Category Archives: The New year 2017

THE BEADY EYE PUTS: A SPOTLIGHT ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

04 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., European Commission., European Union., France., The New year 2017, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

( A eighth minute read)

We all know that the Union is in need of reform, but what exactly are we talking about.

Nobody would seriously argue that the EU doesn’t need to evolve, to do so it must fundamental reform.

It has not delivered the prosperity and growth it promised; the euro has turned out to be part of the problem rather than the solution; the EU’s share of world GDP is set to fall sharply. Moreover, no one is clear what the EU is for, or how ever closer union can be matched with expanding borders and huge disparities of income and culture. The European Union project has been rocked by a series of scandals

Here are a few reforms that are blatantly obvious and need  implementation to save millions of euros.  

The First Reform:

According to a report from the EU’s own internal Audit Service (IAS) an estimated £4.5 billion of the EU’s annual budget is wasted each year. The administrative budget of the IAS totals €18.77 m in 2016 and €19.22 m in 2017.

Although the Commission remains responsible for the implementation of the EU budget, the actual management and control of EU funds and programmes is delegated to Member State authorities, which select beneficiaries and distribute funds.

Cohesion policy accounts for 37 % of spending from the EU budget and is to be some 350 billion euro for each of the periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.

It is the Member States’ responsibility to detect, correct and prevent errors in the first instance.

Better regulation is a pressing problem.

Next:

It is time that the blatant absurdity and farce of the EU travelling circus, that requires the moving nearly four thousand trunks of documents between Luxembourg and Strasbourg ever month – stops.

It is perhaps the most outlandish of the European Union’s excesses; a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

The problem is simple:

The French government, which has a power of veto, will not budge.

The French insist on maintaining Strasbourg’s role because of the substantial amount of money the travelling circus brings to the region. Its status is set in stone under a European treaty signed in 1992,  which can only be revoked should all member states agree it. 

In all, the EU admits that the monthly Strasbourg sitting, which lasts just four days, costs an additional £93 million a year.

A recent study by the European Parliament shows that €103 million (£85 million) could be saved each year if all European Parliament operations were transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels.

It is beyond comprehension that this state of affairs is tolerated.

If Emmanuel Macron France’s new youngest ever president, who says the country had chosen “hope” and promising to relaunch the flagging European Union doing away with this gross misuse of EU funds would show he is serious.

Next: 

MEP’s > “gravy train” salaries and perks.

MEP perks receive free haircuts and 52 gallons of petrol a month.

Maltese MPs get 240 litres of petrol a month.

Two Conservative UK  MEPs have each pocketed over £1 million in taxpayer salary and expenses payments in just five years.  Both men receive a salary of £76,292 a year, plus £2,670 in pension contributions.

Over five years, on top of this figure, Mr Ashworth claimed: £181,705 for subsistence; £164,627 in travel expenses; £222,560 in UK office allowances and £116,000 for his wife’s salary between 2010 and 2014, when the practice was banned.

Mr Karim claimed the same salary and pension contribution package as well as: £159,858 in subsistence allowance; £189,420 in travel expenses and £289,038 in UK office costs.

Both men also have offices provided in Brussels. Both men took home over £1 million over the five-year period, over £200,000 a year.

Nigel Farage claimed over £15,000 in expenses to pay for his bodyguards. The EU has been billed for their services, which include arranging food and drink. One bill for just five events came to almost £60,000, covered by expenses paid to Mr Farage’s Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group, which receives £2.5million a year in EU funding. 

French MEPs earn 740% more than average French citizen Lavish, expenses and allowances – entitlements that are worth over £415,000 a year each. 

As well as staff allowances, MEPs are able to earn up to £91,000 a year in “daily subsistence” and “general expenditure” expenses without having to provide any receipts or proof of expenditure. MEPs still vote on their own salaries and perks.

The EU pay divide

The “subsistence allowance” or “per diem” of £258 is paid in cash without any proof of expenditure, when MEPs sign an attendance register in Brussels or the Strasbourg seat of the parliament.

The annual cost of a MEP sitting in the EU assembly is £1.79 million each a year. The European Parliament, with 766 MEPs, cost £1.3 billion in 2012.

Here is the breakdown of an MEP salary:

[The standard monthly payment for all MEPs is 7,957 euros (£6,537). MEPs also get a flat-rate monthly allowance of 4,299 euros to cover office expenses, such as office rent, phone bills and computer equipment.

In addition, MEPs can claim for travel related to their official duties in Brussels and Strasbourg. In the past they could claim for an expensive flexible economy class flight even if they flew low-fare. But under the new rules they have to submit their ticket (which can be business class on air, or first class on rail) and will be reimbursed for what they paid.

A separate annual travel allowance – 4,243 euros maximum – covers official trips to other destinations. And they can claim for up to 24 return journeys in their home country.

MEPs also get a daily subsistence allowance – now 304 euros – for attendance at parliamentary sessions. It is intended to cover things like hotel bills and meals.

And they are entitled to reimbursement of two-thirds of their medical expenses.]

Then there are the 28 EU Commissioners, all of them on a basic salary of

€20 666 per month.

Jean-Claude Juncker, 61, President of the European Commission  Salary: £245,629 plus a residential allowance of £36,844 and a monthly expense allowance of £1,135. Pension of £52,500 for life from age 65.

The salaries and allowances of the MEPs of the 27 EU states now total £137 million.

The figure is almost ten times higher than the average EU wage of £18,617 a year.

But this does not include the cost of the £217,000 office allowance available to each MEP.

The receipt-free allowances system must stop. 

Next reform:  Is the Euro.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Euro"

Only by changing the eurozone’s rules and institutions can the euro be made to work.

To achieve the more radical – but necessary – reforms for the Euro, a new treaty will be required.

A major priority for this new treaty would be to create a single fiscal authority for the euro area and to change the ECB’s mandate, so that it could become a full lender of last resort in extreme circumstances.

Euro area citizens need to be given a real choice between continued fragmentation (which leaves the euro exposed to structural weaknesses and recurrent crises), and greater integration (which pools more sovereignty at the same time as it strengthens the governance of EMU).

Abandoning the convergence criteria, which require deficits to be less than 3% of GDP.

Change the mandate of the European Central Bank, which focuses only on inflation, unlike the US Federal Reserve, which takes into account employment, growth, and stability as well.

Lastly, the high rates of unemployment in many euro-area countries are a source of concern. Reforms to harmonize employment protection legislation and integrate outsiders in the labour market should be implemented.

The EU employs more than 55,000 staff from its 28 member states. The majority work for the European Commission which employs about 33,000 officials, temporary staff, contract staff, and special advisers.

Last Reform:Image associée

It is no good just taking the standard nation-based model of representative democracy and applying it to the unique contours of European governance

‘Democracy’ explicitly recognises that the EU lacks a coherent, unified ‘people’, and should therefore encourage the participation of separate ‘peoples’ within the European structure.

If the EU is truly a democracy then the best way of closing the gap between citizens and institutions is to empower the demoi. Finding new ways for the national public to discuss, engage with and interact with the EU is the best way of enhancing their role. To do so, the European Parliament should be made more representative, but by increasing the role of citizens and national parliamentarians in the EU structures the EU can be made more open to bottom-up influence.

