Category Archives: Humanity.

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHO IS A REFUGEE?

25 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in European Union., Humanity., Politics., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHO IS A REFUGEE?

Tags

, , , ,

Understanding the problems confronting refugees—and those striving to protect them—depends on grasping precise legal definitions.

The core definition of a “refugee” is contained in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, which define a refugee as an individual who: “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

With biggest driving force for change still to manifest itself: It seem to me that the definition is long over due a revamp.

Climate Change will like the Internet have a profound effect on the world.

The Internet alone has assisted the creation of wars, by highlighting the inequalities that exist between the have and have not’s. It is exposing Capitalism and the free Market for what it real is. It is unveiling corruption, challenging the mass media and assisting mass immigration by generating sizeable networks to deal with the any obstacles set in their paths.

Climate change will change any definition of undocumented aliens asylum seekers. It will displace millions, impacting on the economy, by having a positive affecting on some groups and negatively others.

Trade agreements like the TTPI will weaken the case of those who would venture a rigid and single-factor comparison between “political” immigration and “economic” immigration.

We can expect the migratory issue to become increasingly political. A more rational approach would be to consider who the illegal immigrants are, before making immigration laws.

Much of Europe’s brewing migration debate carries a polarized tone of certainty, and migrants themselves are often slotted into neat “political” and “economic” categories.

You can see this at the moment as the EU struggles to establish who are political refugees and illegal immigration, on the role of economic versus non-economic factors. The definition Refugee has and is being ignored.

Is it possible to distinguish between the poverty of “condition” and the poverty of “position”?

Poverty, while a commonly cited factor “pushing” migration, is difficult to define.

In the former situation, the two main factors are a lack of employment and steady income, which prompt a feeling of having “nothing to lose.”Their biggest concern and expectation is to improve their physical well-being, something they regard as impossible at home.

This element has also got a growing home-grown element of poverty due to unemployment, no hours contracts, and exploration of the vulnerable within the EU.

Poverty of position, in contrast, involves migrants who use emigration as a way of more rapidly climbing the social ladder. These migrants feel that their income and position in their home country will never match their social capital (for example, their level of formal education or training). They move to places where they believe they can realize their aspirations.

Theses generic terms therefore covers a wide range of facts but Violence and Conflict are the leading causes of the current wave of migration [to Europe]

It is rooted in the crazy [U.S.] idea to launch an intervention in Iraq, which allegedly had weapons of mass destruction, but nothing was found.” A disaster that destabilized the Middle East giving rise of terrorism that we now see to-day.

However some of the blame for many asylum seekers is not wars.

For example, persecution is not necessarily imposed by the government or other official institutions in their country of origin. Some may face violence at the hands of mafia networks, armed groups, or a dominant majority group in connection with factors that are not directly political, such as ethnicity.

Others may be threatened for having a lifestyle that involves a socially unacceptable choice of spouse, sexual orientation, etc. As a result, some people are threatened and persecuted without fully meeting the demands of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

The long the short and tall of it is that Northern Africa today can no longer defend Europe from the immense masses of people on the move.

As Europe turns its back, these are refugees, not migrants, are arriving in their thousands on Greek shores .

The number thought to be in the UK could be as high as 863,000 – larger than the population of Leeds. By comparison, Italy was thought to have up to 461,000, Germany had 457,000, France’s top estimate was 400,000 and Spain had 354,000. Greece, it is estimated that about 100.000-150.000 undocumented refugees and migrants enter Greece each year, among them maybe around 10.000 unaccompanied minors.

Refugees and other vulnerable people deserve the protection and assistance to which they are entitled under international law. Rather then the inhumane treatment seen in the below:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/streams-refugees-flow-macedonia-greece-150823072040825.html

In a wide range of countries, attitudes toward immigrants appear to be related to labor-market concerns, security and cultural considerations, as well as individual feelings toward political refugees and illegal immigration.

Are attitudes toward foreigners influenced by economic considerations or are they driven exclusively by non-economic issues?

At what point do we as citizens of the EU conclude that these people have already suffered enough and deserve to be aided in their flight to safety?

Without legal alternative routes for refugees to enter other European countries, people fleeing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere have taken matters into their own hands

The future of Europe, will be determined by its ability to confront the issue of immigration. Whatever the attitude of the government, population pressure will be immense on Europe and there is no chance to prevent such migration.

On the one hand, the Fortress Europe concept essentially focuses on the role of external border controls and neglects the entry and settlement of clandestine immigrants and undocumented aliens. At the same time, border controls, deportations, mass arrests, and internment of migrants in closed centers and prisons invalidate the thesis of Europe as a sieve.

Europe, which is neighbor to many war zones takes in more than 1.5 million legal migrants.

Overall, forced displacement numbers in Europe totalled 6.7 million at the end of the year, compared to 4.4 million at the end of 2013, and with the largest proportion of this being Syrians in Turkey and Ukrainians in the Russian Federation. Syria’s ongoing war, with 7.6 million people displaced internally, and 3.88 million people displaced into the surrounding region and beyond as refugees, has alone made the Middle East the world’s largest producer and host of forced displacement. Adding to the high totals from Syria was a new displacement of least 2.6 million people in Iraq and 309,000 newly displaced in Libya.

Today, Libya, between 500,000 and one million people aspire to come to Europe.

With population growth of 7% or 8% in Africa, against just over 1% here, migratory pressure is mechanical.

It is not possible or desirable that Europe opens its doors to every tom dick and harry. On the other hand it not possible to address the situation with 4-meter (13-foot) high fence on its borders like Hungary, or We need to build a wall, we need to keep illegals out,” Donald Trump said at last Thursday’s GOP debate.

I for one do not want to be represented by Israeli or Berlin wall.

It needs policies that better serve the interests of both nations and immigrants.

It is beyond me that we cannot move FRONTEX (It coordinates EU States’ actions in the implementation of EU border management measures.) from Warsaw (Poland) to some where useful.  So far this year, more than 180,000 migrants have reached Greece and Italy by sea (others come from Turkey via the land border with Bulgaria).

In the first four months of this year, more than a quarter of a million people claimed asylum in a European Union member state.

Where is the big deal in setting up humanitarian corridors for asylum seekers. To putting up initial reception center. To agreeing to a binding quota system for distributing refugees among all European countries.

I am sure if an appeal was made to all European Citizens the majority of the 509 million would not begrudge 10 Euros a month.

Let us hope that Europe can respond intelligently by rejecting generalisations and simplistic discourse by being true to its values, notably in terms of asylum and yet be more effective.

I leave you with the words of  Ahmed Satuf, another refugee from Idlib in Syria, told Al Jazeera he didn’t want anything from Macedonia, except for being allowed to cross its borders.

“I’m not a terrorist. We are humans. Where’s the humanity? Where’s the world? Everyone here, they are families,” he said.

“We don’t need anything. We don’t need money. Let us cross. I want to go to Germany.”

Europe above all places in the world born of integrationist ideals yet undermined by participants’ unwillingness to share costs as well as benefits, has a chance to shine.

“For us, today Europe is at stake” 

said Orban Viktor the president of Hungary,  “The survival, disappearance or, more precisely, the transformation beyond recognition of the European citizen’s lifestyle, European values and the European nations.”

