( Four minute read)
The idea of Kings and Queens generally falls under the idea of a Leader.
Emperors, Empress, Pharaohs, Czars, Presidents, Dictators, Boss, Chiefs, Maharajah, Nawab. Roman Emperors, Sultans, Monarchs.
Throughout history, royal dynasties have dominated countries and empires around the world. Kings, queens, — whatever title they ruled by, monarchs have shaped institutions, rituals, and cultures in every time period and every corner of the globe.
The concept of monarchy originated in prehistoric times and evolved over centuries right up to the present. Efforts to overthrow monarchies or evade their rule — such as the American, French, Chinese, and Russian revolutions — are considered turning points in world history.
The mystery of the first king in the world is one that has been troubling historians for ages now. To put it simply, there is still no definite claim on who the first king on our planet was. The largest obstacle to finding out the answer to this question is the fact that there are no records in existence that speak of kings that lived 5,000 years ago. The first recorded instance of an English king was in the year 871 AD when King Alfred the Great successfully repelled a Viking invasion.
A Monarch, then, is a picture of any elected government we have today.
There is no civilization living today which did not originate in the work and effort of Monarchy.
How many people all over the world can trace their lineage back to kings and emperors. There were thousands of monarchs throughout history and the number of their descendants may run into millions. But most people are unaware of their royal ancestry.
Initially there rise to power was based on who’s the best or who’s the strongest. Eventually you end up with Kings and Queens as in pre-Christian Ireland (and everywhere else) where each little town had its own king and queen.
Yesterday we witnessed the demise of Queen Elizabeth II.
A monarch who has no equal in British history, whose life will now be analysed by the Media from the first nappy to her last smile.
It wasn’t until 2013 that the UK Parliament passed legislation that removed all gender-based restrictions on succession to the throne. The act meant that, for the first time in British history, a female heir could inherit the throne in her own right.
When Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne in 1952, her husband, Prince Philip, was not given the title of king.
The rules governing the line of succession to the British throne have changed several times over the centuries. The current system is based on gender and descent. Under this system, a person inherits the throne if they are:
- A descendant of King George II (born 1683)
- The eldest child of the heir apparent
- A male heir
The rules were last updated in 2013, when Parliament passed the Succession to the Crown Act. This act amended the previous rules in two key ways. First, it removed the preference for male heirs over female heirs. Second, it removed restrictions on who could marry someone in line for the throne. Before this act was passed, people in line for the throne could only marry someone who was Protestant.
It would therefore seems that poor Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne for most of her life without Parliament approval.
Rightly we all, whether we believe in a ruling class, recognize the passing of rare individual that contributed not to just England but to the world itself, for over seventy years, of non political contributions to peace and tolerance. May she rest in Peace.
The modern monarchy in England dates back to 1837 when Queen Victoria came to the throne. Since then, there have been six more monarchs – Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and now Charles III.
Upon the death of the British monarch, the heir apparent immediately becomes the next sovereign. This happens instantly, wherever the heir is, and even regardless of whether the new monarch even knows of the death of his or her predecessor. In the case of the death of George VI, his eldest daughter Elizabeth was in Kenya, sleeping in a treehouse, utterly unaware that she had become Queen.
The Question is.
In the world as it is to day, should there be people through an accident of birth be entitled to be the head of a country without election by its people. An unelected head of state is hardly an obvious figurehead for an association that espouses the virtues of democracy’.
To most people, kings, queens, princes, and princesses belong in the world of fairy-tales where the divine right of kings stated that a king’s authority had been given to him by God, and he thus was justified in ruling completely and totally, without concern for the will of the people or any representative body.
There are still many countries which have kings and queens even today.
Presently 44 countries across the globe have a monarch as their head of state.
For most they are purely ceremonial and are considered as only figureheads. Belgium – Brunei – Swaziland – Lesotho – Japan – Malaysia – Saudi Arabia – Vatican – Bhutan – Monaco – Sweden – United Arab Emirates – Thailand – Spain – Cambodia. (Are all a few examples. Some Mixed some Constitution, some Absolute )
In the end in the eyes of death we are all equal whether you are divine, king queen or a serf.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks or abuse chucked in the bin.
What do we really know about the Russian.
The history of the name of Russia is just as convoluted as the history of Russia itself:
It like all countries involves conquest, power struggles, dissolution, and reunification, all are integral part of the way we perceive the world that we rarely ponder their origins.
Modern Russia derives its name from the Kevian Rus’, the ancestors of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
The name Rus’ comes from an Old Norse word for ‘the men who row.’‘ and the men who rowed’ were Vikings who arrived from the territory of modern-day Sweden and became dominant in the region for at least a few centuries.