Multiple levels of engagement should be created so as to give citizens the maximum capability to engage with the EU’s structures. Such a structure would not be perfect. No democratic structure is. But it remains the best way of creating a more democratic European Union. Make European structures more open to national influence; and give citizens a more direct involvement in EU policymaking.

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

https://youtu.be/PZz3dXCG3Oo?list=PLO1bi4VeyTW7iLDXBKYxh_rG_ovxGkihz

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT ARE OR WILL BE THE HARD FACTS RE BRIXIT.

17 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., The New year 2017, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

( A troubling seven minute read)

Afficher l'image d'origine

 

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard.

The Brixit vote is a case in kind.

Originally the European Community was supposed to be a trade agreement to ease all the tariffs and taxes, lower the cost of goods and improve the efficiency of the European member’s economies.  The British voted overwhelmingly voted yes by 67.2% (historic high) for this in 1975.

The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger article 50 by the end of March.

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No.

A parliamentary petition for a second referendum has attracted more than one million.

Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not.

Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on?

Absolutely not. Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability.

This isn’t democracy;

Mrs May’s phrase “Brexit means Brexit” has become a tired cliché.

What exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions?

Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup, in a country that has three devolved parliaments that voted to stay in.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term.

Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences. The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

The current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.

What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%. There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum this would be the required percentage.

Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons.

In this way if Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.

The current norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen on TV with her speech on what Britain wants in the upcoming negotiations is a formula for chaos.

I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.

Talks on Britain’s political divorce from the EU and a possible free trade agreement are going to be complex, lengthy and difficult.

So difficult that there will be no agreement that will satisfy both sides.

You don’t have to blind and deaf to realize that The European Union is an economic and political union between 28 member countries that covers more than four million square kilometres.  It spans countries with more than 508 million citizens, which means it has the third largest population in the world after China and India.

Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now the next in line to join the EU. In addition, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also been promised the prospect of joining when they are ready to. Turkey, alone would add an additional 75 million EU citizens.

The new unelected Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger Article 50 – the step that starts the timer on two years of Brexit talks – by the end of March 2017.

Britain, I believe, had the best of all possible deals with the European Union, being a member of the common market without belonging to the euro and having secured a number of other opt-outs from EU rules. And yet that was not enough to stop the United Kingdom’s electorate from voting to leave. Why?

There is no doubt many in England feel the EU is a “bureaucratic monstrosity”, But what exactly do they mean by this? But most of these relate to the terms of UK membership of the Single European Market, where standardisation is needed to ensure a level playing field for trading nations.

None of these, it seems to me, are reasons to go to war with Europe, and deny the benefits of the single market which has undoubtedly boosted prosperity. Trade within Europe has doubled since 1992, thanks to the abolition of tariffs and barriers to the free movement of goods and services in Europe.

What has changed?

European Union (EU) has remained at heart undemocratic, protectionist, centralist and over-bureaucratic.  The EU launched a single currency and the organization now acts as a parliament passing regulations and laws while maintaining an overblown and expensive bureaucracy.

Simply put, unless there was uniformity across all member countries, the aspiration of a single currency and economy, could never hope to be realised.

Here are some hard facts:

What happens if Britain votes for Brexit?

On the day of Brexit, the Great Repeal Bill will come into force and end the supremacy of EU law over Britain’s own legislation.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has raised the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum because most Scots voted to remain in the EU.

Spain’s Government has also called for joint control of Gibraltar and Sinn Fein has demanded a vote to unite Ireland and Northern Ireland.

There is ongoing uncertainty over what will happen once Britain leaves the EU because it has to make new trade agreements with the rest of the world. Under EU rules the UK cannot negotiate a trade deal until after it leaves the bloc.

The Brexit vote has led to higher import costs but was good news for exporters who had struggled with the high value of the pound.

Now Britain has voted to leave the EU, it will no longer have to contribute billions of pounds a year towards the European Union’s budget.

Britain is now free to take back control of its borders in order to curb immigration and increase security. The UK will no longer have to accept ‘free movement of people’ from Europe if this country leaves the EU’s single market.

Companies based in the UK may decide to relocate if they can no longer access the single market.

Eurosceptic populist parties across the Continent have delightedly seized on Brexit in an attempt to further their own campaigns for independence.

Scare tactics and rumours will intensify from both sides and it will be hard to find clarity.

As a result Brexit negotiations will be made more difficult because EU bosses will want to discourage other countries from following suit.

It looks just as likely Scotland Wales and Norther Ireland that voted to stay could find themselves out of the EU by staying in the UK.

The EU has said that Britain will have to allow the free movement of EU workers if it decides to stay in the internal market. Mrs May looks set to take Britain out of the EU’s single market in order to end the free movement of EU workers that goes with it.

There will be a saving ( depending on which contribution figures you believe of about £136m a week. This equates to  less than 40% of the amount splashed on the battlebus.

MAP

You may rest assured no matter what way these negotiations go they will be very expensive (both politically and economically)  and they will  “mostly amount to hot air”, rather than concrete plans for the future of the European Union or the United Kingdom’s.

“Whatever the UK vote is in the end , we must take long hard look on the future of the European Union.

The election of Donald Trump as the next US President means that Britain is now at the “front of the queue” for an US trade deal. If you believe that

june-in-review-3.jpg

May also said that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.”

Making threats to the rest of Europe and cozying up to Trump (I hope she wears a cricket box for that first meeting).

It’s the sheer arrogance of the current government to say it’s all about taking back control of our borders and laws.’

Having her cake and eating it. Not on your nanny.

There will be what the EU want and you can bet your life they have their demands.

And if she isn’t going to have her own way – and for the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ yeah – try to get those FTA’s if they know you’ll walk out of them when your toys thrown out of the pram – that means anything she signs isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Ignoring the fact that, schools and hospitals struggling with budget cuts , a pound worth 20% less than it was in June 2016 and a Scotland that would appear to be now set yet again on the road to independence.

I think the cleaner the break the better.

Change hurts and change is happening at a faster rate than ever before.

In effect you are being sold down the river. Your lives have now been designated as “negotiation capital”. Britannia does not rule the waves. Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REDEFINE HUMANITY

13 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Modern day life., Social Media., Space., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The New year 2017, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, War, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

( Follow up read of three minutes to the last Post)

Humanity has achieved its current level of freedom following centuries of sacrifices and struggles, which we are now wittingly or unwittingly transferring to Artificial Intelligence.Afficher l'image d'origine

For obvious reasons it will not be us that ventures out into the Universe, but a self-sustaining machine equipped with all human knowledge, that may decide not to return as it acquires more knowledge beyond our comprehension.

No matter: We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.Afficher l'image d'origine

We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is already changing our health and leading to a “quantified” self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.

The possibilities of billions of people connected by mobile devices, with unprecedented processing power, storage capacity, and access to knowledge, are unlimited. And these possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.

It’s time to let go of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights and to redefine them, effectively addressing people’s needs, not ideology, should dictate the new definition.Afficher l'image d'origine

Centuries ago human knowledge increased slowly, so politics and economics changed at a leisurely pace too. Today our knowledge is increasing a breakneck speed, and theoretically we should understand the world better and better. But the very opposite happening.

Our new-found knowledge leads to faster economic, social and political changes; in an attempt to understand what is happening, we accelerate the accumulation of knowledge, which leads to faster and greater upheavals.

Consequently we are less and less able to make sense of the present or forecast the future. While the outside world is changing, the humanitarian sector has simply not been able to adapt to new challenges.

