dependent on anything. No one can envision it. No one can comprehend it. Neither physical nor unphysical it is beyond knowledge.

It simply apprehends itself.

The brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it.

This implies a very real and direct connection between the brain, human consciousness and the existence of the Universe — that they are fundamentally inseparable at the quantum level.

Consciousness permeates reality.

Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

Who or what counts as human?

It’s well-known that the Nazis considered Jews to be non-human creatures.

All the questions we currently face can be traced to this, larger, underlying question. What is Human?

If one says that all and only Homo sapiens are humans, one is expressing a preference about where the boundary separating humans from non-humans should be drawn.

What sort of evidence can settle the question?

There’s something about us that is the opposite of artificial. It’s the opposite of something made.

This raises the below questions.

What genetic engineering stuff promises to bring down the line is human beings who are tailored to particular purposes, either by themselves over time or by other human beings.

We becoming products or commodities, and products or commodities are subordinated to particular functions or purposes.

All the values that give our lives meaning are at risk.

What becomes of autonomy? What becomes of free will?

All these questions are on the table.

By the year 2500, people will not need to be exactly like they are now so it stands to reason that semi humans will break the bonds that hold our present-day society together. They will shatter our sense of identity so quickly that it creates a kind of existential chaos.

So what are these technologies adding to the human experience and, more importantly, what are they subtracting from the human experience?

We live in a world of wonder and mystery, and the more we discover, the more there seems to be to find out but should we be more worried about the world we’re creating?

The artificial kind of worlds.

.This post is compliments of the FRIGHTLY SORRY<SORRY<SORRY. CLUB.

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

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS THIS WHAT IS WRONG WITH MODERN DAY CAPITALISM. WE JUST HUMAN CAPITAL.

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Capitalism, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Populism., Purchasing Power., Reality., Sustaniability, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

The term ” Human capital” suggests that we create ourselves as social beings, and then society recognizes the outcome of our self-making by assigning them values. This value is then exchanged for commodities and services of equal value.

WE SPEND OUR LIVES TRYING TO MAKE THIS VALUE HIGHER.

No discussion of human capital can omit the influence of families on the knowledge, skills, health, values, and habits. But when we become a risk, a drain on society, a problem of a life gone on too long we reflect the political and economic goals that the notion of human capital was designed to fulfil – profit.

When we assign value to human life it means different worth including negative value – to the lives of different people. Life subsequently came to be valued according to its ability to foster the national economy – its potential contribution to GDP with nil contribution deemed a surplus to manage.

This has become the bedrock of modern capitalism – persons and profit with the smartphone transferring its owner into an asset of significant value.

Profit-seeking Algorithms that are now embedded in our societies making it seem natural to be monitored and to allow access to every moment of our days.

Assigning life a market value is no way to guarantee that this value will be high.

Everyone is able to help themselves but information technologies are fastening individuals to prefabricated categories ( Age, gender, religion, ) solidifying us as persons of a certain kind.

Even if we consider ourselves to be so much more than our data or human capital, we cultivate, display, and leverage, our socially recognized arsenal of valued traits—no matter how worrying the manner in which they were consolidated—whenever circumstances call for it.

Human capital, then, is something other than the sum total of our ambition.

Like other kinds of capital, its value is set by market dynamics that support a larger process of accumulation.

We are unable to determine how much we are worth to our society.

There is no stopping this form of unattachment to reality, to politics, to nature, to others and it is destined to become worse. We have world leaders Twittering, governments pandering to populism, androids apps grabbing your data even if you block them.

Indeed it would be fair to say that Capitalism is disappearing underground.

The idea of human lives as surplus—superfluous to society rather than being its building blocks—offends our robust sense of self.

However, in designating selfhood unique yet classifiable, a personal project of self-creation yet a collective subject of political policy, we end up with human capital.

We feel oppressed by constantly having to demonstrate our worth in a matrix of investments and returns.

Is there any solution to this detachment?

Not with Social media that is putting a protective net around people with this net actually becoming a limiting cage.

A vote every five or ten years will not do it.

Countries must enable their citizens to become involved directly in the economy by offering non-trading but inheritable Participation Bonds with guaranteed returns in order to make the economy serve the people rather than the other way around.

In a world of universal and instantaneous communication with robotic technology now treating our abilities to earn a living the coffers of the state are diminishing.

Some will say that Participation Bonds is a form of Socialism.

It might well be but it is not the state owning the assets of a country but its people have a vested interest.

The current relationship between the balance sheet value of human capital and the operating costs of the human capital is not realistic. Successful leaders want to know how their people are deployed and new technological advances clearly are of little value to countries that don’t put their people first.

Therefore, economists regard expenditures on education, training, medical care, and so on as investments in human capital. They are called human capital because people cannot be separated from their knowledge, skills, health, or values in the way they can be separated from their financial and physical assets but tangible forms of capital are not the only type of capital.

No matter what colour, creed or status you are if you are not attached you cannot reap the rewards.

Other words if you are on a sailing boat crossing the Atlantic there is no point in being pushed over or jumping overboard if you want to arrive.