The Vikings rowed from Sweden to the now-Russian territories and down the rivers all the way to Ukraine. The earliest sources mentioning the Rus’ come from the beginning and middle of the ninth century from Byzantium, Persia, and France.
The Soviet Union Collapses On December 25, 1991 replaced by 15 independent countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
Russia’s name truly is a mirror in which Russia itself is reflected with a tendency to swing from one extreme to the other has been very noticeable during the past quarter of a century.
We must remember that before 1914 Russia was predominantly a backward agricultural country. Until modern times Russia’s geographic “remoteness” from the rest of the world and her inaccessibility except by land or air routes have had afar-reaching influence on her history.
If one thinks about Russia today it conjures up many names associated with its existence.
In no particular or historical order here are a few.
Peter the Great, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Lenin, Bolshevik Revolution, Khrushchev, Leon Trotsky, Moscow Red Square, St Petersburg, Yuri Gagarin, Vodka, KGB, Trans-Siberian Railway. Stalingrad, Volga River, Doctor Zhivago, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, Roman Abramovich, Oligarchs, Alexey Navalny, Communism. Chernobyl, Putin.
In fact what we are talking about is a enormous country with a surface area of 17.13 million square kilometres, with 643 billion trees –holding around 20% of the world’s freshwater, providing 27% of the EU’s crude oil imports, 41% of its natural gas, and 47% of its solid fuel (such as coal) with a population of 146,069,910, speaking at least 270 languages and dialects, a nuclear superpower, separated from the USA by just 4km of water.
No country is entirely self-sufficient but it possesses some of the richest natural resources of any country in the world.
Indeed, as the world’s third-largest oil producer Russia has yet to make renewable energy an absolute priority.
For Russia’s domestic audience there is no doubt about the “greatness” of the country, which makes it an indispensable player in international politics and deserves recognition by other major powers.
This means that Moscow is driven primarily by security concerns; viewed from such a perspective, the actions against Georgia and Ukraine could be aimed at preventing NATO expansion.
The annexation of Crimea in 2013 and now its involvement into conflict with Ukraine have led to the country being perceived as a revisionist power and breaker of international norms.
Russia’s communist system is a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. A political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.
Although the term communism did not come into use until the 1840s—it is derived from the Latin communis, meaning “shared” or “common”— You might not believe it but for much of the 20th century, in fact, about one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes.
It was neither a religious upheaval nor a civil war but a technological and economic revolution—the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries—that provided the impetus and inspiration for modern communism.
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
To understand Russia’s foreign policy we must bear in mind that, by and large, the Stalin regime has acted in world affairs not on the basis of Marxist doctrine, but on the basis of Russia’s national interests.
Stalin’s principal objectives have been to make Russia independent of the rest of the world in a military and economic sense and to protect the security of the Soviet Union against external attack during the period of “building socialism in one country.”
What is really puzzling about Russian foreign policy (and very much deserves further exploration) now is the positioning of Russia in various scales: regional, macro-regional (Eurasian), and global, and their compatibility and (in) consistency, as well as (and at the same time) Russian positioning with regards to its main neighbours, China and the European Union.
“The question we ought to be asking ourselves is why did NATO even exist after 1990?
If NATO was to stop Communism, why is it now expanding to Russia?”
It is important to note that not everyone in the world subscribes to the western ideas of democracy, or even to democracy itself. Not being a democracy is nothing illegal — it may sound regressive in today’s world but it is not illegal.
To try to intimidate and arm-twist a nuclear superpower in the name of democracy unfortunately now has terrible consequences for the Ukrainians and will never work.
Whether the war in Ukraine lasts weeks, months, or years, depends on individual actions that run the gamut from those of world leaders, to ordinary citizens and soldiers. Soldiers are most likely to disobey orders when they recognize that a war will not achieve its objectives, or that they are fighting for their leaders’ survival and against their own interests.
In order to end a war, a leader’s chances of political and physical survival must be taken into calculation.
An outright defeat of Russia in Ukraine may actually translate into a death sentence for Russian President Vladimir Putin. One would expect Russia therefore to lower its demands but we’ve seen very little evidence of that so far—only the demand of denazification seems to have been dropped.