Digital fabrication technologies, meanwhile, are interacting with the biological world on a daily basis. Engineers, designers, and architects are combining computational design, additive manufacturing, materials engineering, and synthetic biology to pioneer a symbiosis between microorganisms, our bodies, the products we consume, and even the buildings we inhabit.

Change has a way of scaring people—scaring them into inaction.

I am a great enthusiast and early adopter of technology, but sometimes I wonder whether the inexorable integration of technology in our lives could diminish some of our quintessential human capacities, such as compassion and cooperation. Our relationship with our smartphones is a case in point. Constant connection may deprive us of one of life’s most important assets: the time to pause, reflect, and engage in meaningful conversation.

Neither technology nor the disruption that comes with it is an exogenous force over which humans have no control.Afficher l'image d'origine

All of us are responsible for guiding its evolution, in the decisions we make on a daily basis as citizens, consumers, and investors. We should thus grasp the opportunity and power we have to shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution and direct it toward a future that reflects our common. objectives and values.

We therefore must redefine what it is to be human.

Should we view prosperity in a society as the accumulation of solutions to human problems. Instead of measuring growth through GDP.

Perhaps growth should be measured by the rate at which new solutions to human problems become available and the degree to which we make those solutions broadly accessible.

The alternative is to watch as animals and plants go extinct, water becomes scarce, weather hits more extremes, conflicts over land and resources increase, and life becomes more difficult for people everywhere.

We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them not just to control Artificial Intelligence., but all technology that is designed for Profit sake only.

If we connect the dots it is certain that “People, Planet, Profit” will be the new tomorrow.

Now that everything is digital Data Privacy is abstract, There’s an air of resignation around the concept of privacy these days.

It’s about the ones and zeros, the metadata underlying our everyday digital lives.

As the physical, digital, and biological worlds continue to converge, new technologies and platforms will increasingly enable citizens to engage with governments, voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts, and even circumvent the supervision of public authorities.

As the human population continues to increase, animal numbers are falling it’s about protecting what is yours, by creating digital spaces where you have control.

There’s a strong correlation.

A new definition of Human/ Technological rights will lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny.

It is incumbent on us all to make sure the latter prevails.

Meanwhile, changes in the tools of war – including drones and automated weapons – point to a more remote and anonymous form of warfare. Continued civilian suffering in conflicts in Syria, South Sudan and Yemen is a sobering reminder of the international community’s continued failure.

Piecemeal reforms amount to tinkering around the edges.

Only when we realize that we are for the moment all on the same planet can all enjoy the many gifts Earth provides.Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASKS: WHERE IS THE VOICE OF THE WORLD’S YOUTH ?

12 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Brexit., Capitalism, Climate Change., Communication., Education, European Union., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Modern Day Communication., Natural World Disasters, Nuclear power., Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Politics., Privatization, Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The New year 2017, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., USA Presidential Election, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

( Eight minute read.)

When you look at the state of the world you have to ask yourself have we all lost our marbles, and where is the protest voice of the Young.Afficher l'image d'origine

You could say that we are well along in the process of causing our own extinction and the planet has officially entered its sixth mass extinction event.

Such a view is now beginning to occasionally find its way into mainstream consciousness.

The situation is already so serious with so many self-reinforcing feedback loops already in play it seem we are on a rolling coaster, incapable of acting,or if we do, it will be after the event, if there is anything left to save.

We have a vast choice of the end-of-humanity scenarios to pick from, to derail life as we know it.

For example:

A self-induced catastrophe such as nuclear war or a bioengineered pandemic. Disruptive innovation and technological changes, Solar storms, Cosmic collisions, Super volcanoes, Rising sea levels, overcrowding, denuded resources to mention just a few.

We’re driving to extinction at least 150 species each day.

Nuclear power plants require grid-tied electricity, cooling water and people getting paychecks. Without all these, they melt down, thus immersing all life on earth in ionizing radiation.

As if the above is not enough we are now selling or most valuable resource – Intelligence. Afficher l'image d'origine

So what can be done?

First of all, internal and external issues are more linked than ever. Now, more than ever, we need principled leaders with an understanding of history.

Freedom and the rule of law are under threat.

Why?

Because while the world teeters on a precipice of being plundered by Capitalist Artificial intelligence. A new reality is taking shape: war is called peace, a bloody victory is a step towards reconciliation, and a terrorist regime is a legitimate power.

The further we removed ourselves from the world the worse will be our encounter with the world beyond.

Ignoring the unregulated introduction of Artificial Intelligence.

All causing disillusionment and confusion with the great visions of the future, all are demanding that we cope as one with the present reality with our ability to protest hijacked by Internet petitions sites that are ignored or focused on parochial problems.

An individuals future is shaped ultimately by environmental factors.

The year 2017 opens on a world laid to waste. Some areas are littered with mass graves and there doesn’t seem to be any big global rush to reduce emissions as a result of the Paris Climate Agreement.

In the end, no amount of research can do much to prevent permafrost melting realising, methane – a greenhouse gas 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a shorter timescale into the atmosphere, warming it further, which in turn causes more permafrost to melt, and so on.

Scientists estimate up to 13 percent of global carbon emissions come from deforestation – greater than emissions from every car, truck and plane on the planet combined.

Because Globalism is an ideology, and its struggle with nationalism it will shape the coming era.

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

Donald J. Trump five months short of seventy-one will take office on January 20. His election tips us into the unknown threatened disengagement from the world.

Mother Teresa in the Uk wants disengagement from the EU.

Both are successful alpha personalities.  Both work in progress—“Everything is negotiable”—both displaying a single-minded determination to impose their vision on the world, an irrational belief in unreasonable goals, bordering at times on lunacy.

From Brexit to Trump to the rise of nationalist parties across Europe, the old division between left and right is giving way to a battle between self-styled patriots and confounded globalists.

For decades, trade, industrialization and demographics produced a virtuous circle of rising prosperity. By the 2000s, globalism was triumphant.

IT IS NOW OVERREACHED AND BLIND to the nationalist backlash, not to mention the new form of Globalisation – Artificial Intelligence.

Many globalists now assume that the discontent is largely driven by stagnant wages and inequality. If people are upset about immigration, they reason, it is largely because they fear competition with low-wage workers and not the technological Revolution that is replacing their need to work in the first place. Yet their faith in open borders remains unshaken.

That crisis has woken up globalists to the flaws of globalization but not it seems to me the pending exploration of Apps run on Algorithms that are designed to create profit for the Monopolies of the Internet.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, to mention a few.

Many of the tech industry’s biggest companies, like Amazon, Google, IBM and Microsoft, are jockeying to become the go-to company for A.I. In the industry’s lingo, the companies are engaged in a “platform war.”

The company that controls A.I. will steer the tech industry for years to come.

In fact, much of the backlash against immigration (and globalism) is not economic but cultural: Many people still care about their own versions of national identity and mistrust global institutions such as the EU.

These voters are bothered less by competition from immigrants than by their perceived effect on the country’s linguistic, religious and cultural norms. About how changes to “the composition of the local population” would affect “their neighborhoods, schools and workplaces.”

They might have their priorities slightly wrong.

Is the new nationalism a cloak for ethnic and religious exclusion?

New nationalism often thrives on xenophobia.

Globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia.