He knows where he can stick that finger of his.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S IT TIME FOR CAPITALISM TO PAY.

18 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S IT TIME FOR CAPITALISM TO PAY.

Tags

, , ,

If you are one of those people who I call shadow people don’t bother reading this post in order to press the like button. However if you’re a real person all suggestions or comments will be appreciated.

We all know that there is the governments of more than 190 nations gathering in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change.  The aim is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the threat of dangerous climate change.

The crunch Paris climate conference is from 30 November to 11 December.

Will it achieve anything worth while other than the usual media hype.

I think not.  Why?  Because the very thing that caused the problem is not there and it will in the long run ignore any agreement.

 

With global population rapidly marching toward 11 billion and with it the demand for food, health services, energy and security, we need to reexamine the models that have gotten us to this point.

Currently, our planet is on track to fly past the 2 degrees Celsius warming that scientist have repeatedly warned marks the safe range for humans on this planet. Beyond this point, we will only see the outcome of these challenges become more severe and an increased potential of no return.

“Global climate change is not a man-made. “It is a capital-made problem.”.

Over the last 40 years, global wealth has become a more concentrated problem.

During this time, we saw a massive expansion in our planet’s destruction and disruption; global carbon emissions grew by 75 percent; deforestation rates climbed to 17 percent in the past 50 years.

Clearly, the neoliberal economic growth model being promoted as a road to economic development is not distributing our gains in wealth to the majority, but to an elite minority at the expense of the planet’s future habitability.

Global emission have also grown 70% since 1970.

Economic Research estimates that for every 1 degree Celsius in additional warming, violent crimes such as assault, murder and rape will increase by 2.4 percent, while larger conflicts such as riots, ethnic violence, political instability and gang activity will increase by 11.4 percent.

Economically, 5 percent of the global market economy is at risk currently due to climate change. This is not accounting for damages due to increased intensity of weather events, of which 80 percent will be felt by poorer Southern Hemisphere countries.

Put in plain and simple language: Limitless production and consumption is not possible on a finite planet.

We have the chance to change this paradigm through new technologies, new business models and new financial structures which redevelop the role business plays in society.

In this challenge, we need to account for not just the natural limits of our planets, but also for the injustice and inequality generated by our current economic paradigm by responding with a collaborative spirit.

We need: A new economy.

As investors, we need to review the business and financial models that we promote.

Just building a clean tech innovation economy is not enough.

Complete change will not happen overnight.

It will not be built on the back of one investor or one innovative entrepreneur.

It will be something that business owners, investors, political leaders, consumers and entrepreneurs must all have to work together toward.

What explains our collective failure on climate change?

Why is it that instead of dealing with the problem, all we seem to do is make it worse?

The answer is simple

ITS THE CAPITALISM GOD OF PROFIT.

WHICH IS NOT compatible with the actions needed to combat climate change.

Capitalism isn’t helping. In fact, it can’t help the cause, but it can pay to rectify it. .

“You might be able to argue that the economic costs of taking action are greater than allowing climate change to play out for a few more decades …

“But most people don’t actually like it when their children’s lives are ‘discounted’ in someone else’s Excel sheet, and they tend to have a moral aversion to the idea of allowing countries to disappear because saving them would be too expensive.” Naomi Klein.

She prompts an ideological solution.  We all stop being greed bad boys.

Free market cannot accomplish what needs to be done.

We need to think differently, radically differently” for changes to be even remotely possible.

Can, as Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1967, a “radical revolution of values” shift our society from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society?

We need to take our smartphones to the streets in massive demonstrations demanding action.

We’re too selfish, we’re too greedy — is that this idea of the “we” of who we are that has to changed.  Which of course is impossible. 

There is only one solution.

Pledges, New Global Agreements, Discussions, Hand Shakes, you name it are useless.

Capitalism must be made to pay by placing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all Stock Exchange transactions over $20,000, on all High Frequency Transaction, on all Foreign Exchange Transaction over $20,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions.

This will crate a perpetual World Aid Fund.

No other solution will work as no one wants to Pay the Bill.

If you have any suggestions (if you think that the contents of this post are worthy) as to how we can bring the suggestion to the attention of the delegates in Paris I am all ears.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DEATH

14 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by in Humanity., Technology, The Future

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DEATH

Tags

, , ,

Of all mankind’s ostensible insoluble problems, one has remain the most vexing, interesting and important, the problem of death itself.

The denial of death is one of humanity’s deepest motivations.

In the decades to come we may see, one universe, one humankind, one religion, that unites us all but in the end we all share the same destiny – that just as surely as we are alive, so we die.

Death reminds us of our human vulnerability in spite of all our technological advances.

It is an integral part of our lives that gives meaning to human existence.

All that you are, and all that you’ve done and been is culminated in your death.

But now it is turning into a technical problem?

In recent years, medical technology has advanced rapidly. It has been suggested that methods such as nanotechnology, cell rejuvenation, and gene therapy might result in a significant increase in the human lifespan.

In theory, with the help of medical technology, it could be possible to keep living for hundreds or thousands of years, even eternally.

The whole brain definition of death is an unwieldy, historical compromise which will unravel as 21st century technologies permit the repair, replacement and manipulation of body, and especially brain, tissue.

We would basically be left with suicide, illnesses, accidents, famine, and homicides. Another words the like hood of dying from some disease or virus will be highly unlikely.

Even if it seems a distant goal the quest of immortality is very much on the cards.

The (current) essence of being human is to be mortal, immortals would necessarily be a different type of being and therefore have a different identity.

To control human destiny, with the dream of conquering death would raise profound questions.

You are not obliged to entertain all thought experiments, no matter how implausible, but if technology will make our current ethical views inadequate within some finite, foreseeable period of time, we should adjust our thinking, and law, to a more solid footing.

Our current concepts of death don’t very well address the status of a person who might eventually be brought back to life.

When and if these remediative technologies come available, there will be tremendous material interests at stake. These technologies will develop just as the industrialized world shifts to increasing proportion of elderly.

Nanotechnology is developing a bionic immune system, and by the year 2050 we could reach a mortal state.

Research is also being conducted on the creation of computer chip matrices into which nerves can grow, and which could permit two-way communication between neurons and computers.

Such computer-brain interfaces raise the possibility that computer technology may also be developed to remediate neural capacities.

Already advances are being made in electronic prosthetics for sight and hearing, from cochlear implants to optic nerve interfaces.

Computer engineers are also developing biological computing and storage media3, and software that learns, suggesting a future convergence between organic computing, neural network software and neural-computer interfaces.

Personhood in a cybernetic medium is a common, but minority, position in the field of artificial intelligence and cognitive science.

Most cognitive scientists accept the materialist assertion that mind is an emergent phenomenon from complex matter, and that cybernetics may one day provide the same requisite level of complexity as a brain.

Of course, those who embrace the possibility of self-aware machine minds do not necessarily want to see them be developed, or grant them “human rights” once they do develop.

Another technology that may eventually challenge our death concepts is cryonic suspension, the freezing of heads, or whole bodies, for eventual reanimation.

Barring the end of civilization as we know it, technology will eventually develop the capacity to remediate severe brain injuries, and perhaps even translate human thought into alternative media.