In a regime like Russia—which is clearly not a democracy, but also not quite a dictatorship—if you win a war, you’re the great hero; if you lose a war, you have shown your incompetence and you’ll be removed
In a recent speech, Putin called the borders drawn after World Wars I and II illegitimate. He said the borders that were drawn by Lenin and by Stalin, partially as a result of the First and Second World War, are illegitimate and have to go. And if those borders have to go, well, then there is no obvious stopping point:
The question is, which empire does he think needs reconstituting? Is it the Soviet Union? Or is it Tsarist Russia? And if it’s the latter—and there are some indications in his speeches that he does mean the latter—then Poland and other countries are going to be justifiably worried.
Putin, now seems to be committing himself to total victory. If he can’t get it, he’ll be responsible and that makes a coup against him more likely.
Putin must come home with some kind of victory because otherwise he’s literally dead.
Are Russians really going to bomb Kyiv, a so-called “hero city of the Soviet Union,” into rubble like they did with Chechnya’s capital Grosny? Are they willing to kill tens of thousands of people?
No one knows.
He wants to prevent more of these revolutions and prevent a democratic encirclement of countries around him, which could provide a safe haven for Russian dissidents who’d be dangerous to Putin’s political survival. Both of these goals overlap in the sense that he is seeking regime change, which is a dangerous game.
There’s also an interlocking commitment problem here:
Ukraine cannot promise not to join NATO in the long term, which Russia sees as a threat to its borders. At the same time, Russia can’t promise credibly not to ask for more if Ukraine made some concessions now, whether it be territorial concessions, regime change, or a promise not to join NATO.
So the question is.
If there’s a coup against Putin, what would the new Russian government insist on? They’re not necessarily all going to say, “Okay, sorry Ukraine, we made a mistake. Please excuse us.” And Ukrainians would not necessarily accept that anyway. Most likely, Ukraine would strengthen its demands and want Crimea back, resulting in ongoing bloodshed, pulverizing of Ukrainian cities, coupled with insurgencies.
Russia will never have full control of Ukraine. The West—that is Western Democracies—cannot, in my opinion, accept a victorious Putin.
We should not forget those people who are fighting and the costs they are willing to shoulder. Many of them will die because of Putin’s folly.
We’re in a situation where either success or failure both present horrible, dangerous situations, we’d better be very careful and think very, very carefully about what we can do, and perhaps what we cannot do, and prepare accordingly. You don’t want to corner Putin with sanctions to the extent that he feels that he must gamble—all or nothing.
We now at the point that Putin is afraid domestic enemies might overthrow and kill him, and there’s little the West can do to address those fears. The only avenue worth exploring in peace negotiations might be true plebiscites, overseen by international observers.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin
What is inflation?
One can look or think of it in various ways, as it comes in many forms.
The fact is that inflation is a far more complex phenomenon than one might initially assume.
The Big Bang for instance was it caused by inflation?
Did it happen at the begging or the end of something inflating externally or internally.
If it was external it could only have happened on a quantum bases – which means that there was something there before the Big bang that existed other than eternal inflation.
Whether it did or not, during inflation space is repelling space, so there is more space and more repulsion. Pass events cause present events are ever changing is a quantum fluctuation.
The defining characteristic of inflation is its exponential rate of growth.
All inflation whether its space, money, planetary resource use, or the human population, doubles in every fixed interval of time.
It starts slowly, almost flat and then goes up and up till vertical, hitting a material limit.
This is not so in space where it can go on endlessly, according to Einstein theory of relativity.
Indeed it is faster then light, but with the help of gravity it is slowed down as it passes through different density of the universe.
However this is not true in the Quantum world of particles and antimatter which can burst out of nothing, coming back together and disappearing in a flash.
This will be the reason that the James Webb telescope will not discover God.
Unfortunate due to inflation it is looking into the past with the future always over the horizon. Beyond that we have no way now or ever finding data. Here we reach the limits of language and are faced with the choice of mathematics or myth.
There are zillions of particles popping out of the vacuum of space and disappearing.
Indeed they don’t even come into existence unless they are observed.
However the real question is how does energy turn into particles. What is the actual process of inflation doing. I dont think we know.
Where did it come from in the first place, converting its expansion into Entropy – disorder.
All ordinary matter is however, everything made of atoms including the protons and neutrons that make up an atom. So it stands to reason that inflation after the Big Bang was caused by atoms that were there before inflation existed, in a dormant state.
This then leaves us with no way to explain why individual quantum events happen – they have no cause, but they do happen is standard physics, creating an eternal inflation of creativity.
We can only rely on predictions because probability obeys deterministic laws.
In the end there is no deeper source of meaning for us than to experience our own lives as reflecting the nature and origin of our universe.
For those who demand the Ultimate truth there is no way to take even a single step beyond what other people have already thought.
Lets return to earth.