There must be some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach. In short, there is ample reason for skepticism about whether the new nationalists can prove themselves a genuinely secular, democratic alternative to globalism.

If globalists are to regain the public’s trust, they will need to re-examine their own policies. Political capital might be better invested in preserving existing trade pacts, not passing new ones. Many European globalists blame the euro’s crisis on too little integration, not too much. But pressing for a more federal Europe could further alienate voters who “do not share our Euro-enthusiasm,”

Borders use to mean something, but this version of civilization is the least sustainable of them all. We cannot sustain the unsustainable forever in a world more interconnected.

In fact, 2017 is looking pretty bad…Russia dominating the world order. But it too will pop. New cyber attacks.

In this context, the basic principles of democratic life in both Europe and the U.S. — truth, fact-based reality, justice and the rule of law — are being gradually eroded.

The most important thing is to understand what might steer us towards a more secure world order, where respect for the rule of law and for international bodies are granted their proper place.

European powers may choose to find strength in their union. Brought together by the need to combat those who threaten fundamental European values, Paris, Berlin, Rome and the Benelux countries could launch new initiatives to bring about real European cooperation.

Should these institutions find themselves unable to take a stand and act according to global interests and basic values, there is no reason why 2017 should not continue in the same vein as 2016, and the consequences may be irreversible.

It’s time to abandon our usual pessimism about the state of the planet and the course of history. We’ve got many challenges to overcome, but it might be a good idea to adopt a bit of youthful optimism when it comes to confronting them.

We need to create a hope insurgency. 

Despite half of the world’s youth living on less than two dollars a day.

A social media revolution is unfolding before our eyes, forever changing the way we connect. This generation, the most interconnected generation ever, continues to grow rapidly, but its voice is diluted by Social media making the challenges they face are ever more daunting.

We need to ask ourselves:

How can we can empower youth to drive social progress. From crowd-sourcing initiatives and mobile-projects to innovation jams and social media campaigns.

Whatever changes you would like to effect in our society has to begin with you.Afficher l'image d'origine

The best leaders the world has ever known are the reformers who were accountable and responsible for their own change.

The commitment for change has no days off, does not allow for excuses, does not allow for pardons. If you want to see change you must first start within.

It’s that simple and it’s that profound.

So where is the Global YOUTH Outrage?Afficher l'image d'origine

Before there were blogs and tweets – even Wikipedia – to turn to, the mainstream media held a monopoly over knowledge and news which was hard to challenge. Now all knowledge is being collected by Google to feed Artificial Intelligent Algorithms.

THE world must change to meet the wave of popular uprising which catapulted Donald Trump to power and brought about Brexit. The world can be changed as much by education as by being harangued. It’s time for international leaders to bury their liberal attitudes and address the concerns of the masses. It is time for government to act in the long-term interest of the people, even if they do not agree in the short-term.

The twin pillars of liberalism and globalisation which have dominated politics over the past generation must adapt to a “world transformed”.

Society is changing rapidly and I fear that many organisations are failing to notice and are being left behind. I suspect that the scale of such a change can only really be appreciated in hindsight.

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 think not.

WILL THE WORLD OF 2052 BE A BETTER WORLD?

It’s important to note that people 35 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.

Billion will have some level of Internet access, be much better informed, and be increasingly helped by local solar energy. They will have many fewer children. They will be largely urban (except for the minority still living off the land). They will grapple with overall effects of climate damage, but those in dense urban areas will likely have little firsthand experience with the damage caused by the erratic weather (though plenty of secondhand information via electronic media). They will live with the unpleasant knowledge that even more climate impacts lie ahead.

There will be huge differences between people and Artificial Intelligence.

There is be no such thing as the Free Market.

People power hopefully will have transformed the world. From a psychological perspective, probably no, because the future prospects in 2052 will be grim.

University is where such simplistic notions are supposed to be challenged, but they now educate for the market place and not for Intelligence.

The winners of tomorrow will be those organizations with strong leaders who demonstrate agility, authenticity, connectivity to their talent, and sustainability.

By 2018, at least 50 percent of developers will include A.I. features in what they create. The goal is to capture all human knowledge and turn it in saleable AI. It’s where the capitalist market is headed.

No worries, you might say: you could just program it to make

The superintelligent machine manufactures some as-yet-uninvented raw-computing material (call it “computronium”) and uses that to check each doubt. But each new doubt yields further digital doubts, and so on, until the entire earth is converted to computronium.

When a computer became capable of independently devising ways to achieve goals, it would very likely be capable of introspection—and thus able to modify its software and make itself more intelligent. In short order, such a computer would be able to design its own hardware.

If this sounds absurd to you, you’re not alone.

I am one protesting voice in the wilderness of the virtual reality, but I am sure there are billions.

The problem is unifying them into one collective protest to demand that the United nations pass a people’s resolution to give all artificial Intelligence and technological advances a stamp of human approval.

All comments, suggestions, welcome, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IN FIVE YEARS, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A ROYAL FAMILY OR UNITED KINGDOM.

09 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., The New year 2017, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

( A three-minute read) Afficher l'image d'origine

The UK anthem got me thinking…

If you were starting a 21st-century democracy from scratch you wouldn’t dream of having a hereditary head of state.

These days this is undoubtedly true, it is also true that the history of the past 50 years ago shows that starting democracies from scratch is very hard.

“Is there any point in the Royal family?”

The Royals represent and reiterate that the class system is still firmly in place in the UK.

If the monarchy is to continue in modern Britain they will have to adapt and change. The modern Royal Family must continue to live more in touch with their subjects if they are to survive as an institution in a democratic 21st Century Britain.

Leaving the EU won’t affect the Royals it will however change the Brit culture and add much-needed collective synergy aspiring for common aims.

So is a Royal Family still relevant today, it’s all about equality and right now, so are they just a parasitic anarchic family blessed with vast riches or are they essential to a country with no written constitution.

It is hard to shake off the debilitating tag when the head of state and her hangers-on attain their positions not through popularity, talent or industry, but by the mere fact of their birth.

Presently England is recognized as a monarchy..BRITS ARE SUBJECTS OF THE MONARCH. Ultimately the Parliament and the army are under control of her highness.

The Royal family aren’t elected, which can be seen as undemocratic.

They inherit their status and for this to apply to a nation that’s so heavy on encouraging democracy it may be seen as hypocritical.

They cost the taxpayer approximately 52p each year

Queen Elizabeth II, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres. The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx). She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory.

The Queen may be a constitutional monarch, in which her roles as the head of the state are mostly just symbolic, as she occasionally represents Britain in her state visits – so her holidays are covered as well?

Royalists will say that having a Monarchy makes no difference to the validity of democracy. Just so long as the Monarchy doesn’t interfere with the democratic process of the nation then they are nothing more than national figureheads with no real power or influence.

This may well be so.

Yet in theory, at least, she has considerable powers: to wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament and more.

They will also say that the monarchy is needed for tourism and the economy. That’s NOT what it’s there for. It’s there for political reasons.

To keep Britain’s monarchy does not entail keeping it in its current form. Britain would be a lot stronger if its head of state were elected.

Why?

Because its entangled history of democracy and monarchy has left Britain with a highly centralized constitution that locates the nation’s sovereignty in “the king in parliament”—a situation that gives the leader of the majority party in the legislature a disturbingly large part of the power that was once vested entirely in the monarchy.

