Category Archives: The Future

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY IS THE WORLD IN SUCH A MESS.

21 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY IS THE WORLD IN SUCH A MESS.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I AM SURE LIKE ME YOU CAN RATTLE OFF HUNDREDS OF REASONS.Afficher l'image d'origine

But the world is that what humans have made out of it.

Five centuries of European colonialism and global culture-trashing, and the remaking of the world in the economic interests of competing empires, cannot be undone by a single institution and a cluster of lofty ideals.

The world, as it now exists, was largely shaped by the colonial powers, which divided the world among themselves, carving out states without any consideration for existing ethnic, religious or cultural realities.

And after the colonial era collapsed, these carved-out political entities, defining swatches of territory without any history of national identity, suddenly became the Third World and floundered in disarray.

It was inevitable that to keep these artificial countries alive, and avoid their disintegration, strongmen would be needed to cover the void left by the colonial powers. The rules of democracy were used only to reach power, with very few exceptions.

Values and ideas which were considered universal, such as cooperation, mutual aid, international social justice and peace as an encompassing paradigm are also becoming irrelevant.

Whatever noble attempts at eliminating war the powers that be made in the wake of World War II — Europe’s near self-annihilation — didn’t cut nearly deep enough.

These attempts didn’t set about undoing five centuries of colonial conquest and genocide. They didn’t cut deeper than national interest. If something grows too big, then it destroys itself from the inside.

The existing problem with the EU as shown by the recent English Referendum. Attempts to create regional or international alliances to bring stability have always been stymied by national interests.

But why is it like this? Why are humans using their capacity of higher intelligence so negatively?

Perhaps it is because the human race in its state of development and as a whole, is still nearer to the animal behavior than to advanced capabilities.

Just look at the choice of the next President of the USA governed by Money.

The problem with the United Nations is that it’s a unity of entities defined by their hatred of one another and committed to the perpetuation of “the scourge of war.

Is it because Capitalism has not taken care of our fellow human beings?

We have become consumer and have lost the instinct to take care of our fellow human beings?

There is one part of the population who have overweight and are sick because of too much food and an other part who are starving to death, often living one beside the other.

Just look at the current refugee crises.

Instead of setting up properly manned entry points we allow people smugglers to pray on the vulnerable, close borders, and watch people drowning.  A sure recipe for terrorism.

How can we find a way out of the mess?

Obviously religious and spiritual rules made up by humans doesn’t protect humanity from being distinguished.

Our ” way of life” our behavior, our goals and values are making is blind, are confusing us and driving us more and more into disease and depression.

There are people calling for a solution.

They are expecting help from their authorities, they expect to be healed by doctors or they ask for help and solutions from their government. What an illusion!

As long as they are dependent and not capable to look through the game of this world, they will not be able to make decisions for themselves. They will stay in dependency, manipulated from the more clever…

There’s always money to wage war and build weapons.

The recent Vote by 300 odd English MP to renew Trident.

The contractors are adept at playing the game. Jobs link arms with fear and patriotism and the next war is always inevitable. And it’s always necessary, because we’ve created a world of perpetual — and well-armed — instability.

While on the other hand we have out of date world organisations that beg for funds.

We won’t begin creating global peace until we learn how to bypass nationalism and the single, unacknowledged agreement binding nation-states to each other: the inevitability of war.

We are left with the two greatest  international enemies – the environment and the global economy – unfortunately we are so selfish – so naive – we do not want to face the reality of what we have done to the planet and each other in the name of progress. We are in denial. We are addicted to antisocial behavior – propelled by fear.

All our problems are as a result of our moral and ethical collapse and only finding and using a simple international moral and social code of love and cooperation will enable us to survive and save us from ourselves. We are not talking about religion here. Morality and ethics existed before religion and it is that version of them that we want and need.

We can accept that one can be proud of one’s country and support its activities and ideals without feeling the need to bomb or subvert the country next door. The only people who would seriously disagree are psychotics and psychopaths or their minions. For example, governments.

To allude to globalisation is idiotic without capping Greed and reversing Inequality.

We now live in a world of  technologically based society.  Information is power and money. This is why we are all being Googlefied, Twittered to feed the Internet of Everything.

We only can expect that help will show up, when we start to help ourselves!

As the human race keeps on making steps in technology & science, the Smart Phone is the Pandora box of the future. Re shaping the World.

Science has made huge steps, society has not.

Society is crucial to the well-being of all of us.We need to open the doors to new exciting boundaries.

Here are my top six.

Improve Education World wide. Eliminate Racism. Resource Efficiency.Eliminate Hunger.Environmental awareness.Overcome Religion.

To achieve any of the above needs funding by placing a world aid commission of 0.05% on all activities that are for profit sake only.

On all High frequency trading, on all Foreign Exchange transactions over 20,000 dollars, on all Sovereign wealth funds acquisitions. on all Lotto wins over a 1 million.

This would create a perpetual fund from Capitalism greed to address the world’s inequality.Afficher l'image d'origine

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. CAN THE WORLD’S WOES BE PUT DOWN TO MONEY.

16 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by in Capitalism, Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Aid., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. CAN THE WORLD’S WOES BE PUT DOWN TO MONEY.

Tags

, , ,

 

Money talks a powerful language. It is a factor in many things that happen and don’t happen. Wealth greases the gears of power and influence.Afficher l'image d'origine

The standard most worshipped by Western society today is financial success, and many people spend their lives pursuing it. Our idiotic species–immediately respects and gives greater credence to anyone who looks rich.

Money can bring power, and power can bring money.

Which one comes first?

Modern day technology is exposing the Capitalist system for what it is worth and as a result we are beginning to see if you focus on the world that you are presented with directly the only collective wisdom we’ve come up with is money can’t buy you love.

 

1% of the population earns 96% of the wealth in the world, and thus explains why we have such a troubled world.

It’s a struggle between the haves vs the have-nots.

The real reason people want to be rich isn’t so they can buy stuff. It’s so they can have power over others. People want influence and respect and they see that people with money have influence and respect, so they seek money.

There’s only one problem: money does not result in influence and respect – instead, influence and respect often lead to money.

Human greed seems to have no bound.

It is said that money is a good servant an a bad master too…

In today life for people money is everything. When in fact it is only an IOU.

Money can buy material happiness for limited time.

Can it buy true happiness? No.

They don’t know that there are many things bigger than money…Our morals values these are bigger than money..

The paradox of money is that although earning more of it tends to enhance our well-being, we become happier by giving it away than by spending it on ourselves.

What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it.

What moves the needle in terms of happiness is not so much the amount you give, but the perceived impact of your donation. If you can see your money-making a difference in other people’s lives, it will make you happy even if the amount you gave was quite small.

Life experiences give us more lasting pleasure than material things, and yet people still often deny themselves experiences and prioritize buying material goods.

People think material purchases offer better value for the money because experiences are fleeting, and material goods last longer. They think that experiences are only going to provide temporary happiness, but they actually provide both more happiness and more lasting value.