At its most basic level, inflation is a general increase in prices across the economy and is well-known to all of us. This can lead to fears of possible hyperinflation, a devastating scenario in which inflation rises rapidly out of control or Stagflation (a time of economic stagnation combined with inflation) which also wreak havoc.
Although numerous theories exist, arguably the two most influential schools of thought on inflation are those of Keynesian and Monetarist economics.
Keynesian economists argue inflation results from economic pressures such as the increased cost of production and look to government intervention as a solution; monetarist economists believe inflation stems from the expansion of the money supply and that central banks should maintain stable growth for the money supply in line with GDP
The Keynesian school believes inflation results from economic pressures such as rising costs of production or increases in aggregate demand. Specifically, they distinguish between two broad types of inflation: cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation.
The Monetarist view is perfectly encapsulated by Friedman’s remark that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” According to this view, the principal factor underlying inflation has little to do with things like labour, materials costs, or consumer demand. Instead, it is all about the supply of money.
According to the quantity theory of money, if the amount of money in an economy doubles, all else equal, price levels will also double.
This means that the consumer will pay twice as much for the same amount of goods and services. This increase in price levels will eventually result in a rising inflation level.
Then you have negative inflation when prices drop for various reasons.
What are the Causes of Inflation.
What causes inflation is significantly complex.
An increase in the supply of money is the root of inflation, though this can play out through different mechanisms in the economy. A country’s money supply can be increased by the monetary authorities by:
- Printing and giving away more money to citizens.
- Legally devaluing (reducing the value of) the legal tender currency.
- Loaning new money into existence as reserve account credits through the banking system by purchasing government bonds from banks on the secondary market (the most common method)
Now I am no quantum expert or scientist but to my mind the world economy is now dependent on electronic products, all subject to the Quantum theory.
Smart phones, laptops, computers, and algorithms all fuelling inflation of knowledge and falsehoods. The world of computing is full of buzzwords: AI, supercomputers, machine learning, the cloud, quantum computing and more.
One word in particular is used throughout computing – algorithm.
Computers string algorithms together in complex fashions to produce more algorithms. So, an algorithm is the process a computer uses to transform input data into output data. Every piece of technology that you touch involves many algorithms.
They are black boxes—neither the company using them nor the people making them take responsibility for how they can wreck lives and reinforce stereotypes.
There is no knowledge of what they are even being judged on.
The people making the algorithms don’t take responsibility for users of their code and the people using algorithms place responsibility on the creators.
Algorithms are aimed at optimizing everything including inflation.
They, that is profit seeking algorithms have put too much control in the hands of corporations and governments, perpetuate bias, create filter bubbles, cut choices, creativity and serendipity, and could result in greater unemployment and are no doubt at this very moment manipulating inflation.
The question now is are we living in two realities because they coexist with all advances in technology. In fact, everything people see and do on the web is a product of algorithms.
The use of algorithms is spreading as massive amounts of data are being created, captured and analysed by businesses and governments. Some are calling this the Age of Algorithms and predicting that the future of algorithms is tied to machine learning and deep learning that will get better and better at an ever-faster pace.
They will create new ways to misrepresent reality and perpetuate falsehoods.
Can anything be done to stop them plundering the world for short term profit?
Yes but it has to done now.
The adoption of data-driven technology affects every aspect of our society and its use is creating opportunities as well as new ethical challenges that are coming with climate change.
In the world before AI there were many different concepts of fairness. Once we introduce complex algorithms to decision-making systems, that range of definitions multiplies rapidly.
Inequality and unfairness have complex causes but society may reasonably conclude that justice requires decision-making processes to be designed so that human judgement can intervene where needed to achieve fair and reasonable outcomes for each person, informed by individual evidence.
The risk is growing as algorithms, and the datasets that feed them, become increasingly complex.
All algorithms programs should be vetted for ownership, transparency, bias, before being allowed to operate in a sustainable way.
Don’t worry you will always be around because each of us is an atomic pastiche an atom of you will always be around.
We are made of material created and ejected into the Galaxy by stars.
Try inflating that!
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin
( Five minute read)
The message is clear Climate Change is here and is already having a significant impact.
It is inconceivable that we still have people refusing to accept the facts that surround them, even if they saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent they and unfortunately many of our present world leaders are blind to what is happing and what is to come.
How much more evidence do they and us need ?
MAKE YOUR MINDS UP!
The Evidence for Rapid Climate Change Is Compelling:
I’ve not noticed any changes in the weather outside of the norm or I don’t give a Fuck what is happing. I’d rather live on another planet, than on one where every aspect of your life is subject to rigorous scientific control is not possible.