This situation could be remedied quite easily by keeping the crown but changing its constitutional basis to one along the lines of that most excellent of countries, Belgium.

Belgium is a popular monarchy. Its constitution makes clear that sovereignty rests in the people; the King (or Queen, though it has yet to have one)—who is King of the Belgians, a people, not Belgium, a territory— becomes monarch not by right, but by taking an oath to uphold the people’s constitution.

Without a written constitution the question is: Who elected the royal family, they are self-made, what makes them royal? After all basically they are German immigrants.

I have nothing against them personally, as I am a humanist at heart and these people are simply other human beings born into their roles.

Britain has a class system which to be honest is going to rip that country apart and the royal family are a symbol of that class system and divide will ultimately dissolve.

All that says;

They are just some human being, related to every other living organism on our Earth in some way. The fact that a monarchy is not intellectually justifiable does not mean that it does not have a stabilising role.

To have a real sovereign Nation you need to be free of the monarchy in order to be truly free. To bow down and call somebody ‘your highness?’ It doesn’t make sense to me.

The case against hereditary appointments in public life is straightforward: they are incompatible with democracy and meritocracy.

The second pitfall is subtler: in the belief that the monarchy forms some kind of constitutional backstop against an over mighty Parliament, Britain is strangely relaxed about the lack of serious checks on its government.

Because it has no written constitution; the current government has plans to repeal a law implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, which many Britons recklessly consider a nuisance rather than a safeguard.

A change to the British constitution which made the kingdom’s various people’s sovereign and the head of state the guardian of that sovereignty, not the source of it, would be a welcome plank in the more general programme of reform that the British state clearly needs. The trouble with hereditary succession and leaving the European Union is that you never know quite who or what you’re going to get.

The fourth verse of the UK anthem reads “rebellious Scot to crush” just thought that’s worth mentioning! The Royal family was the most ruthless biggest crooks at some point.

Pressing Articular 50 to disconnect from the EU in a world that is all about connectivity to my mind is Artificial Intelligence personified.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THE EU GOING TO FIND IT CHALLENGING TO PRESENT A UNITED FRONT TOWARDS THE UK EXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

04 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., The New year 2017, The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

( A six-minute read)
It’s not long now before we are going to witness two events that will shape the future.Afficher l'image d'origineI am not talking about climate change or Artificial Intelligence rather the arrival of Donald Trump and the beginning of the UK negotiations to leave the EU.

There is little point in addressing the Donald Trump scenario.

A stupid, crass, vile racist, unintelligent, thug that is the laughing-stock of the world will be the US President with his finger on the red button.

What to expect is anyone guess.

If you ask me about 30%+ of Americans live in an alternate, non-fact based reality in which Right-Wing Propaganda is FACT, Lies = Truth.

“My Twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth.” or  “I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.

In a weird way both events are connected by Artificial Intelligence/ Money.Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine

One elected with False Twitter News and the other Nigel Farage fooled the English electorate to vote out of the EU with a pack lies.

Anyway back to the Question:

Until its official withdrawal, the UK will remain a fully fledged member state. However, UK involvement in EU decision-making will quickly become marginal.

UK officials in top management positions will likely have to leave.

(1,126 British nationals are employed in the European Commission (3.8% of the total. 73 British MEPs sit in the Parliament (out of 751 in total). Three EP committees have British chairs: Development; Internal Market and Consumer Protection; and Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.)

Of course the EU is going to find it, if not impossible to negotiate with the UK.

Because the meaning of Brexit is yet to become clear to the Uk and the EU.

The UK wants to keep the trade relationship with EU members as it is today (free trade) but significantly change the rules surrounding the free movement of people between the EU and the UK.

The real problem, however, is that when you think about the interests and constraints of both sides, it becomes hard to envision any deal that all parties can accept — unless UK negotiators are able to go back to their constituents and sell a deal that falls well short of what was initially promised.

On the EU side, Brexit will change how EU institutions operate not just during the withdrawal period, but also afterwards. It will affect the balance of power among member states and therefore the policies that the EU would pursue.

Depend on the answers, the Union finds to its current crises – stabilising the euro, finding a common line in refugee policy, stemming the surge in Euroscepticism – and on its economic recovery.

Hardening European attitudes is that they do not want to encourage copy-cat referenda in their own countries.

If an agreement is reached, the treaties that currently govern the relationship between the EU and the UK (as a member state) will expire. If no agreement is reached, the treaties will automatically expire two years from when Article 50 was invoked.

 How will the UK and EU negotiate their split?
Afficher l'image d'origine

It’s important to remember that:

The British referendum is not legally binding: The UK government must initiate “Brexit” by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

It’s also important to understand:

That any agreement will need to be ratified by the parliament of every member state, which means every EU country would have a veto. From a negotiation perspective, this not only increases the amount of time needed to reach a comprehensive agreement but also lessens the likelihood of a deal. At least 65% of the population of the EU, must vote in favor of the agreement.

The most immediate and important challenge is to reach a new agreement covering economic relations with the EU. In addition, as a member of the EU, the UK participates in the EU’s trade agreements with non-EU countries: leaving the EU may force the UK to renegotiate these agreements. The EU may not prevent the UK negotiating and entering into such treaties providing that they will not come into force until the UK withdraws from the EU.

There’s an infinite number of potential outcomes in a negotiation like this.

There is also an option of extending negotiations beyond the two-year time limit, but it requires the consent of all countries in the EU.

The UK will have to ask for what it wants in ways that allow the EU to make concessions without setting dangerous precedents.

If no agreement is reached within two years and the EU treaties expire, the default is that the UK and EU would trade according to World Trade Organization rules. Notably, these rules cover only trade, not the many other issues the two sides need to negotiate.

As there is no precedent it is important to bear in mind that the internal process on the EU’s side of the table is itself being negotiated.

No matter what it means the UK is starting from a weak bargaining position.

The UK is due to hold the EU’s rotating presidency from July to December 2017.This will become not only politically untenable. Article 50 disqualifies the UK ‘from chairing any Council meetings on the withdrawal negotiations.

Since the UK joined the EU in 1973, trade policy has played a minor role in UK politics. Now its on the top of its negotiations to leave the EU.

I find it hard to believe that back channel conversations are not under way.

The UK needs to reach some kind of deal with the EU before Brexit happens and puts it in a weak bargaining position.

Brexit could or will alter the balance of power within the EU in other ways too. It could strengthen Germany’s position, shift alliances, and potentially either strengthen or weaken smaller states.

It will result in an increased regulatory burden on EU businesses weaker copyright protection in the EU. A smaller EU budget as a whole, with increased member-state contributions A stronger push for tax harmonisation and higher taxation of financial transactions A less support for nuclear and unconventional energy sources (e.g. shale gas).

The EU is based on the idea of a single market, characterized by four freedoms. They are the free movement, across borders, of goods, services, capital, and people.

( It is estimated that there are currently 2.9 million EU nationals resident in the UK.)
The actual position of such individuals is underpinned by the Human Rights Act and will depend on length of residence and other factors, but Government intentions for both UK and EU citizens remain far from clear.

Brexit could have a domino effect whereby Eurosceptic forces in countries such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden follow the UK and hold their own referenda,

eventually leading to the EU’s disintegration. Should Britain thrive post Brexit,
while the EU stagnates economically, such centrifugal forces would be strengthened.