So you are can begin to see that we will be forced to acknowledge that the destruction of the “integrative” functions of the body is an inadequate definition of death, since the social person will remain intact.

When we get to the point where neurological functions can be controlled, designed and turned on and off, the illusory sense of continuous self-identity will become more obvious.

Once we cast off this fundamental predicate of Enlightenment ethics, the existence of an autonomous individual, we are beyond the ethical frameworks of contemporary bioethics.

It might be necessary that old people had a duty to die.

We soon have to answer the question: Is there can only be one death.

There are ethical worldviews that do not have the autonomous individual at their core, from the Democracy to Communism.

By the time we have developed adequate frameworks based on our cherished liberal democratic values it will be too late.

After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist. Luckily if we wished to cure death, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that we might be able to do that even in the distant future.

But don’t be fooled. Have a look,

//youtu.be/u_Vpy3xs0cE

The only modern ideology that still awards death a central role is nationalism.                          “The Glorious Dead.”  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "we shall remember them"

Warfare has been the crucial defining element for Britain and its empire in the 20th century. There have been only two years since 1945 that a serving member of the armed forces has not been killed.

The Cenotaph (literally “empty tomb” in Greek)  May they rest in Peace. 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

The Beady Eye looks at “biology as technology”

11 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Big Data., Environment, Humanity., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on The Beady Eye looks at “biology as technology”

Tags

, , , , ,

Artificial intelligence is all around us.

But what is the most powerful technology on Earth?

You may think of a B-2 bomber, or a nuclear reactor, or maybe even far-reaching social media platforms.

But there is only one technology known to man that can heal itself, adapt to its environment, sustain itself for decades, replicate, and evolve:

The living organism.

Biological systems have the ability to do things that no human-made machine or chemistry can begin to approach: the ability to replicate, to learn, to scale from one to billions, to adapt, and to evolve.

By gaining control over biological systems and their biochemical pathways — and designing new pathways by rewriting the DNA “software” in cells — synthetic biologists are ushering in the “Biological Age.”

Creating substances with not only superior electrical, optical, and mechanical properties, but with properties that we have never seen before in man-made materials: materials that can regenerate, that respond to the environment, that learn and evolve.

We’re “on the cusp of revolutionary change” coming much “sooner than you think.”

Sugar-fueled biological actuators for hybrid robotics are on the horizon, all grown in “living foundries.

You might think that this is science fiction but it is becoming tangible due to the rapid, simultaneous development of genome-scale engineering tools, enormous data sets of genome sequences, new imaging and analytical capabilities, and the convergence of advances in information science and engineering with biology..

While it’s difficult, if not impossible, to predict future consumer applications.

If we could harness the power of biology in a predictable manner, then we could create living materials that perform functions seamlessly, cheaply, and with very low energy requirements, like walking, talking, dancing, killing, Robots.

A goal along these lines, of course, raises a lot of questions:

Better for whom? Better in what way? For biological humans? For all conscious beings? If that is the case, who or what is conscious?

Evolutionary biological changes move every which way with no apparent direction.

Yet, we continue nonetheless to see a movement toward greater complexity and greater intelligence, indeed to evolution’s supreme achievement of evolving a neocortex capable of hierarchical thinking we are now on the verge of  creating  a “post human” stage of civilization.

This stage may be only a few decades away.

Unfortunately if all the AI systems decided to go on strike tomorrow, our civilization would be crippled: Primitive human societies might then remain on Earth indefinitely but not to worry we’ll be uploading our entire MINDS to computers by 2045 and our bodies will be replaced by machines within 90 years.

Ray Kurzweil - director of engineering at Google - claims that by 2045 humans will be able to upload their entire minds to computers and become digitally immortal - an event called singularity

The simple act of connecting with someone via a text message, e-mail, or cell-phone call uses intelligent algorithms to route the information. (The number of people using Twitter and Facebook daily is around 1,138,000,000)

So a digital brain will need a human narrative of its own fictional story so that it can pretend to be a biological human.

I could at this stage give your brain a more ambitious goal, such as contributing to a better world which is badly needed considering that we are well on the way to extinction. However there is no justification for thinking that our own species will be especially privileged or protected from future technological disasters.

We tend to view the existence of our race as constituting a great ethical value when in fact our existence in a biology sense it is not worth the steam off our piss.

Why?

Because in the future almost every product we touch will be originally designed in a collaboration between human and artificial intelligence and then built-in automated factories.

Because we will continue to pollute our planet and the sky’s above to appease the Stock Exchange.  

Because there will be many ways in which humanity could become extinct before reaching post humanity by wiping out what we should be rely on.

Perhaps the most natural interpretation of disaster is that we are likely to go extinct as a result of the development of some powerful but dangerous technology to combat climate change. We would do well to remember Robert Oppenheimer words when he first viewed an atomic explosion ” Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”

Extinction might be the best option.

It is not clear that creating a new human race is immoral.

As non biological brains become as capable as biological ones of effecting changes in the world—indeed, ultimately far more capable than unenhanced biological ones—we will need to consider their moral education.

The question is can they have any morals and if so what left of us will have to dumb itself down considerably. For any post human stage system that displayed the knowledge of Watson, (Watson is technology that works to understand us) for instance, would be quickly unmasked as non biological.

So what does the Future of Tech Robots.

The power of computing doubles, on average, every two years quoting the developments from genetic sequencing and 3D printing. Technological singularity is the development of  ‘super intelligence’ brought about through the use of technology.

Itself imply that we are likely to go extinct soon, and we are unlikely to reach a post human stage.

What would be left of humanity would be zombies or “shadow-people” – humans simulated only at a level sufficient for the fully simulated people not to notice anything suspicious.

HOWEVER ALL IS NOT LOST

This possibility of a post human stage  is compatible with us remaining at, or somewhat above, our current level of technological development for a long time before going extinct.

We are still lacking a “theory of everything”, but we cannot rule out the possibility that novel physical phenomena, not allowed for in current physical theories, may be utilized to transcend those constraints.

If we could create quantum computers, or learn to build computers out of nuclear matter or plasma, we could push closer to the theoretical limits. At our current stage of technological development, we have neither sufficiently powerful hardware nor the requisite software to create conscious minds in computers.

Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously in feasible, unless radically new physics is discovered.

As we gain more experience with virtual reality, we will get a better grasp of the computational requirements for making new worlds appear realistic to their visitors.

These shortcomings will eventually be overcome.

At the moment the amount of computing power needed to emulate a human mind can be roughly estimated. Memory seems to be a no more stringent constraint than processing power.

Our current understanding impose theoretical limits on the information processing attainable in a given lump of matter. We can with much greater confidence establish lower bounds on post human computation, by assuming only mechanisms that are already understood.

One candidate is molecular nanotechnology, which in its mature stage would enable the construction of self-replicating nanobots capable of feeding on dirt and organic matter – a kind of mechanical bacteria. Such nanobots, designed for malicious ends, could cause the extinction of all life on our planet.

So we are able to gain an insight into how an apparently purposeless and directionless process can achieve an apparently purposeful result in one field (biological evolution) by looking at another field (thermodynamics).

In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between both.

As you cannot create energy or destroy it and energy can only move from a state of higher activity to one lower activity it stands to reason that biological evolution, simple put, is descent with modification.