And yet we still keep on buying material things, because they’re tangible and we think we can keep on using them.

Experiences, on the other hand, tend to meet more of our underlying psychological needs. They’re often shared with other people, giving us a greater sense of connection, and they form a bigger part of our sense of identity.

We also get more pleasure out of anticipating experiences than anticipating the acquisition of material things.

Feelings of gratitude and appreciation can be very difficult to sustain.

The first measure of happiness is “evaluative.” A sense that your life is good—you’re satisfied with your life, you’re progressing towards your life goals.”

Power is money and money is power.

There are many more examples of this now than anytime in the past.

If a man who earned a standard salary wanted to run for president, he would have almost no chance at all unless he was backed by people with money.

The more money a candidate has, the farther he can get. Although the richest competitor doesn’t always win, the president is usually a very wealthy man.

I want money because to me it represents security and independence.

Real power and influence are when you can make a substantial and lasting mark on the world.

To come to the point of this post.

Capitalism has created Inequality along with the very technologies that have led us down the road to Climate Change, not to mention the present wars and the reemergence of  the Barbaric nature of humanity.

However we have power to change systems?

At present we have money starved World Organisations in need of reform.

A world media that turns, nature, wars and violence into entertainment.

There is so much information that we can only Google, Twitter, and take selfless selfies.

Long term planning is impossible or political suicide.

THE WORLD MANTRA SEEMS TO BE:  i’M ALRIGHT JACK.

We are all on hedonic treadmill WHILE OUR WORLD IS FRAGMENTING.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION.

THAT IS TO PLACE A WORLD AID COMMISSION ON ALL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ONLY IN EXISTENCE FOR PROFIT SAKE. ( SEE PREVIOUS POSTS) Afficher l'image d'origine

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS THERE NOW ANY POINT TO THE COMMONWEALTH.

07 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Politics., The Future, The world to day.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS THERE NOW ANY POINT TO THE COMMONWEALTH.

Tags

,

 

(TWO MINUTE READ)

The commonwealth has all but being dead for the last ten years.Afficher l'image d'origine

Now that England has vote to leave the European Union perhaps it might come to life or should the Commonwealth, a transnational institution, which pre-dates the United Nations, call it a day and withdraw from the international scene?

It is now the time and it is politically correct to debate Britain’s role in the Commonwealth.Afficher l'image d'origine

No longer can the United Kingdom claim the sole paternity for success stories in the Commonwealth.

The European Union is on a much higher level of importance than the Commonwealth or even the United Nations.

Membership of the Commonwealth is a historic fact. Like your parents, you do not get to choose them. Most countries did not actively choose to become members of the Commonwealth. Instead, membership was seen as almost a diplomatic obligation.

On the other hand, joining the European Union equates to marriage. It is a choice about your future and not a statement about your past.

Central to the enhanced value of the European Union are its shared values, common rules and their direct economic benefits. Countries do not become Members because of their history, but because they show commitment and resilience in achieving the convergence which would see them qualify for the benefits of freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people.

Adjustment and restructuring are painful and come at a cost which is not only economic but also social and political. It takes years and is not completed upon membership. Instead, the process is ongoing.

There are countries that are geographically and historically European, but until now do not qualify to become members because they do not have the democratic and political commitment to deliver the necessary reforms. Part of these reforms have to do with sharing or even ceding responsibilities to supra-national institutions. That takes a lot of courage, and sometimes something more than that.

This is supplemented by the fact that the various institutions have the power to decide. Decisions are not on statements of intent, but rather actions that affect the everyday life of people from Copenhagen to Valletta, from Lisbon to Warsaw.

Back to the Commonwealth.

Very few know much about it.

Most Jamaicans think that Barack Obama is the head of the Commonwealth rather than Queen Elizabeth.

Those it have any purpose other than a club as commonwealth values have never being precisely defined.

It was formed partly by India to stay friends with their British colonial rulers on Independence in 1949.

Every two-year the heads of Governments of the 53 countries that make up the Commonwealth meet for a pow-wow.

It now could be mortally wounded if India and some of its larger countries walk out because of the recent Brixit Vote.

It might be a network of disparate people, bound by an imperial history that seems, even among former subjects people’s, to inspire nostalgia as well as resentment.

The only thing holding it together is Queen Elizabeth, who is approaching her nineties.

It would not surprise me over the coming years to see Australia and Canada replace the Queen as their head of state.

I  personally cannot contemplate the idea of being a colony or of having a foreigner as a Head of State.

If the Commonwealth is to survive it should be about commitment rather than history.

It should be about the future rather than the past.

Perhaps now is the time for England to commence disbanding the Commonwealth as it is today and regrouping, setting out updated guidelines and Charter of Values to which participants must strictly abide.

Whether or not one opts for such a model, the idea of further opening up Commonwealth membership to other countries near and far, and also allowing for consensual withdrawals from the organisation without acrimony, should be duly examined.

Staring at a decaying organisation and hoping that its fortunes might suddenly turn around is delusional.

It can opt to remain as it is and sink in total irrelevance within the next decade or so, or have the courage to make changes, by starting to tackle them at least in piecemeal fashion.

Having history as our sole bond is clearly not enough in today’s world.

In order to be relevant, the Commonwealth should be about people rather than diplomats. It should be about economic growth rather than bureaucracy. It should be about the future rather than the past.

All comments appreciated.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY HAS ASPIRATION ALL BUT DISAPPEARED FROM POLITICS.

22 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., Humanity., The Future, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY HAS ASPIRATION ALL BUT DISAPPEARED FROM POLITICS.

Tags

, , , ,

We all know that politics these days for the most part is subject to the Capital markets of the world.

You can see from the English Referendum ( On whether to leave or stay in the European Union) that the driving arguments on both sides are mostly to do with the Economy.

The economy is put before the people or the nation’s aspirations. Afficher l'image d'origine

The real question is, what level of wealth concentration is optimal for the economy or what is a human being to a business?

For many businesses a human being is perceived as ‘a consumer’ at the output end of the businesses and as ‘a worker’ at the input end of the businesses.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the businesses to charge the humans as much as possible when they are consumers while paying them as little as possible when they are workers.

The end result of such duality is, the humans suffer, businesses make profit; wealth concentrates, the people lose completely their self-sufficiency.

This will get much worse for the humans in the near future with the Revolution of Technology and Artificial Intelligence. Afficher l'image d'origine

Let’s just imagine a near future world (say about 50 generations from now) where automation has advanced to levels that resemble human-like Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

In such world, workers will no longer exist in any meaningful sense, because nearly all work will be done by a super intelligent automation. The businesses will perceive most human beings only as consumers. In such future, most humans will be jobless and, majority of us will have no means of production that can make us self-sufficient.

Consumers without money are useless to the businesses thus can be “discarded” (it means, literally wiped out of existence). How are we going to survive then?