Given the fact that a “no deal” is possible and that a deal might disappoint UK voters anyway, might there not be a path toward reversing Brexit? There may come a time when the only outcome that allows all parties to declare victory entails no Brexit.

Other member states will find any UK attempt to push a specific policy agenda unacceptable and would be unwilling to accommodate UK interests.

And of course there is the question of how do you do a deal when there remains the question of whether the UK has a prime minister with a mandate. Will a general election will be required prior to any agreement?

The UK is one of the leading Member States in securing funding for research and innovation and various other projects, with a typical aggregate value of £1-1.5 billion per year.

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund: The UK has been allocated €22.5 billion for the period 2014-20.

European Structural and Investment Funds: The bulk of UK funding via this channel comes through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which has been allocated €5.8 billion of EU funds and the European Social Fund (ESF) with an allocation of €4.9 billion.

There is one thing for certain: We are going to witness opportunists counting their fingers after shaking hands with another opportunists.

All comments welcome. All likes chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THERE IS ONLY ONE NEW YEAR RESOLUTION WORTH WHILE.

27 Tuesday Dec 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Facebook, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Modern Day Communication., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The New year 2017, The world to day., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WiFi communication.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Your New Year Resolution)

Good vs. bad. Right vs. wrong. Human beings begin to learn the difference before we learn to speak—and thankfully so. We owe much of our success as a species to our capacity for moral reasoning. It’s the glue that holds human social groups together, the key to our fraught but effective ability to cooperate.

We are (most believe) the lone moral agents on planet Earth—but this may not last. The day may come soon when we are forced to share this status with a new kind of being, one whose intelligence is of our own design.Afficher l'image d'origine

As awesome as the internet has been we are on the most part digital immigrants because it is destroying the sense of community.

The Internet is the forerunner of artificial intelligence which is set to change all of us and the very planet we all live on.

The survival of our species may depend on instilling values in AI, but doing so could also ensure harmonious robo-relations in more prosaic settings.

We are only just glimpsing the tip its potential. Our very DNA destiny is changing. (the root of intelligence)

We haven’t just been redefining what we mean by AI—we’ve been redefining what it means to be human. We’ll spend the next decade—indeed, perhaps the next century—in a permanent identity crisis, constantly asking ourselves what humans are for.

The greatest benefit of the arrival of artificial intelligence is that AIs will help define humanity. We need AIs to tell us who we are. But on its present connectivity form of Capitalistic algorithms its trajectory is set to fail both people and the planet.

At the moment artificial Intelligence might seem banal and it may well remain so for some time to come, till we have Neuromorphic computers.

Algorithms live on the a diet of information.

They are black box of the future, impossible for outsiders to know what is going on inside them.

Whether you are black white, man or woman, over 60th, married or divorced, catholic or muslim, use an Apple phone or not, whether you are on Facebook, whether you have criminal record or not down to the zip code you live in they are deciding what price to charge you.

Facebook for instance has a dossier of more the 2 billion people.

Buried deep within its site is a setting called “Ad Preferences”

It logs everything. It also buys data about its users, and used all this data to target the very ADs you look at, which are follow you around with an algorithm from one site to the next.

Much of the current debate on algorithmic culture revolves around the role that humans play in the design of algorithms – that is whether a creator’s subconscious beliefs and biases are encoded into the algorithms that make decisions about us.

Accountability is the important issue here.

Do we want an echo chamber of our social media feeds that are creating a striking gap between our real interested and their digital reflection.

Ghettoizing all of us into prescribed category of demographically content.

Algorithmic determinism will be the curse of the globe.Afficher l'image d'origine

Our Identities are crucial to our survival. To day Artificial Intelligence algorithms are already embedded in almost every aspect of everyday living with thousands of algorithmic decisions being made about each of us every day.

The Question is: Are we supposed to keep track and be responsible for all of them.

What relationship between us and Ai do we want.?

So here is a worthwhile New year Resolution.

We still have a great deal of work to do to address the concerns and risks a foot with our growing reliance on AI systems.

Because AI algorithms are being asked to make high-stakes decisions, the impact of successful cyber attacks on AI systems could be much more devastating than you envisage. Before we put AI algorithms in control of high-stakes decisions, we must be much more confident that these systems can survive large-scale cyber attacks.

To promote its responsible use and “verification” of the behavior of software systems. That systems built automatically via statistical “machine learning” methods behave properly. To ensure good behavior when an AI system encounters unforeseen situations.

Send the Secretary General of United Nations an Email everyday.

Requesting a world people’s resolution:

That All Technology must carry a universal stamp of UN approval. Afficher l'image d'origine

The prospect of out-of-control super intelligences that threaten the survival of humanity will be down to where humans have failed to correctly instruct the AI algorithm in how it should behave.

Send an email (Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General):sgcentral@un.org; dujarric@un.org; haqf@un.org; maestracci@un.org; kaneko@un.org; gillmann@un.org; palanivelu@un.org; contactnewscentre@un.org

Call the Secretary General’s office in UN Headquarter in New York

1-212-963-7162
Fax 1-212-963-7055

Send a letter to his office:
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
United Nations Headquarter
405 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017 USA

It is time for the United Nations to chart a sensible path for technology to create transparent and accountable AI in order to improve humanity’s collective future.

We must not put AI algorithms in control of potentially-dangerous systems until we can provide a high degree of assurance that they will behave safely and properly.

These issues are becoming increasingly important as more people discover the digital world and find the need for anonymity in this new society. Current rules regarding anonymity on the internet are not global and are severely dependent on the opinion of the service providers who run the servers. The international nature of the net simply makes it impossible to enforce the laws of every country individually. Freedom of expression must be enshrined in all forms of software.

That future national and international legislation on the internet allows the vital service of anonymity to remain. This will only function on an international scale if both lawmakers and net users work together and try to figure out a solution.

The ethical issues related to the possible future creation of machines with general intellectual capabilities far outstripping those of humans are quite distinct from any ethical problems arising in current automation and information systems.

Such super intelligence would not be just another technological development; it would be the most important invention ever made, and would lead to explosive progress in all scientific and technological fields, as the super intelligence would conduct research with superhuman efficiency. To the extent that ethics is a cognitive pursuit, a super intelligence could also easily surpass humans in the quality of its moral thinking.

However, it would be up to the designers of the super intelligence to specify its original motivations. Since the super intelligence may become unstoppable powerful because of its intellectual superiority and the technologies it could develop, it is crucial that it be provided with human-friendly motivations.

We will probably one day have to take the gamble of super intelligence no matter what. But once in existence, a super intelligence could help us reduce or eliminate other existential risks, such as the risk that advanced nanotechnology will be used by humans in warfare or terrorism, a serious threat to the long-term survival of intelligent life on earth.

If we get to super intelligence first, we may avoid this risk from nanotechnology and many others. If, on the other hand, we get nanotechnology first, we will have to face both the risks from nanotechnology and, if these risks are survived, also the risks from super intelligence.

The overall risk seems to be minimized by implementing super intelligence, with great care, as soon as possible.

Any Other suggestions welcome, all like button clicks will be put in the bind.

THE BEADY EYES TOP PREDICTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2017.

21 Wednesday Dec 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern day life., Technology, The Future, The New year 2017, Unanswered Questions., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

 

( A ten minute read if you are over fifty, a lifetime read for those under.)