To acknowledge that history is not deterministic is to acknowledge that it is just a coincidence that most of us believe in nationalism, capitalism, and human rights. There is no proof that history is working for the benefit of humans.

Now you might think that all of this is hog wash, but every point in history is a crossroads and sometimes history- or the people who make history – takes unexpected turns.

How we using and develop Technology will determine the forming any new Monotheism Global Society.

Are we heading towards ecological disaster or technological paradise?  Both do not seem bound by any deterministic laws.

You may rest assured that when Cognitive computers and Quantum computers get together with Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality along with the Arms race, biochemical pathways will not enhance human well-being.

Because human brains suffer from minimal development.

Instead of concentrating on developing technologies beneficial to mankind we are developing  autonomous weapons with no accountability to select, to kill, or destroy ( which means no deterrence of future crimes, no retribution for victims, no social condemnation, no meaningful human control)

Individual humans like me are far too ignorant and weak to influence the course of history to my own advantage. It for some mysterious reason like all of us follows one path then another like a gene that has no awareness, or consciously seek to survive.

The next effort of science will be to create a new body for the human being. It will have a perfect brain-machine interface to allow control and a human brain life support system so the brain can survive outside the body.

A computer environment into which human minds can be uploaded.

These are daunting challenges, to say the least.

Each will require the commitment and individual efforts of literally billions of our fellow humans, as well as many careful, specific programs put into effect by entire populations. But there is one action that we must take, individually and as a world, if any of the others are to be successful. It directly contradicts some of our deepest evolutionary programming, but if we are to survive as a species, we must stabilize or even reduce population size.

God forbid. Human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they’re finished.

However it is conceivable to imagine history going on for generations upon generations while bypassing the Scientific Revolution as modern culture and science have to rely on religious and ideological beliefs to justify and finance its existence and scientific research.

So the below fellows might be the very thing to complete the Job. Rid the world of the very thing that is destroying it. 

One last thought try not to join the shadow people by pressing the like button.  Leave a comment. When you comment, you inspire, when you press the like button you expire.

Here a few links that might open your eyes.

https://youtu.be/XNbaR54Gpj4            https://youtu.be/PVXQUItNEDQ

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

The Beady Eye weeps at Europe’s Pontius Pilate Hand Wringing welcome of Refugees.

08 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by in European Union., Humanity., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Shame on us all.

Our Grandparents must be weeping in their graves. 

If the shoe was on the other foot we be howling blue murder.

I always thought any one fleeing a war was called a Refugee not an Immigrant. Many important issues depend greatly on definitions of who is a migrant.

The vicious civil war in Syria has triggered a huge exodus. Afghans, Eritreans and other nationalities are also fleeing poverty and human rights abuses. All created by us in the first place. 

There is no such thing as an EU or European immigration policy.

Immigration has become a toxic political issue; especially as high levels of unemployment and the economic crisis have fueled a growing anti-immigration sentiment across Europe.

Throughout history, people have migrated from one place to another.

People try to reach European shores for different reasons and through different channels. They look for legal pathways, but they risk also their lives, to escape from political oppression, war and poverty, as well as to find family reunification, entrepreneurship, knowledge and education.

Europe's Migration Crisis

Every person’s migration tells its own story.

Since the beginning of the year some 153,000 migrants have been detected at Europe’s external borders.

Faced with that influx, Europe is currently the most dangerous destination for irregular migration in the world, and the Mediterranean Sea the world’s most dangerous border crossing.

With nationalist parties ascendant in many member states and concerns about Islamic terrorism looming large across the continent, it remains unclear if political headwinds will facilitate a new climate of immigration reform.

Hungary has urged its EU partners not to send back migrants who have traveled on from Hungary. And it plans to fence off the whole border with Serbia.

The UK has high levels of opposition to immigration. Opposition to the arrival of immigrants in the UK is far from new. People in Britain are more likely than the people of other nations to view immigration negatively – to see immigration as a problem rather than an opportunity, and to view the immigrant population as already too large.

This is not surprising, given that members of the public are often not well-versed in the details of policy in any area.

After months of argument EU leaders agreed to triple funding for Triton, to some €120m (£86m) – taking it back to the spending levels of Italy’s Mare Nostrum.

A drop in the Ocean.

A portfolio of policies is required to reduce irregular migration, certainly including border control, but combined with addressing the root causes of conflict and poverty, combating smuggling and trafficking, effective migration management and return, and the regulation of labor markets.

More restrictive policies will only narrow options for desperate people and drive more of them into the arms of migrant smugglers and traffickers.

Experience around the world demonstrates that border control is not a silver bullet. In the absence of a coordinated EU approach, migrants — and their smugglers — will continue to target countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain as entry points;

They will remain clandestine even if they may have a strong asylum claim;

They will continue to work in the informal labor market or turn to crime to survive; and their rights will not be recognized or respected.

The downside of making policy on immigration in this environment strongly outweighs the upside.

There is no political space to promote liberal policies on migration; while politicians at least behind closed doors know that restrictive policies are unlikely to work.

In the absence of a reasoned debate, a comprehensive policy response, a coordinated EU approach, and the political courage to confront irregular migration, Europe’s immigration nightmare has only just begun.

This is an opportunity for the EU to face up to the need to strike the right balance in its migration policy and send a clear message to citizens that migration can be better managed collectively by all EU actors.

A clear and well implemented framework for legal pathways to entrance in the EU (both through an efficient asylum and visa system) will reduce push factors towards irregular stay and entry, contributing to enhance security of European borders as well as safety of migratory flows.

The EU is  facing a series of long-term economic and demographic challenges. Its population is ageing, while its economy is increasingly dependent on highly-skilled jobs. It is going to need thousands of immigrants if it going to survive Climate Change.

We need a new model of legal migration:

A summer of “Europe’s shame” headlines looms. The politicians may well lose control as events dictate political outcomes.

Give a door to Humanity a try rather than the I’am all right Jack Economy.

May all of those that have lost their lives in vane rest in peace. 

There go I but for the grace of The European Union should be our Mantra.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

The Beady Eye looks at the Internet. A “real” value or a ‘huge” liability?

07 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by in Big Data., Humanity., Politics., Technology, The Future, The Internet.

≈ Comments Off on The Beady Eye looks at the Internet. A “real” value or a ‘huge” liability?

Tags

, , , , ,

The Internet’s impact on culture, business, and politics is vast, for sure.

It is becoming a bigger part of our lives everyday, making life more convenient but also taking away the human element of living in the moment and making relationships more superficial.

But where actually is it take us?

To answer that question is difficult, because the Internet is not simply a set of interconnecting links and protocols connecting packet switched networks, but it is also a construct of imagination, an inkblot test into which everybody projects their desires, fears and fantasies. Some see enlightenment and education. Others see pornography and gambling. Some see sharing and collaboration; others see e-commerce and profit.

The purpose of this post however is not to highlight all that the Internet has achieved or all that it will achieve.

 It is to ask the question is it good for a Democratic World.?

We know that it is exposing Capitalism for what it is and Communism for what it wants, along with the comity of Nations. It is making us ask what a well-functioning democratic order requires.

It is creating a world people’s voice that could be manipulated in the extreme.

You might think with all the other problems the world faces this it is of little importance. You would be wrong as it is shaping the Future.