 

Perhaps, some of us could survive by reverting to violent redistribution of wealth (like war for example). Such approach creates too much suffering. The correct answer is we survive together, as one species, by introducing Basic Income. It must be sufficient to ensure the existence of a wide base of consumers who, in turn, will ensure the prosperity of the businesses and the society.

As the lever of technology gets longer and longer and it takes less and less human work to get things done, the wage will be replaced by a National Dividend, a share of the robot paychecks to buy the things produced that robots don’t need.

In our current society, humans without jobs (or income) become consumers without money.

Adam Smith predicated his vision for a free market economy on the understanding that some constraints must be set in place to ensure all members of the society are self-sufficient and also, that they exchange only the surplus produce of their labour.

Do we need to wait for a future that has a human-like AGI before we consider Basic Income?

Can we introduce it today and achieve great prosperity now?

I believe the answers is, “Yes, we can have Basic income today” and we can have it in a way that is independent of political or technological circumstances i.e. a way applicable to any historical period.

Let’s see how it can be done.

Who decides what a ‘dignified’ living is?

Perhaps, a bunch of people, called a government, makes the decision while driven by their own ideas about what is ‘basic’ and ‘dignified’? Governments change, therefore, if the amount of Basic Income is determined by some political process (e.g. government’s budget justified by some ideology) then it is likely that Basic Income will turn into another tool to exert control over the people by applying control over the amount of BI.

Much more powerful approach is to implement Basic Income by using the free market as a base for estimating BI.

Let’s call it Market Driven Basic Income (MDBI).

The meaning of ‘Market Driven’ is that Basic Income will be an opposing market force to the leverage businesses (and other manmade constructs) obtain over the people due to their natural tendency to treat human beings with double standards (e.g. as ‘workers’ and as ‘consumers’).

MDBI can be defined as, the ‘most common’ outgoing spending amongst human individuals when seen as consumers and taxpayers. MDBI has to be derived from metrics that ‘capture’ only transactions from a person to a business, from a person to a government and from a person to any other ‘man-made societal construct’ (i.e. those metrics should reflect only the personal outgoing spending of the human beings, not metrics like gross output or GDI, or CPI, etc.). MDBI is a figure indicated, in part, by the free consumer markets showing what most individuals purchased the most and ,in part, by any other outgoing spending the individuals have (including taxes, fees, etc.).

Think about it, the more they (various political and economic man-made constructs in the human society) charge us (the human beings), for the goods and services they try to sell us or impose on us, the more they’ll have to pay us as Basic Income. The less they charge us the less they’ll have to pay us.

With MDBI in place they (the businesses, the government, etc.) may even ask payments from us for the air that we breathe, it will make no difference to any of us as long as most of us have to make such payments, because such payments will become ‘common’ therefore “highlighted” to influence the MDBI.

Of course this can not be achieved within a club of nations called the EU.

This why unlike England or the EU Finland marks the first commitment from a European country to implement a Basic Income experiment and will be the first experiment in a developed nation since the 1970s.

Switzerland is another country looking at adopting as part of the Swiss constitution, citizens, regardless of whether they work, would receive 30,000 Swiss Francs (about $34,000) a year.

The idea, which has a long history dating back to the 1920s (at least), is increasingly popular in policy circles and the broader population.

The German and Spanish parliaments explored it.

There is a lesson to be learned from the Brazilian soccer player Pelé, the best ever, earned $1.1 million in 1960 (adjusted for inflation). The Portuguese forward Cristiano Ronaldo made $17 million this past year. Pelé played for 350,000 television sets in Brazil. At the most recent World Cup, 700 million people watched Ronaldo.

Watch their crime levels go down and trading levels go up with more money in the hands of people ready to use it.

Just think of working for the Nations good.

We know there is a creeping colonisation of public life by corporations because we know a slow motion coup d’état is taking place by transnational organisations facilitated by our political leaders. The incontrovertible proof stares at us in the face every day with wave after wave of financial, economic, social and ecological crisis.

In the past few decades, economic growth lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. But, at the same time, the distribution of income became increasingly skewed in favor of wealthy individuals.

What could be achieved to remove, inequality, poverty, racism, corruption, and not to mention Greed to named just a few of the aliments plaguing our Societies.

It would replace all other social welfare programs with a guaranteed basic income to make government aid more self-directed and efficient.

An unconditional basic income is what is needed to be on the ballot.

Beliefs about the reasons for poverty are critical for the willingness to redistribute income.

So, will Europe provide a guaranteed income to its citizens?

My personal view is that this is unlikely. Differences in beliefs about the reasons for income inequality, however, will continue to drive redistributive policies.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET.

18 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Humanity., The Future, The Internet., The world to day.

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

( A Rather long read 20th to 30th minutes)

This is a sort of follow on from the Post – These days what it means to be Human.

Today, 43% of the world’s population are connected to the internet, mostly in developed countries. 

The ubiquitous presence of digital technologies and, along with it, ongoing connection of people, information, smart devices, sensors, objects etc, across intelligent networks, various types of clouds and processes is sometimes called The Internet of Everything.

By approaching it as a “thing” we risk losing ourselves in a Babylonian confusion.

That consumer fascination/applications aspect comes on top of all the real-life possibilities as they start getting implemented right now and the contextual and technological realities, making the Internet of Things one of those many pervasive technological umbrella terms, leading to genuine digital transformation opportunities in several areas, digital disruptions and, simply, business opportunities in the broadest sense.

There is no doubt that the internet is changing the way we live, work, produce and consume.

Smart meters:  To improve efficiency in energy, from a household perspective (savings, better monitoring etc.) and a utility company perspective (billing, better processes and of course also dealing with natural resources in a more efficient way as they are not endless).

Retail:  In an ongoing effort to digitize the consumer experience. Digital signage in retail outlets is in fact the big driver in 2015.

Whether our species evolves or collapses depends on what we do now with With such extensive reach, digital technologies cannot help but disrupt many of our existing models of business and government.

We become weaker when we keep giving away our power to technology–that is, to external objects. We then become dependent upon these objects, and soon get to the point where we can’t do anything for ourselves.

The number of people on the planet is set to rise to 9.7 billion in 2050 with 2 billion aged over 60.

We are entering the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a technological transformation driven by a ubiquitous and mobile internet.

Within the next decade, it is expected that more than a trillion sensors will be connected to the internet.

By 2025, 10% of people are expected to be wearing clothes connected to the internet and the first implantable mobile phone is expected to be sold.

The question is :

If almost everything is connected, will it transform how we do business and go about our daily lives and will it help us manage resources more efficiently and sustainably or will it turn all of us into Google Dummies / Amazon Consumers and how will this affect our personal privacy, data security and our personal relationships?

It is changing our ability to cross the great divide of otherness and really speak to each other in unique and powerful ways.

The growth of the digital economy, the rise of the service sector and the spread of international production networks have all been game-changers for international trade.

If the internet is not made available to all earth’s inhabitants at an affordable cost the miraculous healing awaits this planet will never happen.