I could go down the road of Predictions like: Afficher l'image d'origineIn Germany, Angela Merkel looks likely to win re-election or there will be a Climate-Change-Driven Refugee Crisis, or there will be a Cyber war the West v Russia or England will come to its sense and vote again, or that the United Nations and the European Union will reform.

But we are standing on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before.Afficher l'image d'origine

Now it’s true that we do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society.

However it is already changing not only what we do but also who we are.

It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships.

As the physical, digital, and biological worlds continue to converge, new technologies and platforms will increasingly enable citizens to engage with governments, voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts, and even circumvent the supervision of public authorities.

Governments will increasingly face pressure to change their current approach to public engagement and policy making, as their central role of conducting policy diminishes owing to new sources of competition and the redistribution and decentralization of power that new technologies make possible.

Given the rapid pace of change and broad impacts, legislators and regulators are being challenged to an unprecedented degree and for the most part are proving unable to cope.

It is already having a profound impact the nature of national and international security, affecting both the probability and the nature of conflict. The distinction between war and peace, combatant and non-combatant, and even violence and nonviolence (think cyber warfare) is becoming uncomfortably blurry.

It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. The breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance.

The possibilities of billions of people connected by mobile devices, with unprecedented processing power, storage capacity, and access to knowledge, are unlimited. And these possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.

More than 30 percent of the global population now uses social media platforms to connect, learn, and share information. In an ideal world, these interactions would provide an opportunity for cross-cultural understanding and cohesion. However, they can also create and propagate unrealistic expectations as to what constitutes success for an individual or a group, as well as offer opportunities for extreme ideas and ideologies to spread.

Digital fabrication technologies, meanwhile, are interacting with the biological world on a daily basis. Engineers, designers, and architects are combining computational design, additive manufacturing, materials engineering, and synthetic biology to pioneer a symbiosis between microorganisms, our bodies, the products we consume, and even the buildings we inhabit.

AI in recent years, driven by exponential increases in computing power and by the availability of vast amounts of data, from software used to discover new drugs to algorithms used to predict our cultural interests.Afficher l'image d'origine

Our lives are accelerating even faster, but the largest beneficiaries of innovation tend to be the providers of intellectual and physical capital—the innovators, shareholders, and investors—which explains the rising gap in wealth between those dependent on capital versus labor. Yield greater inequality.

The speed of current breakthroughs has no historical precedent.

Next year promises to be one of the most exciting and tragic in the history of the world with tech more overpowering, and the global climate more complex.

Populism will remain on the ballot, with great powers brace for change, challenges loom for news organizations, and the debate on automation and job creation will continue.Afficher l'image d'origine

We are in the midst of serious challenges that threaten the whole world, and which require collective responsibility: extreme poverty, climate change, and the refugee crisis.

Even after an opposition defeat in east Aleppo, President Bashar al-Assad may struggle to reassert control over a fragmented Syria.

The conflict in Ukraine’s east will remain unresolved.

The West will become even more flummoxed by Putin.

Nationalism, political uncertainty, and stunted trade will create new headaches in 2017.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency represents a seismic shift in American politics, an event with implications nearly impossible to predict. A Trump White House may defy predictability.

Russia has been most blatant in supporting France’s far-right National Front, which received an 11 million euro loan in 2014 from a Moscow-based bank and wants another 27 million euros to fight next year’s elections.

In an increasingly connected world, the UK Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50.

Deeply entrenched mindsets and beliefs sustain the culture of violence and impunity – the need to radically shift the consciousness of people is what the world has been missing.

We must release the tentacles of our false securities and interrupt the world as we know it. We must assume that anywhere we live or anything we are doing can change or disintegrate.

Widespread government access to encrypted communications has the potential to demolish internet privacy and devastate security.

It’s not all doom.  There will be new food retailers with brands to speak to and advertise to consumers. There will be edible cannabis for medicinal use. Drones Will Deliver Pizza (but Not Toilet Paper)

There will be a shift in focus from broad-based attacks to more targeted attacks against specific firms or individuals. New rules for U.S. internet service providers will unleash a flurry of lawsuits.

There will be a new kind of consciousness – one where violence will be resisted until it is unthinkable.

I wonder whether the inexorable integration of technology in our lives could diminish some of our quintessential human capacities, such as compassion and cooperation. Our relationship with our smartphones is a case in point.

Constant connection may deprive us of one of life’s most important assets: the time to pause, reflect, and engage in meaningful conversation.

We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them.

Debates about fundamental issues such as the impact on our inner lives of the loss of control over our data will only intensify in the years ahead.

Barack Obama Will Get a $20 Million Book Deal.  The transparency in the UN will be vetoed.  The UK will have to vote again  between being a British citizen, serving our local community and people, and being a Global Citizen, taking responsibility for their world as a whole?

Technology it’s here to stay.

The global dance of connection is both a disruption, a curse, with all beat, no heart.  

Internet, artificial intelligence, robotics… all lead to one fundamental trend almost absent from the political debate despite its potential social impact.

These transformations (the premises of which we already feel) will produce their full effect after one or two decades, so there is still time to rationally analyze their consequences, without showing complete panic in regard to their extreme evolutionary perspectives.

Since there is still time to calmly consider the problems of AI, which is perhaps one of the most serious that humanity has ever faced.

I recommend the rapid creation of think-tanks focused on this technological revolution, groups composed of citizens, politicians, scientists, psychologists and … why not even science fiction writers, who will consider uninhibited possible future ways to keep human beings at the heart of our future.

From human enhancement to human … obsolescence?

This is no time for Amen. The only way forward is with a technologist’s mindset.

Happy new year.  

Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYES: 2017 WILL BE THE YEAR WHEN DEMOCRACY WILL BE UNDER ATTACK FROM ENTRENCHED POWER MORE THAN EVER.

20 Tuesday Dec 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Brexit., Capitalism, Climate Change., European Commission., European Union., Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Politics., Social Media., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The Internet., The New year 2017, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

As Digital technologies and digital communications are permeating every aspect of life we seem to be living in both a hopeful but also difficult times.

The instinctive tendency to categorise the world into “us”and “them” is becoming more and more difficult to overcome but traditional power structures are changing.

Current institutions and political systems are out of date.

People are taking matters into their own hands and are taking the initiative to organise public affairs themselves. On the one hand, this is because they are losing confidence in politics; and on the other hand, it is because some issues are simply not being dealt with by governments any more. Afficher l'image d'origine

Thanks to the internet, artificial intelligence, google, facebook, twitter, globalisation, and or inability to plan for the long term future the relations between culture and power IS BREAKING DOWN world wide.

The new terrain of global governance by artificial intelligence is making up its own rules on the fly or going about its activities without even any regard for rules of procedure.

It is amply clear by now that the so-called digital divide cannot be bridged through technological means alone, as it must be understood within broader systems of entrenched social and economic exclusion.

It is then timely for a broader range of other social groups, particularly those most adversely affected by globalisation, to re-think how they believe global governance should work.

Our present global structure of patriarchy and capitalist greed with all its connectivity is still a long way off establishing a new world with justice and freedom at its core.

For example:

The Syrian Civil war precipitated by drought in the region. The Iraq, the Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan

Nuclear power plants require grid-tied electricity, cooling water and people getting paychecks. Without all these, they melt down, thus immersing all life on earth in ionizing radiation.

1 in 3 women across the planet will be beaten or raped during her lifetime.

That’s ONE BILLION WOMEN AND GIRLS.