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
Right now there’s nothing like enough understanding.
Observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.
Human activity is the principal cause. It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system.
However if there was meeting tomorrow of world leaders they would as before, argue that its not their responsibility, making promises that cannot be kept.
To have any chance of drilling into them the urgency of tackling climate change on a global scale perhaps it would be best to invite them all together in Gautama bay, take their mobile phone, starve them for a week and get them to write their last wills and testaments.
This might fired the starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels.
At this point you might be asking why is it so difficult for the world to take action.
The effort to control climate change impacts virtually every element of a country’s economy “so countries have traditionally been nervous about what they’re going to be asked to do.”
The idea that every five years countries would be asked to come up with more ambitious targets, ramping up their efforts is therefore bull shit.
“We are living in an interconnected global village with a common stake,” says Xi.
“All countries are closely connected and we share a common future. No country can gain from others’ difficulties or maintain stability by taking advantage of others’ troubles.”
“We should embrace the vision of a community with a shared future in which everyone is bound together,” he continues. He is right! Heart-stirring stuff, eh?
A cynic might think his reassuring words were partly a ploy to reingratiate China with the climate-conscious Europeans, and isolate a climate-sceptic US President MR DUMP.
But there is a much more important broader context for his announcement:
Let’s be clear what it means:
China, the most polluting nation on earth – responsible for around 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions – is saying it is going cut that back to virtually zero within 40 years. The commitment is of significant because China has never promised anything near as bold as this on climate before. President Xi’s 2060 pledge was notably unconditional – China will move ahead whether or not other countries chose to follow.
Because the cost of renewables follows the logic of all manufacturing – the more you produce, the cheaper it gets. Why invest in new oil wells or coal power stations that will become obsolete before they can repay themselves over their 20-30-year life?
Why carry carbon risk in their portfolios at all?
It looks like Xi has judged that the economics of clean energy mean that decarbonising is now the most sensible choice for the Chinese economy as well as for the world’s climate.
So can we stop worrying about climate change?
Sadly we cannot.
It is going to take eye-popping investment in wind, solar and nuclear power.
Even as the economics tilts in favour of renewables the task of decarbonisation is still enormous. However once half the world is on-board with the project of decarbonisation it is hard to see how the rest could hold out.
Evidence of environmental damage and climate change everywhere. It’s the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. Tackling it means changing how we do virtually everything.
We are right to be anxious and afraid at the prospect. Remember that by 2050 urban centres will hold 75% of the world population and 40% of them have no resilience plans in place, and have no plans to develop one in the hear future.
Currently accounting for 70% of the worlds population and 70% of global GDP and 70% of CO2 emissions.
Don’t get me started on the food crisis.
You’ll be even more apprehensive if I was venture down that online rabbit hole.
Consider this conundrum:
When you talk to climate scientists you quickly discover they are far more worried about the dangers of global warming than most of us. Some tell you privately that they have had counselling to cope with the psychological effects of knowing the world is facing an impending disaster and not enough is being done.
Yes at this moment in history were in a mess. Wars, Natural disasters, Energy, Rampant Inequality etc. On the right, I am alright Jack on the left just of a scream that will before defang in the next few years.
Leadership is action not position.
As Henry Miller said ” No man is great enough or wise enough for any of us to surrender our destiny to. The only way in which anyone can lead us is to restore to us the belief in our own guidance. “
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
( Seven minute read)
It is now beyond the obvious that it is going to take trillions and trillions to reduce the impact of climate change.
It is also obvious that we are incapable of addressing any of the problems that climate change is waiting to reveal on the world on a global scale.
I DON’T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT IT IS BEYOND MY COMPRENSION THAT WE REMAIN SO INACTIVE TO DO THE RIGHT THINK AND DEMAND THAT OUR POLITIONS GET REAL.
More than 800 million people—11% of the world’s population—can already feel the consequences of climate change in their daily lives, including increased frequency of natural disasters, prolonged droughts, and irregular weather patterns.
Extreme weather events are known to create poverty traps, or conditions linked to health, education, livestock, and assets that perpetuate the cyclical nature of poverty because people need a significant amount of capital to recover from them.
Since poverty and climate change is a two-way street, reductions in poverty
now can allow people to better adapt and respond to changing environmental conditions in the future.
WE ARE NOW JUST ON THE TRESHOLD OF REAPING THE REWARDS OF TRASHING OUR PLANET FOR CENTURIES FOR SHORT TERM PROFIT.
To day countries spend billions on defence, but there is no defence from climate change.