Just look at the growing unease over globalization, which is evident from the number of questions being asked about the power of corporations and the adequacy of the regulations governing employment, environmental issues and taxation. All distracting us from  long-term investment, which has serious implications for global growth.

We’re already seeing and feeling the impacts of climate change with weather events such as droughts and storms becoming more frequent and intense, and changing rainfall patterns.

Insurers estimate that since the 1980s weather-related economic loss events have tripled.

There is only one way of achieving change. We must accept our new responsibility to collectively tend the garden rather than fight over the turf.

One thing we can agree on is that the internet of Things still has a long way to go and that growth of connected devices or “intelligent things” will indeed grow exponentially over the coming years. 

There is a LOT that can still be connected.

There are numerous reasons for the growing attention for the Internet of Things.

While you will often will read about the decreasing costs of storage, processing and material or the third platform with the cloud, big data, smart (mobile) technologies/devices, etc. there certainly is also a societal/people dimension with a strong consumer element.

Experts predict the Internet will become ‘like electricity’ — less visible, yet more deeply embedded in people’s lives for good and ill.

The world is moving rapidly towards ubiquitous connectivity that will further change how and where people associate, gather and share information, and consume media.

The experts agree on the technology change that lies ahead, even as they disagree about its ramifications. Most believe there will be:

  • A global, immersive, invisible, ambient networked computing environment built through the continued proliferation of smart sensors, cameras, software, databases, and massive data centers in a world-spanning information fabric known as the Internet of Things.
  • “Augmented reality” enhancements to the real-world input that people perceive through the use of portable/wearable/implantable technologies.
  • Disruption of business models established in the 20th century (most notably impacting finance, entertainment, publishers of all sorts, and education).
  • Tagging, databasing, and intelligent analytical mapping of the physical and social realms.

Here is what I see.

It is revolutionizing most human interaction, especially affecting health, education, work, politics, economics, and entertainment.

On the downside:

Interpersonal ethics, surveillance, terror, and crime, may lead societies to question how best to establish security and trust while retaining civil liberties.

More and more, humans will be in a world in which decisions are being made by an active set of cooperating devices. The Internet (and computer-mediated communication in general) will become more pervasive but less explicit and visible.

It will, to some extent, blend into the background of all we do. It will be a world more integrated than ever before.

We will see more planetary friendships, rivalries, romances, work teams, study groups, and collaborations.

We will become far more knowledgeable about the consequences of our actions; we will edit our behavior more quickly and intelligently.

It will change how we think about people, how we establish trust, how we negotiate change, failure, and success.

We will grow accustomed to seeing the world through multiple data layers. This will change a lot of social practices, such as dating, job interviewing and professional networking, and gaming, as well as policing and espionage.

With mobile technologies and information-sharing apps becoming ubiquitous, we can expect some significant improvement in the awareness of otherwise illiterate and ill-informed rural populations to opportunities missed out by manipulative and corrupt governments. Like the Arab Spring, we can expect more and more uprisings to take place as people become more informed and able to communicate their concerns.

There will be increased awareness of the massive disparities in access to health care, clear water, education, food, and human rights.

The power of nation-states to control every human inside its geographic boundaries may start to diminish.

The problems that humanity now faces are problems that can’t be contained by political borders or economic systems. Traditional structures of government and governance are therefore ill-equipped to create the sensors, the flows, the ability to recognize patterns, the ability to identify root causes, the ability to act on the insights gained, the ability to do any or all of this at speed, while working collaboratively across borders and time zones and sociopolitical systems and cultures.

From climate change to disease control, from water conservation to nutrition, from the resolution of immune-system-weakness conditions to solving the growing obesity problem, the answer lies in what the Internet will be in decades to come.

By 2025, we will have a good idea of its foundations.

The Internet will generate several new related networks. Some will require verified identification to access, while others will promise increased privacy.

The biggest impact on the world will be universal access to all human knowledge.

Will the Internet make it possible for our entire civilization to collapse together, in one big awful heap? Possibly.

But the Internet has already made it possible for us to use one of our unique graces — the ability to share knowledge — for good, and to a degree never before possible.

We have to think seriously about the kinds of conflicts that will arise in response to the growing inequality enabled and amplified by means of networked transactions that benefit smaller and smaller segments of the global population.

Social media will facilitate and amplify the feelings of loss and abuse. They will also facilitate the sharing of examples and instructions about how to challenge, resist, and/or punish what will increasingly come to be seen as unjust.

Cyber-terrorism will become commonplace.

Privacy and confidentiality of any and all personal will become a thing of the past.

Online ‘diseases’ — mental, physical, social, addictions (psycho-cyber drugs) — will affect families and communities and spread willy-nilly across borders.

The digital divide will grow and worsen beyond the control of nations or global organizations such as the UN. This will increasingly polarize the planet between haves and have-nots. Global companies will exploit this polarization. Digital criminal networks will become realities of the new frontiers. Terrorism, both by organizations and individuals, will be daily realities. The world will become less and less safe, and only personal skills and insights will protect individuals.

There will be greater group-think, group-speak and mob mentality … More uninformed individuals will influence others to the detriment of standard of living and effective government.

Governments will become much more effective in using the Internet as an instrument of political and social control. That is, filters will be increasingly valuable and important, and effective and useful filters will be able to charge for their services. People will be more than happy to trade the free-wheeling aspect common to many Internet sites for more structured and regulated environments.

The information we want will increasingly find its way to us, as networks learn to accurately predict our interests and weaknesses. But that will also tempt us to stop seeking out knowledge, narrowing our horizons, even as we delve evermore deep.

The privacy premium may also be a factor: only the relatively well-off (and well-educated) will know how to preserve their privacy in 2025.

The most neglected aspect of the impact is in the geopolitics of the Internet. There are very few experts focused on this, and yet the rise of digital media promises significant disruption to relations between and among states. Some of the really important dimensions include the development of transnational political actors/movements, the rise of the virtual state, the impact of digital diplomacy efforts, the role of information in undermining state privilege (think Wikileaks), and … the development of cyber-conflict (in both symmetric and asymmetric forms).

It is going to systemically change our understandings of being human, being social, and being political.

It is not merely a tool of enforcing existing systems; it is a structural change in the systems that we are used to. And this means that we are truly going through a paradigm shift — which is celebratory for what it brings, but it also produces great precariousness because existing structures lose meaning and valence, and hence, a new world order needs to be produced in order to accommodate for these new modes of being and operation.

The greatest impact of the Internet is what we are already witnessing, but it is going to accelerate.

More people will lose their grounding in the realities of life and work, instead considering those aspects of the world amenable to expression as information as if they were the whole world.

The scale of the interactions possible over the Internet will tempt more and more people into more interactions than they are capable of sustaining, which on average will continue to lead each interaction to be more superficial.

Given there is strong evidence that people are much more willing to commit petty crimes against people and organizations when they have no face-to-face interaction, the increasing proportion of human interactions mediated by the Internet will continue the trend toward less respect and less integrity in our relations.