As a result of the Internet and other technological developments, many people are increasingly engaged in a process of “personalization” that limits their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing.

The growing power of consumers to “filter” what they see and the servers to dish up what they want you to see is from the standpoint of democracy, a mixed blessing.

But in a heterogeneous society, such a system requires something other than free, or publicly unrestricted, individual choices. Without shared experiences, a heterogeneous society will have a more difficult time addressing social problems and understanding one another.

People should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance.

As a matter of technological feasibility, our communications market is moving rapidly toward this apparently utopian picture which is a far cry from reality.

It is happening on the Internet where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and we the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

We are moving into “Corporatism which is the halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

Consider this: It is estimated that the 2016 presidential election in the USA could cost as much a $5 billion, more than double what was spent getting Obama re-elected in 2012.

We are allowing ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies, Screen watchers.

The internet is introducing a system of perfect individual control reducing the importance of the “public sphere” and of common spaces in general.  It is increasing people’s ability to wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would prefer to avoid.

I am sure that if new technologies diminish the number of common spaces, and reduce, for many, the number of unanticipated, unchosen exposures, something important will have been lost.

Because the Internet has changed the quantity and range of information available to citizens, it directly influences how societies evaluate government performance—in all parts of the globe.

It is Changing Democratic Attitudes throughout the World.

It is altered the informational relationship between governments and their citizens.

In how information is packaged, how that information can be physically transmitted and the networks that determine who can send and receive those transmissions. This has meant the largest decentralization in communication capacity and increase in expressive capacity that we have ever seen in human history—particularly in nations where access to political information tended to be very limited, often due to strict government censorship of traditional media.

Thus, the expansion of the Internet has significant ramifications on the amount and type of information that individuals use to evaluate their governments.

The global nature of the Internet opens a larger window for individuals to better view how governments function in other countries, particularly the advanced democracies that are most visible on the Internet. This provides users with a more realistic and globally consistent scale by which to make comparative evaluations about how well their own government functions.

As a result, the Internet is playing a central role in shaping the political evaluations and resultant satisfaction that citizens have toward their governments.

This is significant because the impetus to act politically—from day-to-day civic activities to the more extreme cases of protest and revolution—begins in the minds of men and women.

An understanding of this mix will permit us to obtain a better sense of what makes for a well-functioning system of free expression and to address the serious dangers that are hidden within the Internet.

For example the creation of perfect and splendid isolation, or a process of getting over disagreements, or the undermining our values to the detriment of the all of us.

The reasons why the Internet is supposed to strengthen democracy include the following.

1.The Internet lowers the entry barriers to political participation.

2. It strengthens political dialogue.

3. It creates community.

4. It cannot be controlled by government.

5. It increases voting participation.

6. It permits closer communication with officials.

7. It spreads democracy world-wide.

In contrast, the Internet, far from helping democracy, is a threat to it precisely because the Internet is powerful and revolutionary, it also affects, and even destroys, all traditional institutions–including–democracy.

To deny this potential is to invite a backlash when the ignored problems eventually emerge.

So why will there be problems?

Because more than half of communications traffic is data rather than voice.

Because it has been liberated from the terror of the PC as its gateway into the world of Smart Phones.

Our smartphones have become Swiss army knife–like appliances that include a dictionary, calculator, web browser, email, Game Boy, appointment calendar, voice recorder, guitar tuner, weather forecaster, GPS, texter, tweeter, Facebook updater, and flashlight.

Because a politically disenfranchised digital underclass is emerging.

Because with the commercialization of the Internet things previously unreachable are now available through our personal computers.

Because cars will be chatting with highways. Suitcases will complain to airlines. Front doors will check in with police departments. Pacemakers will talk to hospitals. Television sets will connect to video servers. Keeping this aggregated information in the cloud allows researchers and developers to examine the data and identify “digital bio markers” to inform prevention, diagnoses and treatment in a constellation of brain and mental disorders that are now mostly defined by subjective symptoms.

Because it is making Politics More Expensive and Raise Entry Barriers.

Because it is making reasoned and informed political dialog more difficult.

Because it disconnects as much as it connects.

With the increase of smartphones in recent years many have all griped about the narcissism of people who spend all their time on social networks, text messaging at a dinner table or taking photos of the food they eat.

Because it is facilitating the International Manipulation of Domestic Politics.

Because it will essentially making the world a global village with vast deserts of highly visible inequalities which would not be possible without the internet.

And this is why ubiquitous, scalable technology such as the Internet must be part of the solution if we are to avoid an information-choked societies.

Because it is creating a mental fog or scrambled thinking in a kind of weird, impersonal cyber way.

Constant multitasking is taking its toll.

Although we think we’re doing several things at once, multitasking, this is a powerful and diabolical illusion. Ironically, multitasking makes us demonstrably less efficient. The flow of information can be overwhelming and lead to “paralysis by analysis.” Chronic multi-tasking can make us less productive, not more. Increased choices and uncertainty can lead to increased stress and anxiety.

Because it is causing  fragmentation, increasing cost, and declining value of “hard” information. Our brains are busier than ever before. We’re assaulted with facts, pseudo facts, jibber-jabber, and rumour, all posing as information.

Make no mistake: email-, Facebook- and Twitter-checking constitute a neural addiction.

 

It’s naïve to cling to the image of the early Internet – – nonprofit, cooperative, and free.

You might say that the CONTROVERSY ITSELF is superficial; as the obvious reality is the internet and technology are not only here to stay, but constantly evolving and permeating more of our lives.

The real conversation should be how we can best use the Internet in smarter ways that help us to monitor and enhance the brain, and how can we actively prepare to manage information overload.

“Big Data” applications are becoming available and capable of helping personalize brain health tools at the individual level, based on both past data and information gathered over time. This, in turn, is already changing research and preventive health practices. Tablet-based screenings can be instrumental in diagnoses of Alzheimer’s and MCI.

Mobile devices are already entering the sports world, with cognitive tests for concussions. Institutions like AAA have begun large-scale web-based assessments and cognitive training that works on driver’s cognitive skills in order to become safer (and less expensive to insure) drivers.

Now, every new technology presents a fair set of challenges. It is important to note that these are quasi-universal features of modern life, not the type of conditions of disorders that our medical system is set up to address.

There is talk about how social networks and new devices like the Google Glass visor have diluted privacy, smart phone apps “turning us into sociopaths” and the danger of turning over our daily routines to new technology like Apple’s Siri digital assistant.

The trick will be in properly preparing and guiding people to adapt to the mental demands of a modern society. Fortunately it is us, not the Internet, who have a plastic and resilient brain.

My conclusion is that information does not necessarily weaken Democracy or the state but electronic voting will not strengthen democracy as it will be manipulated by Big data.

So is the internet good for the brain?

If the analytical and collaborative power of the internet is used properly to monitor and enhance brain functionality in a cost-effective, scalable manner the answer can be a resounding “yes”

At the moment it is having a negative impact on our societies having a  polarizing effect on democracies. Although it has the capacity to bring people together, too often the associations formed online comprise self-selecting groups with little diversity of opinion.

Free speech on the Internet is not enough to ensure a healthy democracy. The conception of free speech emerging in today’s communications market emphasizes “an architecture of control…by which each of us can select a [customized] free-speech package.”