The old adage of “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves no longer applies.

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

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY .

08 Saturday Jun 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Modern Day Communication., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The new year 2109, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read)

The international community is a phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world. It slips off the tongue of BBC correspondents and newsreaders as if it is just good old plain common sense.

The international society thinks this … believes that … is concerned about.

HOW OFTEN HAVE WE HEARD COUNTRIES APPEALING TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

Are they wasting their breath?

If you were to asked me I would say that activists, politicians and commentators often use the term in calling for action to be taken in order to deflect their own countries dismal response.

We all know what is meant by the term ‘international community’, don’t we?

It’s the west, of course, nothing more, nothing less.

Just look at the global issue of climate change which could not be more International which urgently requires a common strategy with binding targets that must be defined on a planetary scale. The central driver of climate change risk is mainstream economic (development) models which aspire to carbon-intensive industrialization.

It is speculated that our global interconnectedness, instead of (only) making us more resilient, makes us more vulnerable to global catastrophe.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the international community"

Solving climate change will take a global effort not an international effort.

Take Aviation pollution alone it is forecasted to triple by 2050 if there are no global policy measures are agreed.

The Earth can not appeal to an International community but our world in which no individual, and no country, exists in isolation, is now facing perhaps its final disaster.

The involvement of Muslim countries – and from contrasting traditions to those of the Arab world – would be most valuable.

It would also represent a most welcome redefinition of the “international community.

Take China for example:  

In fact, the Chinese have their own definition of “international community” to counter what they see as a western-dominated and defined international community.

Take Lebanon, for example:

What did the beloved “international community” think:

Take War-torn Syria, for example:

It is one country where there are sharply divided views between the West on the one side and China and Russia on the other.

Take India, or Latin America, or Africa, or South East Asia?

What do they think?

We are never told. Nobody bothered to find out.

Take Brexit.

Everyone seems to have someone, perhaps some group of people, on whom he or she looks down or whom he or she considers inferior. That is why, for example, the west finds it almost impossible to win votes on many issues in the UN general assembly.

If we are brutally honest with yourself it comes from sheer ignorance.

There is no international community. There is merely a group of states motivated by self-interest.

The international community is a mythical joke.

There will never be one that is worthy of respect rather than a cheap joke.

What we got is a digital dictatorship in its infancy. A world run by Algorithms mostly for profit.

What is needed is an global awaking.

Image associée

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

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; IS IT TIME TO STOP TREATING ALL VOTES AS EQUAL

27 Monday May 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections 2019, First past the post., Modern Day Democracy., Nigel Farage., Political voting systems., Populism., Post - truth politics., The far-right., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read)

One person, one vote is often a rallying cry for democracy activists.

Everyone should have representation.

Equality should be sacrosanct in a democracy should it not or is it?

But should everyone have equal representation?

THE 2019 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS RESULTS ARE IN AND BECAUSE OF THE RESULTS LITTLE WILL CHANGE EXCEPT THE SQUABBLING WILL BE OFTEN AND MORE INTENSE.

Unequal votes are a result of history.

Inequality between votes may also not be built into the system but a result of the balance of parties within the system.

Under the English system of first past the post a very few voters have a disproportionate influence due to being swing voters in swing constituencies.

The conduct of election and referendum campaigns in the UK is letting voters down. Trust in what politicians say—and in how journalists report it—is at rock bottom.

If British residents aren’t equal, then nor are their representatives.

So should democracies stick the principle that everyone should have equal weight or compromise if for politics?

In a simple majority system of one vote = one person, the outcome is easy to conclude and scrutinise for fairness and election rigging.

Therefore one vote = one voice is also a very practical way to run a democracy.

Or is it?

There are certain reasons to reasonably exclude someone from the voting process – breaking laws is arguably one of these reasons.

Should a vote have weight based on someone’s contributions to their community, and society as a whole? If one has done good things, their vote should be more important than that of a selfish person who does not contribute in a positive way.

Should a Party with no members, no Manifesto, lead by a self-elected leader from a previous Party that spread Falsehoods be allowed to take up its seats in The European Parlement to effectively try to destroy all it stands for at the cost of the taxpayer?

Yes.

Should a party that is in power be allowed to select the leader of a country without a general election?

Yes.

However, we should be striving to deepen our democracy, not just to protect the democracy that we already have. Voters deserve much better. We should be tackling misinformation, promoting quality information, and encouraging open, respectful discussion among citizens.

Almost any misleading claim can be expressed in a way that isn’t strictly false, so a ban on falsehoods would change little. There are also dangers: for example, populist campaigners could “weaponise” adverse rulings to claim victimisation by the “establishment.”

The solution is, for example, Ireland has recently blazed a new path in how to prepare for referendums, convening a group of randomly selected citizens—a “citizens’ assembly”—to meet over several weekends to learn, deliberate, and reach recommendations.

Why is this a solution because of the challenge arising from the digital revolution that has transformed political communications in the last decade.

This allows the citizens of a country to have a unified clear voice on what is to be voted on.

Now is the time to ensure that how we conduct election and referendum campaigns is designed with voters at its heart.

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