The Internet, automation, and robotics will disrupt the economy as we know it.

How will we provide for the humans who can no longer earn money through labor?

The opportunities are simply tremendous. Information, the ability to understand that information, and the ability to act on that information will be available ubiquitously … Or we could become a ‘brave new world’ where the government (or corporate power) knows everything about everyone everywhere and every move can be foreseen, and society is taken over by the elite with control of the technology…

The good news is that the technology that promises to turn our world on its head is also the technology with which we can build our new world.  It offers an unbridled ability to collaborate, share, and interact.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

It is a very good time to start inventing the future.

The most significant impact of the Internet is getting us to imagine different paths that the future may take. These paths help us to be better prepared for long-term contingencies; by identifying key indicators, and amplifying signals of change, they help us ensure that our decisions along the way are flexible enough to accommodate change…Afficher l'image d'origine

That billions more people are poised to come online in the emerging economies seems certain. Yet much remains uncertain: from who will have access, how, when, and at what price to the Internet’s role as an engine for innovation and the creation of commercial, social, and human value. As users, industry players, and policymakers, the interplay of decisions that we make today and in the near future will determine the evolution of the Internet and the shape it takes by 2025, in both intended and unintended ways.

Regardless of how the future unfolds, the Internet will evolve in ways we can only begin to imagine. By allowing ourselves to explore and rehearse divergent and plausible futures for the Internet, not only do we prepare for any future, we can also help shape it for the better.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS : THESE DAYS WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HUMAN.

05 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Humanity., Innovation., Technology, The Future, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS : THESE DAYS WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HUMAN.

Tags

In writing this post I have decided to ignore as much as possible the obvious state that humanity now finds itself in.

It goes without saying that we are in a mess.

Who we are, is defined by who we are not, and the practices of exclusion that define identity have to be recognized – an issue we are already witnessed in the context of online communities like Facebook.

In the ‘cyber’ world, it is possible to have multiple identities and ‘selves’.Afficher l'image d'origine

While technologies have become a ‘part’ of humanity, it should be considered, I believe, how they are going to change the way we exist and, moreover, to what extent they are really necessary in human life.

 The 21st Century is, more than ever, a century ‘flooded’ by the invention and expansion of new technologies. These are varied: we use smart phones, computers and other devices that supposedly ‘enhance’ the way we communicate between ourselves and also socially interact.

Already machines can process spoken language, recognize human faces, detect or emotions, and target us with highly personalized media content. While technology has tremendous potential to empower humans, soon it will also be used to make them thoroughly obsolete in the the workplace, whether by replacing, displacing,or surveilling.

 So is it possible to design intelligent systems that safely design themselves.
However, our bodies are also undergoing fundamental changes.
It is now possible to artificially increase physical characteristics and other bodily features. Our own natural biological capabilities can be extended almost endlessly.

These changes certainly influence several human aspects, such as identity, personality and much more.

Technological advances have made ‘fluid’, but superficial the way we communicate and perceive ourselves. There is no boundary when it comes to what I actually am, and what I project myself to be.

It is not possible, anymore, to discern between who is actually sitting on the other side of the screen, and what is being said online, in a chat, for instance.

Our bodies have become transcendent in the sense that they are; in some cases

not even regarded as necessary anymore. Bodies are thus not natural, lively and active agents through which we encounter and perceive others and the world,

but have become ‘replaceable.’

Technology is proposing a complete ‘denial’ of our bodily existence. A ‘body’ not that is not useful at all anymore, is becoming a recyclable item rather than rotting or burnt to a cinder.

Imagine a future scenario in which extremely powerful computerized minds are simulated and shared across autonomous virtual or robotic bodies.  Given the malleable nature of such super-intelligence— they won’t be limited by the hardwiring of DNA information – one can reasonably assume that they will be free of the limitations of a single material body, or the experience of a single lifetime, allowing them to tinker with their own genetic code, integrate survival knowledge directly from the learning of others,and develop a radical new form of digital evolution that modifies itself through nearly instantaneous exponential cycles of imitation and learning, and passes on its adaptation to successive generations of “SELF”

Not only would the lineage of such beings be perpetually enhanced by automation, leading to radical new forms of social relationships and values, but the systems that realize or govern those values would likely become the instinctual mechanism of a synchronized and sentient ” technocultural mind.”

One could say that are approaching such an era, and such a ‘technological leap’ must, or at least should, be assessed critically. It seems crucial to understand to what end, and how, technology can or should be used.

It is important to create ethical boundaries when it comes to our use of new technology.

A minority of wealthy persons and influential companies will have power over biotechnology and others, thus restricting the access of the public to this information.

Our body is an important instrument through which we perceive and discover the world. This means that the body can also be plural, malleable and ‘fluid, however, it is important; in my view, that it does not lose its essence. Our bodily features are embedded in the social world, and they are part of culture, as well as nature.

We need to create restrictions to the access of new technologies, by engaging with ethical questionings that allow a better understanding of what it actually means to have these technologies changing the way we exist.

It could be said that the boundary between what it means to be human has been crossed and it seems not be possible anymore to argue that being human means having certain physical qualities, a consciousness, and so for this post it is quite a complex task to address what does humanity mean.

Because of not only the varied theoretical concepts involved but the understanding of our relations to new technologies; also, to how these technologies have entirely changed the idea of  ” what it is to be human” We’re not the same species we were 100,000 years ago. We’re not going to be the same species tomorrow. We will become more and more software-driven species. Change the software change the species. 

 The question of ‘what it means to be human’ is deeply rooted in our bodily experiences, feelings,sensations and perceptions. It is with them that we give meaning to our existence.  We are shaped by these bodily experiences, as culture and its technological advances shape us.

We should not, hence, give more importance to one in comparison to the other.

Digital information and technology are important to us, until a point. After this, our humanity as a ‘natural resource’ must take head and claim its right to exist as biological, finite and, above all, human beings.

This cannot be replaced by technology.

That said being human these days is closely related to machines and other ‘artificial’ traits.

I suppose that in this is the start of age of ‘cyber cultures’ and new technologies.

We are on the threshold of genetically engineered ‘humans’‘ Genetically engineered’ beings that bear very similar qualities to humans but will they be dependable on something ‘greater’ than themselves, namely, their maker: The‘genetic engineer.’

Humanity is intertwined within biology and culture but humans are now capable of distancing themselves from the world, and thus creating an awareness of their own place in it.

 This is, I believe, a crucial point that needs to be taken into consideration when discussing how new technologies influence our life and thus completely change the meaning of who we are. We should be able to reflect upon ourselves, the way we deal with new technologies, and, more than ever, we need to be aware of how these will change our ways of life.

A multifaceted discussion on these topics will surely help better elucidate this new form of existence and the consequences it might bring with it.

 

Each of us has our precious things, and as we care for them we locate the essence of our humanity.