We all know that the impacts of climate change and global warming will have a snowball effect, generating more and more problems as the crisis unfolds world wide.
Yes we can invest in communities fighting the impacts of climate change at the local level but climate change impacts every form of life—humans, plants, and animals.
We all know it is happing.
Thanks to mass pollution – dumping million of tons of plastic into to our oceans, pumping trillion of tons of carbon into our atmosphere, the earth is now crises.
The simple truth is that no single solution can address every cause and effect of global climate change—it will take collective, significant actions at all levels to preserve the planet and protect our future.
This is now common sense not a scientific theory.
So what are we doing?
Spending $239 for every person on the planet, 2.1% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP), on military budgets. Poring up banks, Pouring money into GDP, No politician wants to tell us the real story of fossil fuel depletion.
The real story is that we are already running short of oil, at the same time, wind and solar and other “clean energy” sources are nowhere nearly able to substitute for the quantity of fossil fuels being lost.
This unfortunate energy story is essentially a physics problem.
Energy per capita and, in fact, resources per capita, must stay high enough for an economy’s growing population. When this does not happen, history shows that civilizations tend to collapse.
Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations.
Politicians will avoid talking about possible future economic problems related to inadequate energy supply. If there are energy supply problems, they need to be framed as being temporary, perhaps related to the war in Ukraine.
Politicians want to get re-elected. They want citizens to think that everything is OK.
Most high-level politicians are aware of the energy supply issue, but they cannot possibly talk about it.
Instead, they choose to talk about what would happen if the economy were allowed to speed ahead without limits, and how bad the consequences of that might be.
So politicians cannot tell the world how bad the energy situation really is.
Furthermore, politicians see that they can have more control over populations if they can direct citizens in a way that will use less energy.
Businesses also want to minimize problems.
They would like the news media to publish stories saying that any economic dip is likely to be very mild and temporary.
What is wrong is a physics problem.
The operation of our economy requires energy of the correct type and the right quantity. The economy is something that grows through the “dissipation” of energy.
Falling energy consumption is associated with economic contraction.
The truth physics terms, is that world economy is a dissipative structure, just as all plants, animals and ecosystems are. All dissipative structures have finite lifespans, including the world economy.
Citizens around the world can sense that something is very wrong.
It looks like the economy may be headed for a serious recession in the near term.
If a person understands the connection between energy consumption and the economy, such a rapid drop in energy supply looks like something that would likely be associated with economic collapse.
The rich and powerful can see this change as a good thing if they themselves can profit from it. When there is not enough energy, the physics of the situation tends to lead to increasing wage and wealth disparities. Wealthy individuals see this outcome as a good thing: They can perhaps personally profit.
Bill Gates has amassed about 270,000 acres of farmland in the United States, including newly purchased farmland in North Dakota.
Estimates of how much money it would take to end global climate change range between $300 billion and $50 trillion over the next two decades.
Even now, I am one of a very small number of people in the world writing about this issue.
We are now seeing that the approach seems to produce inflation rather than more energy production.
If people are not to freeze in the dark in winter, longer-term solutions are needed
.Militaries around the world are no doubt well aware of the fact that there will not be enough energy supplies to go around. This means that the world will be in a contest for who gets how much.
In a war-like setting, we should not be surprised if communications are carefully controlled.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
( Six minute read)
When considering the future impact of technology on teaching and learning there is an element of crystal ball gazing so, I am sure that there will be many critics of this post.
We still have a long way to go, though, in terms of how we are taking advantage of technology within the classroom for education is actually a way for telling us how far we haven’t come.
Albert Einstein famously asserted, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Up to now education it is too directed to earning a living rather than the values that allow us to live in the first place.
We live in a fully globalized world in which more people than ever are connected via the web. One of the significant results of this greater communication and access to advanced technology is the deluge of information we receive – news, entertainment, opinions, advertisements and so on but non of them will replace teachers.
Learning is a natural part of us and what defines us as a species.
As artificial intelligence and other technologies transform various professions, the most valued and secure jobs will be those that require complex social skills such as teaching.
They as the world we live in changes to embrace tech, will have to proactively manage how innovations unfold.
Because what we teach in our education system will be reshaped to keep up to date with the growing demands of the 21st century.
The problem is what to teach.
When it comes todays education we have intellectualized it too much, we have complicated and over tinkered with something that should be a beautiful part of our existence.
Putting back values in education.
The problems and question now concerning education are.
We are now outsource thinking and rely on supposedly smart tech to micromanage our daily lives for the sake of cheap convenience?
Are smartphones lowering our IQ?
Should creativity be the sole focus?