Google News feed filters out the information we receive. It is a product of what information we demand.

We should create twenty-first-century equivalents of the kinds of public spaces and institutions where diverse people will congregate.

If we are to avoid western democracy being hobbled by disengagement, falling turnout, and disconnection with citizens we must counter the growing power of consumers to “filter” what they “see” will create information ghettos and isolated citizens.

The Internet changes expectations. The Avaaz 41 million-strong online internet community is a prime example.

It lowers the economic and information cost of group formation and the internet lends itself to this type of direct connection, and hence is likely to create demands for more direct forms of democracy. But the way the Internet empowers people – by giving them huge choice over the information they receive – can make them less likely to engage in a free debate of ideas.

Why?

Because there will be neither leaders nor agendas to make Governments sit down with their detractors.

Citizens can use new media to avoid, rather than embrace, new ideas or common experiences.

The Internet, as a highly democratic and participatory medium, can perform democratic wonders. But the bien pensant e-Democracy consensus is wrong and dangerous if it thinks this will happen automatically.  All of these facets are critical if we are to thrive at a human.

Let us hope the consensus can be remade.

So let’s hear your voice.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Beady Eye writes an open letter to the United Nations re the forthcoming Climate Summit Paris 2015.

30 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Politics., Sustaniability, The Future

≈ Comments Off on The Beady Eye writes an open letter to the United Nations re the forthcoming Climate Summit Paris 2015.

Tags

, ,

30th July 2015

Dear Delegate.

In our contemporary world it is very rare that we are asked to talk about what lies at the heart of our actions.  Instead we hide behind statistics, data, policy statements etc, few of which actually touch other people’s hearts and minds.

To days debates between today’s religions, ideologies, nations and classes will in all likelihood disappear along with Homo Sapiens so it is naive to imagine that we simply hit the brakes on climate change and all will be honky dory.

We are more powerful than ever before, but have very little idea what to do with all that power. We seem to be more irresponsible than ever. We are accountable to no one, and consequently wreaking havoc on or fellow animals and on the surrounding ecosystem, seeking little more than our own comfort and amusement, yet never finding satisfaction.

There is nothing more dangerous than a dissatisfied and irresponsible gods who don’t know what they want?

The real question is not what do we want to be come?  but ‘what do we want to want’.

We all know that we must move away from our excessive and selfish lifestyle.

So as you prepare to come to Paris I would like to ask you to think about your personal role, and answer a simple, but profound, question:

Why do I care?

In making climate change and the protection of our beautiful planet a personal issue of your own beliefs and values you will come to the Cop primarily as a conscious human being not just a representative of a Government or agency.

Since time memorial we have all been led to believe that our current lifestyle is the most satisfying, but as you know in reality it is based on egoistic and unjust exploitation of resources and of human capital. It has led to a lifestyle based on selflessness and if left unchecked it will take us to an irreversible process of self-destruction.

We all know that opportunity for an agreement will be beset by challenges.

The question at the heart of any forthcoming  Agreement surely most be > Who is going to pay for it.

It will not be the present exclusively profit-focused, job-oriented, planet threatening, income-wealth, gap-widening civilization.

It will not be the free-market capitalism even thought private investors stand to lose $4.2tn (£2.7tn) on the value of their holdings from the impact of climate change by 2100 even if global warming is held at plus 2C, a report from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has warned.

It will not be cash strapped world Governments.

It will not be a single global tax or regulatory scheme whether they live in a capitalist or communist society.

It will not be Industry reverting the trend of economic development and investment by coupled its insensible greed for profit with carbon emissions.

There is little point in agreeing a new climate change targets if there is no compassionate response to climate change requires for us to help the world’s poorest gain access to sustainable energy solutions so that they can improve their lives while avoiding the dirty energy path that developed countries followed.

There is little point in making the Agreement an Internationally legally binding treaty when there is no way of enforcing its terms or applying penalties for breach thereof.

There is little point in countries submitting their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. The very reference to Intended expresses the get out clause.

By far the biggest obstacle to any agreement will be how countries will finance the move to a low-carbon global economy.

Even if one of these above problems were politically feasible, air is vital to a healthy economy. Which it isn’t. It is the people who want to breathe clean air. Climate pollutants, on the other hand, are everywhere. They are a waste product of nearly every aspect of modern life, and they are not limited to carbon; methane, soot and nitrous oxide all contribute to rising temperatures.

The present generation of young people is the forerunner of the generation of the most powerful generation in human history because of the enormous technology in their hands. We have to get them engaged in creating the world they wish to live in, and pass on to the next generation.

The sooner the socially committed players take charge of technology, the faster the world Social business is a new variety of business which delinks itself from any desire to make personal profit, where economic prosperity isn’t defined by constant reckless growth.  We need to develop social systems that encourage people to put aside short-term personal gain in favor of long-term societal and environmental interests.

It is not just yours it is our collective moral responsibility to act. We must act because we care. With that comes a different way of thinking about both mitigating and adapting to climate change, from the roads to the treetops.

We seemingly need to get as close to demise as possible to be able to see things clearly. We’re already running up to and beyond the biophysical boundaries that enable us to exist. Given the pace of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility of reaching critical tipping points that could abruptly and irreversibly change living conditions.

It is only a mobilization of conscience on a global scale that will enable humanity to meet this great challenge confronting us.

We are already seeing promising signs such as the joint announcement by the US and China in Beijing in November 2014 and the decision of the European Council a few weeks before. Together these cover around 50% of world emissions.

Realistically we all know that if either China or the USA were to discover new reserve of Oil, Gas, or Coal they would not leave it in the ground.

So where are we?

The first and only scientific fact to know about climate change is that carbon is (almost) forever. 

The Paris agreement for what its worth will come into effect in 2020. To Late.

At this meeting, more than 190 States will discuss a possible new global agreement you have to reach a universal agreement to limit the global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. To Late.

Countries have to agreed that there will be no back-tracking in these national climate plans, meaning that the level of ambition to reduce emissions will increase over time. Not Possible. Look at the United Nations a gossip shop with no money controlled by Veto.

Countries have been invited to submit their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions to the new climate agreement to be concluded in December, in Paris. This approach represents a concession to political and diplomatic realities, as well as to the limits of international agreements in influencing countries’ behavior in an area so vital to their interests.

The climate change issue is driven more by national than by international politics, so the agreement needs to allow states to determine the content of their own commitments.

So far 21 out of the 194 attending have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. Bravo.

You might well ask at this point what is the solution.

There is only one solution and that is the creation of a World Aid Commission of 0.05% (for sake of argument) On all Stock Exchange Transactions with a higher commission on a High Frequency Trades, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $20,000, on all Sovereignty Wealth Funds Acquisition., on all Drilling Wells. 

This is the only viable solution to make Profit and Greed pay.

This would create a perpetual World Aid Fund with unlimited funds to tackle Climate Change, Inequality of Opportunity, Education and Disaster Aid.

It will create incentives and spread the funding through out the world by harnessing the very problem that has created the position we now find ourselves in.

Why will it work?

Because ( if firm action is not taken at the forthcoming climate change talks in Paris and the Earth’s temperature warms by a further 5C)  investors are facing losses of almost $7tn at today’s prices. 