 

In the end, it is because of our great capacity for caring that I remain optimistic we will confront the dangerous issues now before us.

Helmuth Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology is largely based upon the idea that being human means existing in a society, it means not just to exist individually, but to be shaped by others, as well as by oneself.

 

Plessner vehemently opposes a dualistic model of humanity, such as those based upon the body/mind dualism. He strongly emphasizes that we exist in a culture, but our own biological traits also mould the way we live in the world.
For the moment we shape our sociality through history by acting as ‘organic’ beings.
 

Being human is having a will to changing one’s destiny and life.

However in transhumanist visions, materiality is seen as an inactive, passive, manipulate substance, and matter is interrupted as code, a program that can be changed according to individual wishes.

The fragility of our body is being lost nowadays, the idea that we, and thus our bodies, are finite is changing.  The body has lost its ‘expressivity’ and meaningfulness, it has become but a dull and unnecessary object. 

In the future  ‘cyber cultures’ might have bodies, but they act and ‘think’ like. 
However, they are, in regard to their lifespan, or, one could say, life, expandable.
The days of the body being buried or burnt to ash are fast coming to an end with Gene Editing.
Afficher l'image d'origine

Now that we know the blueprint of Life cross species transplantation is around the corner.

While the precise form these changes will take is unclear, recent history suggests that they are likely to be welcome at first and progressively advanced. It appears reasonable that human intelligence will become obsolete, economic wealth will reside primarily in the hands of super-intelligent machines, and our ability to survive will lie beyond our direct control. 

Genetic Editing could lead to the Gene Rich and genetic discrimination leading to greater Inequality.

Man is said to have evolved from monkeys and apes…. but we still have monkeys and apes.

Afficher l'image d'origine

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS OUR PRECONDITION OF IGNORANCE GOING TO BE OUR DOWNFALL.

16 Monday May 2016

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS OUR PRECONDITION OF IGNORANCE GOING TO BE OUR DOWNFALL.

Tags

, , ,

 

We all live our own lives but we are all subject to consequences of our own and each other’s ‘ignorance’.Afficher l'image d'origine

The problem is that we are literally ‘born in ignorance’ and raised in a world of people likewise born and raised which means then, that there is a very nearly overwhelming amount of misinformation, opinion, predisposition et cetera regarding what we ‘know’ about ourselves and how we ‘should’ deal with each other or there wouldn’t be the mass of troubles there is in the world today.

The human condition in this especially negative sense is a measure of our ignorance with respect to what we know about ourselves as ‘a life-form in its configuration space’ -biology, anthropology, the resource/environment, government/economy and ‘the nature and course of human evolution and progression’, as the idea of that whole and its parts varies throughout the world.

This has led us to a point that the idea of wealth and ownership beyond ‘base-domain human requirements’ is fundamentally antithetical to best well-being and viability in the nature and course of the life-form’.

Not only is there something of ‘a human condition’ endemic (the individuals) of people’s and nations, but one compounded by typically profound differences between their ‘autonomous’ governments and economics due to natural resources, geography, climate et cetera.

Up to now our attempts to understand nature and generally to know about things not produced by man, have turn us instead exclusively to things that owed their existence to man.

As I have said we are evolved out of ignorance and continue to be born in ignorance, and that means that even as we discover and amass knowledge – the ‘if this, then that-ness’ of matter and existence, ‘new situations’ and ‘new ignorances’ will always present something of a problem to someone as long as we exist.

Unfortunately, the new Technological age is adding to this and contrary to what is currently assumed about the proverbial ivory tower independence of thinkers, no other human capacity is so vulnerable, and it is in fact far easier to act under conditions of tyranny than it is to think.

We have entered the age of Igorance-Smart phone.

The action of the scientists, since it acts into nature from the standpoint of the universe and not into the web of human relationships, lacks the revelatory character of action as well as the ability to produce stories and become historical, which together form the very source from which meaningfulness springs into and illuminates human existence.

If like me you ponder on why it is that we seem incapable of grasping that human activities in the last two centuries have effected the Earth’s climate.

We have taken all the carbon from hundreds of million of years which had been locked up in fossil fuels and stuck it into the atmosphere in a time of two hundred years.

We don’t need to wait for the Paris Climate agreement ( Which is just a joke) there is a Methane nuclear boom under the Arctic that we could see our temperatures go up by 6c in the next 30 years.

We have buggered around with the atmosphere beyond a joke or promises.

We need some Big decisions to stop the march of climate change.Afficher l'image d'origine

Surely we are not going to wipe ourselves out through ignorance when they are so many choices but if we do at least most of us will still be ignorant.

To address the problems that derive from the grotesque Inequalities and structural poverty of our world.  Quite as hoc diplomacy is not enough. Some thing more structured is needed. Like an World Aid Commission of 0.005%. (See previous posts)

Click the Ignorant like button or make an intelligent comment.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Beady Eye Asks : Is this the Future you want.

12 Thursday May 2016

Posted by in The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on The Beady Eye Asks : Is this the Future you want.

Tags

A week or so ago I wrote a Post under the heading ( The Beady Eye say’s Inequality will be the Corrosive Paint of the Future)Afficher l'image d'origine

It was very popular reading (Out of the five hundred hits there was not one comment constructive or otherwise. It asks the question whether Word Press manufacturers the hits as any reasonable person that took the trouble to read the post would have a view on its content other than Awa sum/Like.) 

Perhaps it is that Americans who were the majority of the readership can’t understand words of over four symbols and are incapable of expressing a worldview.

Let’s see what happens this time.

The question is:  Without the corset of current thinking what corrosion there is to be found in the Future.

I apologize in advance if you find this post somewhat chaotic but the subject lends itself to be so.  Ignorant as I am, I don’t think I’d ever fully appreciated what we are doing or what is being done in our name.

We all envision a sustainable, just and peaceful future where universal rights are respected to cope with ever-growing unemployment and inequality. Dreams of tomorrow, once populated by hoverboards, flying cars and holidays to Mars, now seem far less hopeful: they no longer come to us in the technicolour joy of the sixties and seventies, but in a muted, washed-out sepia.

The future looks decidedly bleak.

We seem incapable of planning beyond the next twenty or thirty years.

So are we enslaving future generations by our current lifestyles.

It seems so. The need for long-term thinking and integrating the interests of future generations in policy-making, which are indispensable for addressing challenges like climate change or biodiversity loss are sadly lacking if we are to hand a livable planet to the next generations.

So is there anything to say about the distant future?

We don’t know anything specific but we can make out the broad contours.

In my view there are four possibilities for the future of humanity.Afficher l'image d'origine

Conventional wisdom seems to assume that the whole world will converge towards a plateau of development similar to the lifestyle of the richest countries today.

So the future will look a lot like the present.

Given the interconnected geography of the contemporary world and the unprecedented destructive power of modern weaponry, its hard not to ask whether a large-scale social disaster could be contained were it to occur.

This is what fuels our fear of total extinction.