Is an emphasis on learning how to learn the key, or do children need to develop a vast general fund of information?
Is google responsible for dimming our ability to think for ourselves, making us dumber?
Is online learning the way forward or is the screen right in the palm of our hands—or the screen in front of our faces turning us into digital citizens?
The over-reliance on technology for basic knowledge may be replacing humans’ general fund of information.
The challenge we face worldwide is how teachers, parents, leadership, and communities will help learners design intelligently and innovate with compassion, to teach non-discrimination and respect for others.
To understand that prejudices can hinder the ability to think and live in peace.
To understand the challenges to the natural world and bio-diversity.
To become familiar with examining and understanding different points of view.
To handle social media which now dominates as a real-time feed for news, stories and world sentiment.
To understand sustainability when its comes to values.
In order for us to truly create and contribute to the world, we have to be able to connect countless dots, to cross-pollinate ideas from a wealth of disciplines, to combine and recombine these pieces. In essence, knowledge matters, as our brains will not develop ideas that will change—and improve—the world without an adequate general fund of information.
What is needed.
Free education to make educational background irrelevant with a year of citizen conscription without the smartphone, I pad or laptop, to teach respect and a understanding of what it means to be human, to stand on one’s own feet.
Retrieval practice is one of the best methods to learn information. If you aren’t trying to retrieve information to bring it to your thoughts—instead pulling out your phone—this may be problematic for not only a general fund of knowledge but also for the ability to initiate creative contemplations in the future.
Using search engines and voice-assistants for things we previously had to retrieve from our memories is continually affecting our kids (and us) in rather unforeseen ways.
The changes in lifestyle could be what’s behind these lower IQs, perhaps its due to the way children are educated, the way they’re brought up, and the things they spend time doing more and less (the types of play they engage in, ( whether they read books, and so on).
To thrive in the workplace of the future, skills such as creativity, collaboration, communication and problem-solving will become must-have competencies for future specialists as the market will see a huge increase in jobs requiring a set of skills incorporating virtual reality and multiple perspectives on mew platform that will give students an opportunity to learn how to negotiate issues and exchange ideas online.
Due to the need to give education more individual approach with students covering the material with study tools adapted to capabilities of a student online education will become more and more revealing in the cloud as more ubiquitous connectivity drives a significant increase in the blending of informal and formal learning.
In the end it will not be the device that will make the learner smarter, it will be the teacher.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
( Seven minute read)
Afghanistan is a beautiful country with a long history and rich culture, but for decades it has been torn apart by war.
Since returning to power in Afghanistan the Taliban government has reintroduced a draconian interpretation of Islamic law such as public executions of convicted murderers and adulterers, as well as amputations for those found guilty of theft.
Men were required to grow beards and women had to wear the all-covering burka, girls are banned from secondary education. (The only gender-based ban on studying in the world.)
In the year since they returned to power no country has recognised the Taliban government. Meaning that desperately needed foreign-held funds are unlikely to be released any time soon.
Who are the Taliban?
In 1973, a coup deposed Afghanistan’s King Mohammad Zahir Shah. After the coup, the monarchy was abolished and the Republic of Afghanistan was formed, establishing close ties with the then-Soviet Union.
Six years later, the USSR invaded Afghanistan to support the pro-Soviet government, which was facing attacks from armed groups. The decade long war forced millions of Afghans to flee and attracted foreign fighters, including Osama bin Laden, who joined the battle against the Soviets.
In 1989, the Soviets withdrew after agreeing to a peace deal.
The Taliban, or “students” in the Pashto language, emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
By 1998, the Taliban were in control of almost 90% of Afghanistan.
In the wake of the 11 September 2001 World Trade Centre attacks in New York the attention of the world was drawn to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban were accused of providing a sanctuary for the prime suspects, Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda movement
In October 2001, the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaeda leader and author of 9/11. By December, the Taliban had surrendered control of the country, but already in 2006, Taliban attacks were intensifying in the form of raids, ambushes, rocket attacks, kidnappings and assassinations.
Osama bin Laden, the founder and first leader of the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011.
In February 2020, then-President Donald Trump signed a peace deal with the Taliban that included the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan by May 2021.
The agreement was upheld by President Joe Biden, who extended the deadline to Aug. 31, two decades to the day since the felling of the World Trade Centre.
US President Joe Biden announced in April 2021 that all American forces would leave the country by 11 September.
By 15 August, the Taliban were at the gates of Kabul and we all know what happened then.
Departing American forces along with the Brits abandoned millions of dollars worth of weapons, vehicles and other military equipment, which was immediately seized by the Taliban after they returned to power.