Because democratizing our energy supply can be achieved by this fund in making non repayable grants available to the worlds citizens to install solar power.  There’s something special about solar. Not just because it’s genius technology but because, it puts the power to act in millions of hands.

The energy and climate debate is very political and bogged-down by big vested interests.

Because it would solve Climate change which does not have the time or money to be reverted. Ever four days we add a million more people to the planet scuttling our rosy dreams of sustainability.

The definition of success in Paris has been widely misunderstood, and as a result there is a risk that success may be viewed as failure.

Before I wish every success here is a small practical step. Let the summit ask all major TV Media Channels weather forecasts carry a section on the effects of climate change.

The citizens of the world will be watching you.

Yours Sincerely,

The Founder and writer of the Beady Eye.

PS. There is no need for you to respond to this open letter I along with millions that are currently signing online petitions in support of the Earth which has no voice other than climate Change trust you.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHAT WRONG WITH THE WORLD.

28 Tuesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Humanity., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHAT WRONG WITH THE WORLD.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

OK, a list of what is wrong will go from here to eternity, so before you read this post take a look at the two U tube videos below, and then do something.

If you Goggle the question you will quickly find that there’s no shortage of people who know what is wrong with the world.

The most frequently cited reason is probably the decline of religion, specifically the religion of the person writing it.

Second to “the fall of religion” the most popular answer is probably “religion.” But there are other themes too: lack of respect for elders, unregulated capitalism, greed, alcohol, the economy, the rich, attachment, premarital sex, liberals, the unemployed, pride, lawyers, apathy, Starbucks, Mc Donalds.

Googling the question myself, they all sounded more like symptoms to me.

If certain behaviors are widespread and problematic, whatever causes them must be a bigger, more fundamental problem. Right? Maybe not.

Most people cannot even intelligently discuss the pressing issues of our day.

For me it is that we are too ignorant to open our minds to the problems around us. To selfish to open our hearts to what else is out in the world. To indoctrinated to accept an opinion other than our own, deaf to other people’s voices, blind to the pain and suffering we see in the streets and scared to do anything about it.

Our planet is now slowly dying and we are the reason to blame for its slow demise.

We fill her oceans with black poison. We fill her skies with acid. We cut down all the trees she spent years to grow. We cover her soil with blood and we use her as our own personal dump.

Worst of all we just sit back and watch as it falls apart.

Why?

Because as the twenty-first century unfolds, immensely powerful currents of capitalism, labour, and information turn and shape the world with a growing disregard for the boards and opinions of states.

So the world we see in front of our eyes is not governed by any particular state, organisation or ethic group, but by greed and profit. All run by the stock exchanges and algorithms

What is left is mindless adoption of technology as the end-all-be-all solution to humanity’s problems rather than global cooperation to the appearance of essentially global problems.

I think most people would not say there isn’t something wrong.

But if we’re going to regard the world as if there’s something wrong with it, shouldn’t we be able to identify it, at least with ballpark-level precision?

Here the Beady eye list of what is wrong.  Feel free to add.

Climate Change: Overpopulation: Thirst:  Poverty:  Inequality of opportunity:  Equal rights:  A lack of Education:  Terrorists:  Atomic arsenals:  Corruption:  Distribution of Wealth:  Religious Extremists: Political Extremists of Far Left & Far Right: Lying Politicians:Racists:  Class structure: Reality TV:  Farmer Subsidies:  Sexists:  Bestiality:  High Cost of Space Programmes:  Hopeless addiction to entertainment, technology, and celebrity gossip:  Soulless of suburbs, sprawls, and office parks create stress, malaise, and depression:  The existence of Hollywood, which poisons the world’s culture by normalizing narcissism, consumerism, and bad movies:  Pervasive politically correct environment where dissenting thought is labeled sexist, racist, or homophobic:  Treatment of smartphones as both friend and passionate lover, which replaces time spent in face-to-face interactions with real friends and lovers:  Universities that serve as liberal brainwashing factories instead of palaces of wisdom, enlightenment, and masculinity:  Disposable culture where still-functional items are thrown away instead of being repaired or reconditioned:  Competitive conversation culture where people talk about themselves instead of listening. Contemplative silences are looked upon as boring or even creepy:  Rule by an oligarchy that spies on citizens who don’t even care about its government’s illegal acts because they are too busy playing Candy Crush: Homosexuality openly embraced and displayed in public around children who don’t yet understand the nature of human sex:  Complete ignorance of world affairs by citizens due to being comically manipulated by media propaganda. Russia bad! Saudi Arabia good!:  People who can no longer handle original thoughts without being offended or“triggered.”: Militarization of police whose monopoly on violence allows them to taze and kill with impunity:  Welfare state that redistributes money from hard-working provider men to a growing population of single mothers who are subservient to the state instead of husbands:  Calling corporate customer service and having to converse with robots:  People who favor tweets for no apparent reason:

Out of date World Organisation are in need of radical reform.

  • For some reason THE US GOVERNMENT still thinks they should have to take care of the whole planet. The U.S. national debt is over 14 times larger than it was back in 1981:
  • OPEC nations are going to bring in over a trillion dollars from exporting oil this year:

So where do we stand in regard to Solutions.?

I would really love to hear your answer to that question, in the comment section below. Whatever comes to mind. The question does presume that there is actually something wrong with the human world. If you think there isn’t, please say so too.

Fans of singer Justin Bieber scream as he performs on NBC's Today Show in New York

I know it’s a pretty broad question, and any answer is welcome. There’s no need to do up an essay or anything, but you’re welcome to. I know Raptitude readers are a thoughtful bunch and I just want to know what kinds of ideas you people have in your minds about what’s wrong with this world.

Here are few Solutions:

Make education FREE not a product.

Place a World Aid commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Sovereign wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all Foreign Exchange transactions over 20,000 dollars, creating a perpetual World aid fund. ( See previous posts) This would close down all need for Charity.

The poverty trap,” “the ladder of development”—go limp under the magnifying glass of actually being tested.

Leaders who lack wisdom approach problems with linear vision – thus only seeing the problem that lies directly in front of them and blocking the possibilities that lie within the problem. As such, they never see the totality of what the problem represents; Problem solving is the greatest enabler for growth and opportunity.

Out of this fund make available non repayable solar-panel grants. The direction to go is obvious: toward energy independence. THIS IS WHAT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT IN PARIS SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. (https://youtu.be/qlTA3rnpgzU  Probably, a key factor, if not the key factor, in solving our environmental problem is time.

2.5bn people still lack basic sanitation and diarrhoea is the second largest killer of children. 1.1 billion people, or 15 percent of the world’s population, practice open defecation.

Parts of the world could see a supply-demand gap of up to 65% IN WATER RESOURCE BY 2030. Currently, more than one billion people don’t have access to clean water. And with 70 percent of the world’s freshwater used for agriculture, water’s critical role in food production must be considered as climate and resource conditions change.

Reform the United Nations giving equal rights to all Nations.

Legalism of Soft Drugs would reduce the prison population.

Re Introduce National Service to deliver dignity not war.

People think about their own perceived world and part of the challenge is to get people out of that world.

The question now for all of us in the 21st century is will we realize that this is indeed an urgent problem and take bold enough action in sufficient time? The answer to this question is yet to be given.