Then there is the possibility of technology breakthrough which could take many forms so advanced that to defy description.

If the first possibility were to happen it would not last.

Economic competition would become so intense and the consumption of scarce resources so profound that competition would lead to war.

So we are left with Mind Blowing technological advances to save the planet and us that live on it.

They would have to be so powerful to transcend the current limits of our collective understanding.

There is one thing certain and that is the future won’t happen on its own. Once computers can answer all our questions, perhaps they’ll ask why they should remain subservient to us all.

The stark choices we face today will shape it. Something or nothing. It’s up to all of us. We have to change the way we do things. We have to think for ourselves as only by seeing the world anew, as fresh, as strange as it was for the ancients who saw it first, then we can both re-create it and preserve it for the future.

So let’s start with the heartbeat of Capitalism.  Greed.

Corporations have great power but they are shackled to the profit motive.

Maximising Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and market efficiency – are no longer adequate goals for society.   We must develop politically compelling messages around beyond GDP indicators.

The fundamental problem remains that in the negotiation of trade-offs between economic, environmental and social policy objectives, it is economic objectives that still trump others.

Beyond GDP concepts need to be rooted in processes, goals and targets that have legitimacy.

To engage citizens and establish democratic legitimacy broader indicators that incorporate health, social and environmental statistics are needed.

We must counter the widespread assumption that efficient markets and growth at all costs deliver the best results for humanity, the environment and our societies.

The trouble is that all Social Systems will resist change whether it be Capitalism or whatever. None want to pay for the cost of change and non will.

However the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which includes developments in previously disjointed fields such as artificial intelligence and machine-learning, robotics, nanotechnology, 3-D printing, and genetics and biotechnology, will cause widespread disruption not only to business models but also to labour markets over the next five years, with enormous change predicted in the skill sets needed to thrive in the new landscape.

It is therefore critical that broader and longer term changes to basic and lifelong education systems are complemented with specific, urgent and focused reskilling efforts.

We will have to move away from Certified forms of education—to the actual content of learning.

Reforming current education systems to better equip today’s students to meet future skills requirements—as worthwhile and daunting as that task is—is not going to be enough.

65% of children entering primary school today will ultimately end up working in completely new job types that don’t yet exist.

Because we are creating a world digital divide we need to bring back Philosophy and Social Science to everyday education.

It might be possible in the future to experience the sand between your toes, feel the salt from the ocean on your lips, hear the waves and smell the seaweed, just lying in your bed at home. But we will not be able to fool the mind in the way that no matter how real the experience will feel, you will always know that it haven’t happened for real.

Even if we could it will never replace the common experience if it is not genuine.

As you know the winner in life is not the one with the most money when he dies, the winner is the person who sleeps best at night.

At the moment, we still think primarily in terms of the natural consequences of climate change.

In the future we will be struggling with issues that have both natural and social causes and impacts and Inequality will be high on this list.

There are 7.3 billion people alive today about 2/3 of the world’s population lives in Asia, a figure dominated by India and China and more than half of the global population growth between now and 2050 will occur in Africa where inequality is rampant.

This will have profound cultural implications for the whole world.

The fact that civil society is impacting this debate through the Internet is good because decisions taken by politicians today will have a major influence on the world of tomorrow.

The world has changed a lot in the last 150 years, but we humans are driven by the same basic needs as we were 150 years ago, food, sleep, sex, the feeling of being appreciated and loved.

We will see in the next 50 years the transition from an oil-dependent society, new medicine, the first steps in the development of artificial intelligence, continued exploration of space, smart systems—homes, info drones, factories, farms, grids or entire cities, more people to die from AIDS, hopefully a better state for the poor people in the world, challenges in the climate change, and new inventions that make life a little easier and entertaining for some.

The small things seem to matter more these days.

We are instrumental in infrastructure planning, embedding the belief that public and corporate desires for livability and efficiency were compatible.

We all agree that our world is precious and energy is the master resource. We all agree that there is simply aren’t enough resources in the world to replicate old approaches, or to redistribute our way to prosperity.

But globalization is not only causing severe energy challenges but contributing to dooming us all down to brainless consumers that justify our ways by signing online petitions that get no where other than highlight a problem.

But is this real power?

Ooh, good question! I think it was someone who thought of reversing the power of flash mobs – I mean it’s still about solidarity but now it’s kind of organised to maintain the balance of power in society – so everyone does their bit.

I think there’s less inequality now, do you know what I mean?

We certainly are not going to saved by religion although beliefs might make it less painful for some – bringing long-term thinking into world policy maAfficher l'image d'origineking might be better. Afficher l'image d'origine

The direction we are going we be lucky if there is any clear air or fresh water left.

What is the way forward?

Make everything that matter to life free and abundant to all.

The best way to predict the future is to create it. This can only be achieved by spreading the cost fairly.

By placing a World Aid commission on all activities that are for Profit sake. ( See previous posts)

All comments appreciated. All like clicks keep to yourself.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS INEQUALITY IS THE CORROSIVE PAINT OF THE FUTURE.

09 Monday May 2016

Posted by in Capitalism, Humanity., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., The Future, TTIP. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership., Wealth., What Needs to change in the World, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS INEQUALITY IS THE CORROSIVE PAINT OF THE FUTURE.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The world we live in and on has and will continue to face many threats from extinction to survival till its demise in 6.5 billion years from now.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of inequality eyes"

We all know that most of its present day problems have being created and propagated by us humans.

Some are easy to eradicate others not so.

WHY? Because global wealth concentrates is now in fewer hands resulting in inequality destroying our attitudes to world problems.

There is little need to state that there are many form of Inequality.

It come dressed in all colors along well beaten paths.Afficher l'image d'origine

But one form for me leads to many of the others and that is Income Inequality.

(The income from capital continues growing faster than the income from labor.)

While Economists are conditioned to believe in the optimality of the market the newest economic inequality numbers, which ran counter to the expectations of almost all experts, are frightening.

.That’s why they have been in denial for so long that change is not likely in the short run.

But we have to try, because getting this wrong means that economists promote machine-like models that suggest that it is simply some invisible mechanism (or maybe an invisible hand) that ensures that workers don’t get paid very much, that owners make high profit rates, and that the economy will be just fine under these conditions.

Market forces alone cannot determine who gets wealthy and who doesn’t.

Owners of capital seek higher returns through speculation in financial assets, in effect bidding up prices in an eternal quest for ever higher returns, returns that can’t be matched by investments in productive capital (the returns from which have been declining for decades).

Economics can no longer be accepted as a discrete, coherent discipline. It through inequality has left millions impoverished laying in its wake.

As a result there is tremendous anger, disillusionment and fear. All of which are corrosive to democracy.

Just look at the unfolding elections in the USA.

Nearly total disillusionment with established politics due to a dysfunctional government, with the Republican party now barely a political party with a candidate that has risen out of the poplar base called Trump that the establishment could not squash. The main stream spectrum of world politics is moving to the right. Neoliberal policies have led to declines and near stagnation.