Now years later, militant Islamic extremism has hardly recede, with his replacement, Ayman al-Zawahiri, killed on July 31, 2022, in a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan.
The withdrawal was criticized for being rushed, disorganized and chaotic with millions are now struggling to survive.
More than 40% of the population is living on less than one meal a day and 97% are expected to be living under the poverty line by the end of the year.
The war in Afghanistan was America’s longest conflict, lasting almost two decades. In that time, 2,248 U.S. soldiers lost their lives and 47,245 Afghan civilians were killed.
The death toll for members of the Afghan National Army and police is 66,000, while the number of Taliban fighters and other insurgents killed during the war is 51,191.
The U.S. government spent more than $2 trillion funding the war.
For the most of the last 20 years, the US have supported the government in Afghanistan that was put in place following the war. As global leaders sought to economically isolate the Taliban, their policy approaches have crippled the economy, destroyed the banking sector and plunged the country into a humanitarian catastrophe that has left more than 24 million without enough food to eat each day.
In one short year, the economy is now on the brink of collapse, millions are unemployed and close to starvation with anyone opposed to the Taliban rule risking being tortured.
Is there a difference between al-Qaeda ISIS and the Taliban?
Al-Qaeda grew out of battlefield bonds forged in the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet Union its primarily targets being the United States and Europe as their far enemy. Its propaganda tries to convince Muslims over time to follow Al-Qaeda’s vision of “global jihad.”
ISIS prioritizes the creation of an Islamic state in the Muslim world but its military losses has undermine its appeal and ultimately discredit jihadist groups in general. They have metastasized into Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab. And so continues to be very much a threat that the world have to focus on.
However one does not have to be a military, political or a Taliban to know that the magnets for jihadi recruitment is the continuing killing, whether its by legalizer violence in the form of war or not.
If the world now stands by an allows the children of a nation die by starvation as a form of revenge it will be committing the very things it has fought against since world war two.
We can rest assured that those who survive will be looking for revenge.
You only have to look at the number of young people fleeing high levels of violence, crime, natural disasters, food insecurity, and poverty to realize this.
It is naïve to demand that Taliban give up terrorism — the very method that has given them some significance for more than a quarter of a century. Terror is the very raison d’etre of this outfit.
Why should the group listen to Western powers when they have neither a coherent policy nor the hard power needed to back any of their policies other than the gun.
In the final analysis, however, a regime that treats its own people with utter contempt is unlikely to offer foreigners, especially the “infidel,” a better deal.
But the choice is not limited to another full scale invasion or abject surrender or to recognize the gun-toting “religious students” as the legitimate government of that long-suffering land.
The conditions set by the Defeated are about giving up terrorism, respecting human rights, allowing Afghans who wish to leave the country to do so, and stop oppressing women.
Isn’t that all a bit premature? As the Taliban actually do not control Afghanistan in any meaningful way.
The key concern right now is the disarray in the so-called democratic camp, thanks to the war in the Ukraine
Right now, the Talban need the outside world more than the outside world needs them.
Confront the reality of the situation” in Afghanistan.
In other words, while admitting that they are there, we have two options.
The Taliban have won, militarily, however there wasn’t really a healthy democracy bringing widespread freedom, there was a corrupt client government siphoning off cash in return for doing the occupying powers’ bidding, and this came at the cost of brutal war which caught up entirely innocent Afghans.
Without Aid and the realise foreign-held funds Afghanistan even with food aid cannot pay hospital workers or the people who maintain urban water supply or deliver the food aid.
One way or the other we have a very short window of opportunity now to make it happen through our decisions we make in terms of international aid and the relations we form with the current Taliban.
If we ignore Afghanistan, denying the aid we will drive a fissure between the moderate wing of the Taliban, the Kandahari Taliban and the hardliners, the Haqannis, and there is every like hood we will have created a civil war upon Afghanistan, inflicting upon Afghanistan a catastrophe that follows this disaster.
We must swallow our pride and support the moderate wing of the Taliban, who are not committed to international terrorism and want a conservative country which will not be in line with Western values but will be better than the extremism of the Taliban.
At the same time one must ask where are the liberal Afghanistan opposition voices, over 100,000-plus Afghans left.
The media, which focused instead on claims of “betrayal” by the United States in order to avoid discussing the depth of the defeat and deep failures of the Afghan occupation, avoiding the question how long before the west recognises a humanitarian crisis or even a civil war in Afghanistan.
I just don’t think there is a political will in the West to avoid a disaster of biblical proportions that will spill over and destabilize the rest of this part of the world.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.