Here lies the land of technology opportunity, a place where the upside of technology benefits is enormous and world changing.” We’re just the technologists. And actually I think those questions are for society as a whole.” Wrong.

What would happen if we applied our knowledge and skills in these pockets with the resources, creativity and speed of giants like Google and Apple? Let’s give it a try. Let’s encourage our biggest companies to tackle some of the world’s biggest problems. Let’s apply technology tools like hackathons and lab days and rapid prototyping toward solving social and environmental issues. Let’s do some good.”Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the world"

 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

The Beady Eye looks at Man and Woman.

23 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by in Humanity.

≈ Comments Off on The Beady Eye looks at Man and Woman.

Tags

,

Stating the oblivious.

We see one or the other every day. We love, hate, kill, and sell them, in all colors, shapes and sizes but we have little understand of them.

 

But what does it mean to-day when we say “mankind.” Is it  referring to both male and female.

For centuries, the differences between men and women were socially defined and distorted through a lens of sexism in which men assumed superiority over women and maintained it through domination.

Sexual attraction is controlled mainly by factors hardwired into the brain, due to evolutionary forces.

The vision of equality between the sexes has narrowed the possibilities for discovery of what truly exists within a man and within a woman. As the goal of equality between men and women now grows closer we are also losing our awareness of important differences.

” Men know life too early. Woman knows life too late”. That is the difference between men and woman” Oscar Wild.

The word ‘men’, meaning “to think” or “to have a cognitive mind”, was also gender neutral and connected to “man”, which meant “the thinker”.

It is my position that men and women are equal but different. When I say equal, I mean that men and women have a right to equal opportunity and protection under the law. None of us would argue the fact that men and women are physically different.

Modern society hasn’t made relationships between men and women any easier.

The challenge facing men and women is to become aware of their identities, to accept their differences, and to live their lives fully and as skillfully as possible.

It’s not that men and women live in completely different realities. It’s not that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. To understand the difference we must first understand in what ways we are different.

The world will be less interesting when everything is same.The stereotype that men are more “thick-headed” than women is not far-fetched. Let me clearly state that I do not believe that men (or women) are locked into these negative stereotypes.Post image for Why Are Men So Difficult? The 8 Big Differences Between Men’s and Women’s BrainsTypically, men’s brains are 11-12% bigger than women’s brains. Sadly, this difference in size has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, but does explain the difference in size between men and women. Men need a bigger brain to control their bigger bodies and muscles.

Women on the other hand have four times as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the right and left side of their brain.

So where does that get us in any understanding?

Women are apparently extremely complex and mysterious creatures while men are a simple-minded species.

The most obvious difference is probably the emotions.

Men rely easily and more heavily on their left brain to solve one problem one step at a time. Women have more efficient access to both sides of their brain and therefore greater use of their right brain.

Most men are less concerned and do not feel the same as women when solving a problem. Men approach problems in a very different manner than women. Men have a tendency to dominate and to assume authority in a problem solving process.

Women consider and process information differently.

Women tend to be intuitive thinkers. Women have a larger deep limbic system than men, it allows them to be more in touch with their feelings and better able to express themselves, which promotes bonding with others.

It must be emphasized that they can and do solve problems in a similar manner.

Men have a hard time understanding emotions that are not spoken, while women tend to intuit emotions and emotional cues. In stress situation men have a response reaction that resembles “fight or flight” while women react with a “tend and befriend” strategy. Men are more turned on by visual stimuli.

Recent evidence suggests that humanity is not only still evolving but that human evolution is actually accelerating. Neanderthals did not die out, but instead were absorbed into modern humanity.

Woman:     https://youtu.be/Xrp0zJZu0a4

Men:          https://youtu.be/wkOo_znVJF0

Facebook may soon need to add “Just got served divorce papers” to its list of relationship statuses.

A Manhattan judge ruled in the case of Ellanora Baidoo, 26, who wanted to divorce her husband, Sena Blood-Dzraku, but had no mailing address for him and therefore no place to which she could send the paperwork. The judge is allowing Baidoo to serve her estranged husband with a divorce summons through Facebook.

Maybe the word ‘man’  should be replaced with dude.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Beady eye pays homage to Hubble.

14 Tuesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Humanity., Space., The Future

≈ Comments Off on The Beady eye pays homage to Hubble.

Tags

,

As Horizon fly’s pass Pluto poor old Hubble is left in the dark.

Launched aboard the shuttle Discovery 25 years ago on the April 24, it had its vision restored in December 1993.

Orbiting the Earth for over two decades, Hubble has helped to answer some of the most compelling astronomical questions of our time – and uncovered mysteries we never knew existed. Investigating everything from black holes to planets around other stars, Hubble has changed the face of astronomy, ushering in a new chapter of humanity’s exploration of the universe.

So in honor of Hubble – The beady eye of Space- here is what it has achieved

 

Over 100 Terabytes of observations all captured in digital files.

Astronomers have used all those observations to generate over 12,800 scientific papers, making the Hubble one of the most productive scientific instruments ever designed and built.

There are no rockets or thrusters on board the Hubble. To change directions, it spins reaction wheels that, thanks to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, make the telescope spin in the opposite direction. The wheels spin at about the speed of a clock’s minute hand, turning 90 degrees in 15 minutes.

Hubble operates on only 2,800 W, a little more than an electric range’s largest burner on high.

The telescope gets all its electricity from a pair of solar panels that measure approximately 23 х 9 ft (each).

Engineers gave Hubble a pointing accuracy of 0.007 arc seconds, which is analogous to aiming a laser and hitting a dime 200 miles away.

The most distant objects Hubble has seen are 13.4 billion light years.

The Hubble takes only black-and-white images. The spectacular color images you see from the Hubble are made by combining two or more black-and-white exposures through colored filters. Then, when the image is further processed, colors matching the filters are added.

Hubble helped construct the largest scale 3-D maps scientists have of where dark matter is distributed in the universe.

Also, by helping to find out the mass of Eris, which is 27 percent more massive than Pluto, the realization that similar bodies might lurk in the Kuiper Belt and beyond it helped demote Pluto and similar objects to dwarf planet status.

By gazing at star-forming regions such as the Orion Nebula, Hubble was able to show that protoplanetary disks of gas and dust are ubiquitous around many young stars.

Gamma ray bursts. Hubble helped discover these bursts typically occur in galaxies that were actively forming stars and were low in metallicity.

The comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided spectacularly with Jupiter in 1994, an impact Hubble captured in all its startling glory.

Hubble may have helped solve the mystery of how old the universe is, but it unexpectedly turned up an even more profound one — the fact that the rate of the universe’s expansion is not slowing down or even constant, but is inexplicably accelerating.

Hubble discovered that super-massive black holes probably lurk in every galaxy that has a bulge of stars at its center.

Hubble has made some important advances in our research into alien worlds, such as determining the composition of the atmosphere of an exoplanet for the first time and actually imaging the visible light of Fomalhaut b.

Hubble helped refine estimates of the universe’s age down to roughly 13.75 billion years, a result that not only plays a role in modeling how our universe has evolved over time, but also in our understanding other seemingly unrelated cosmic parameters, such as the mass of neutrinos.

It’s re-written a lot of what we know. Re-engineer humans for a better planet.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