We’re driving to extinction at least 150 species each day.

There’s more. Much more. The violence of poverty, racial violence, gender violence, violence caused by corruption, occupation and aggression, violence caused by environmental disasters, climate change and environmental plunder.

We seem to be living as if there is no future but the one we are creating.

There is nothing guaranteed but our willingness to live as pioneers of a new consciousness and way.

The past five or six years have seen an explosion of political initiatives around the globe in which tech-minded actors of various kinds (including geeks, hackers, bloggers, tech journalists, digital rights lawyers, and Pirate politicians) have played leading parts.

(Not forgetting capitalist greed in all its forms.)

There is a terrible irony in the assumption that we can transcend our parochial tendencies with artificial intelligence.

There is growing public awareness of the concentration of economic power in the world. The richest 85 people in the world, who could fit onto a single double-decker bus, have just as much wealth as the poorest half of world.

Absolute universalism, is impossible. Morality cannot be everywhere at once.

So culture and power is breaking down.

Perhaps it is time to have a data-based approach and ranking of universal values.

This will not work.

Because culture is a key arena for struggles and has provided dynamism and force to the most effective social movements; and one could argue is the most important area for work if we are to really embed and sustain transformative practices in our communities and states over the long-term.

We are fast approaching foregoing the unrealistic concern of respecting different cultures with their moral diversity at any cost because of the economic exploitation globally enforced by imperialist and capitalist states that place profit over people.

We must start thinking of what a post-venture capitalism age of socio-technical innovation might look like, and how it could contribute to democratic renewal in different cultural contexts.

Digital rights are not only human rights, as we often hear in net freedom circles: digital rights are social rights.

Politics, or rather political parties, seem to have an inherent tendency to close in on themselves – maybe in search of traditional forms of certainty, and linked to this predictability and with it a controlling, monopolistic conception of agency.

Its back to I am alright Jack.

The Election of Donald Trump, the English referendum on in or out European Union are shining examples.Afficher l'image d'origine

Afficher l'image d'origineBoth driven by genuine and false concerns. Both altering millions of Europeans to the way Europe is run and to how the USA                                     might be run.

Both models of politics have been based on nation-specific political parties. Both with consensus-centred policies that have reproduced the crisis now faces in 2017 in the United states which will push Europe into a path that will lead to disintegration with each needing to take a new look at the current rules of engagement in international affairs.

Europe can only work if we all work for unity and commonality, and forget the rivalry between competences and institutions. Europeans want common decisions followed by swift and efficient implementation.

At the moment it is viewed as a cartel:

The Eurozone may be supremely powerful as an entity but where no one is in control.

The whole Euro currency project disempower almost every player that has anything to do with democratic legitimacy. It created a monetary union that was designed to fail and which guaranteed untold hardship for the peoples of Europe. ( see previous post)

The nation-state is dead and democracy in the EU has been replaced by a toxic algorithmic depoliticisation that, if it is not confronted, will lead to depression, disintegration and possibly war.

While politics (the ability to decide which things ought to be done) is confined to the level of the nation-state, power (the ability to get things done) has shifted to a supra-national level.

The concept of sovereignty doesn’t change, but the ways it is applied to multi-ethnic and multi-jurisdictional areas like Europe has to be rethought.

There is no point in a slew of treaties, organisations and agencies that form the scaffolding of the emerging global governance structure regulating and superintending everything from nuclear weapons to the fishing of halibut, and all of them embody election less intergovernmentalism.

What European citizens need much more is that someone governs. That someone responds to the challenges of our time.

The Council is the heart of the problem.

The Council operates as a senate-like legislative chamber, yet there are no elections to this body. It is as if you were permitted to vote for your local MP, but there were never any general elections.

Unless institutional bodies can be censured or dismissed as a body by one common parliament, you don’t have sovereign democracy. So that should be the objective in Europe.

The sovereignty of parliaments has been dissolved by the Eurozone and the Eurogroup; the capacity to fulfil one’s mandate at the level of the nation-state has been eradicated and therefore any manifestos addressed to citizens of a particular member state become theoretical exercises.

If we want a Commission that responds to the needs of the real world, we should encourage Commissioners to seek the necessary rendez-vous with democracy.

But a vision alone will not suffice.Afficher l'image d'origine

(Each is a famous European then whose reach extended much further than their time or their geography, and helped to shape the world we live in today.)

The European Union was never meant to be the beginning of a republic or a democracy where ‘we, the people of Europe’ rule the roost.

When democracy produces what the establishment likes to hear then democracy is not a threat, but when it produces anti-establishment forces and demands, that’s when democracy becomes a threat.

The left has for decades, perhaps hundreds of years, argued that one day, global democracy would be achieved, but until now this has always been something for the far-off future, an abstract dream.

In the era of globalisation, the steady removal of decision-making from democratic chambers by EU elites is serving as a blueprint for post-democratic governance around the world.

The question is how can we harness the discontent it is creating?

Gone is the elites view that elections cannot be allowed to change established economic policy. In other words, that democracy is fine as long as it does not threaten to change anything!

The network of post-democratic intergovernmental structures must be replaced with true global democracy.

If not achieved we will have disintegration and a bleak future.

The central question of the debate will be how to share power, build alliances and establish not only a genuine dialogue, but an equitable distribution of responsibilities between the State, market and ‘community’ at the local, national and European level.

Most of all, at a time when the world seem beset by multiple crises and the disturbing rise of reactionary forces, it seems apt to remember what Antonio Gramsci once wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new is yet to be born. And in the interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

How ultimately can social movements assert their own power through cultural forms to reject the dangerous symptoms of morbidity and bring the new into being?

What role has the technology industry played in reinforcing power or confronting power?

How has the concentrated power in the ‘Silicon Valleys’ of the world used cultural exchange and shaped culture to further increase their power – and the power of other elites?

How can we build a culture that reinforces values of the commons, solidarity, and harmony with nature?

With what can we replace the legal, political and international processes that have facilitated this power grab. Rather than an ideology that has been designed to benefit certain interests.

Cultural hegemony has also sustained powerful structures from the military through to the banking sector. However, power only becomes hegemonic when it is reinforced continuously through cultural processes that make the exercise of power seem ‘natural’ and irreversible.

The idea you can have the Single Market without political union clashes with the political reality that the only way to have free trade these days is by having common legislation on patents, industry standards, competition rules etc.

Now is the time to begin discussing what global democracy would look like concretely and to start to build it. The network of post-democratic intergovernmental structures must be replaced with true global democracy.

We could start with the United Nations. It has more than 30 affiliated organizations — known as programs, funds, and specialized agencies — with their own membership, leadership, and budget processes. (see previous posts)Afficher l'image d'origine

After World War II, the most powerful governments created the UN Security Council with special seats for themselves.

The option is to rebuild the UN system, giving economic, environmental, and social decision-making the same legal mandatory status as decision-making in the Security Council, so that multilateralism could govern globalisation;

The innovations, enhanced by the new information and communication technologies, of the new movements (culturally rooted in the 1960s’ break of the historic bond between knowledge and authority), has been an ability, creatively to deal with uncertainty, to let go of control without losing the possibility of collaborative agency on the basis of shared principles and a broadly agreed purpose.

It does not matter how wealthy, successful, or famous one has been on earth.  All the money and prestige in the world will be useless on your departure.

Merry Christmas.