You can rest assured that we are going to see a very ugly scene.

Their solutions are the same old failed tactics.

When both parties kowtow to money, the people’s needs are ignored, and

politics becomes illegitimate.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Afficher l'image d'origine   Afficher l'image d'origine

You might say that redistribution of wealth is theft. But Redistribution of investment Profit for Profit’s sake is not.

You might think that  21st century technology such as the internet is going to change everything.  But it is money that is writing the laws, the behind the door trade agreements, through lobbyist undermining democracy. This is happening all over the world.

There is no clear relationship between the total value of capital and profitability.

Whether distributions of income and wealth are partly shaped by social and political relationships – class conflict if you will – or mostly by “market forces.”

The forces of technology are what they are.

Take the contemporary communication technologies it can be used for various purposes, to increase surveillance, to increase power, control or it can be used for to empower people.  Technology does not care you can use it both ways.

The technological connectedness is a myth.

If there is to be a rebalancing.  The current trade agreements could be designed for the people.  They are not.

They are however designed for the benefits of investors. They are not trade agreements except very marginally. That is the reason that they are keep secret, not quite totally as the details are being written by corporate lawyers and lobbyist.

They are however up to now effectively secret from the population.

We can fix the problem, but it will take bold steps. It will take a combined movement not splintered movements to force change. This is highly unlikely.

There is hatred and anger about just about all institutions.

There is only one way to effect redistribution.

Place a World Aid commission on all financial and acquisition activity that are made for the sake of profit. ( See previous Posts)

It is us the tax payer that bailed out the Banks, that paid for the research to create the internet. Are we getting any return on the investment. No.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE ARE LIVING IN A SORT OF DELIRIUM–NOT REALLY KNOWING THE FACTS ABOUT ANYTHING-

02 Monday May 2016

Posted by in The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE ARE LIVING IN A SORT OF DELIRIUM–NOT REALLY KNOWING THE FACTS ABOUT ANYTHING-

Tags

, , , , , ,

As soon as we really know the facts you would think that we would all begin to behave very differently, of course.

If we could, would not your heart swell with something far from anger. We might see our power of duty as custodians to the world that we all live in.Afficher l'image d'origine

Instead nothing much happens, except swallow high words on what needs to be done to achieve change in order to see the real power, the real dignity, our real responsibility in the world.

Over the next couple of decades the world will be facing new problems (in addition to the well-known challenges of creating economic growth and maintaining social stability), some of which cannot be easily solved by the market.

Forty years from now, how much will energy cost? What will happen with the climate?  Most importantly, will you be richer?

Let me tell you it is more important that you are satisfied with life than whether you are somewhat richer or poorer.

Empirically, for some, income is the sole determinant of life satisfaction. But for the majority, a whole host of factors influence our well-being—job, health, family, community, prospects for the future—in addition to income.

It is the sum total of all aspects of life that determine your wellbeing, both now and in the future.

If humanity rose to the occasion and ran a rational world how much better life would be for all of us and the generation to come.

Many argue that this does not matter because we are leaving for future generations a whole lot of capital, infrastructure, and technology. But to paraphrase the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, “People cannot succeed in ecosystems that fail.”

The prime example is the climate challenge.

It is a truly global problem:

The forecast maximum in 2080 is above the threshold that world leaders agreed would place us in the danger zone for runaway climate change; but it is important to realize this is a politically negotiated goal. Views differed, and still differ, on what will be safe. Or in other words, what will hurt us.

Does it matter?

Will the world of 2052 be a better world?

From a psychological perspective, probably no, because the future prospects in 2052 will be grim because of the increasingly uneven distribution of income and wealth that has built up over time as a natural consequence of the free market.

In my opinion there will be huge differences between people. But on average the world will be a better place.

It’s important to note that people 40 years from now will judge their circumstance more on how it has changed from their own recent past than from our vantage point of today.

Even the most diehard liberalists appear to agree that redistribution is something that is not automatically undertaken by the market by itself, but needs to be done via political action

In order to reduce some of the tension implicit in the rapid increase in inequity in the capitalist world.

It’s time to commence down the road of re thinking how or world works and reconsider what kind of world we want to live in.

Although we refer to most of it as civilization it is anything but civilized.

We have being killing each other and everything around us since time millennium.

It’s no wonder that the social arrangements up to the present have largely failed to produce a peaceful and productive world.

While we appear to be technically advanced our values and behaviours are not.

The possibility of an optimistic future is in stark contrast to our current social,economic,and environmental dilemmas.

If we stay the present course, the familiar cycles of crime, economic booms and busts, wars, and further environmental destruction are inevitable.

Will the young generation calmly accept the Debt and pension burden of the old.

No. The simplest reason is they don’t have to. In the rich world, particularly, the first generation that has rung up a huge national debt and established a huge unfunded pension scheme is about to retire.

The interesting, to say the least, question is whether the next generation will be willing to carry this burden and peacefully pay the debt and peacefully pay the pensions. I repeat my answer: I think not.

At the moment we have an unsustainable world, where the environment is going to have a bigger than ever say in shape our behavior.

Where our global monetary system is going to become obsolete, and increasingly insufficient to meet the needs of most people.

Where the banking , media, criminal justice systems, and world Organisations are tools of social control managed by the established political and economic elite.

 

We need a redesign of all our cultures. We need to up date to the new era of technological revolution.

Our problems are mostly of our own making and now it is the time to come together under a new World Organisation to resolve them.

In 2052 a full 60% of the energy used will still be fossil. As a result climate damage will be growing fast, as will the unavoidable costs for repair of that damage. Paradoxically this means that humanity will choose to pay bills for repair after the crises, rather than paying the same amount of money for renewable energy ahead of time and avoiding the damage.

 

We all know that if we continued willy nilly with the I am all right jack scenario we are heading for a cesspool of troubles that will put our very existence in question.

There are numerous solutions but the hard fact is man is incapable of acting as one.  Furthermore no one wants to pay for change. Not a Country , not a Government, not a social system.

It’s true that all the money in the world will make no difference if we don’t change.

It is also true that any change will have to just and fair to all.

If you have not looked at the below video you should do so.

 

 

You might think that the only thing that matter is a  Job.

It is the only way in which the individual can get part of the societal pie—without engaging in theft. Society—at least in the long run—will do its utmost to ensure there are jobs, typically by seeking rapid economic growth. But we know from recent history that this is a taxing task, and that politicians often fail.

This video misses the big question. Who is going to pay.

Here is the answer:  Profit for Profit’s Sake.  We must place a world Aid commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange transactions (over $20,000), on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all Hedge Funds, on all Lotto Wins. Curbing greed is a first and very important step in that direction.

(see previous posts) —— 0.005% will do the trick. A perpetual Fund to address all our problems fairly spread over what is causing our problem in the first place.

Technologies will not save us.

All contributions other than like are needed.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