THE BEADY EYE: TAKE’S A LOOK AT THE CURRENT STATE OF ENGLAND.

04 Monday Sep 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE: TAKE’S A LOOK AT THE CURRENT STATE OF ENGLAND.

( Fifteen minute read)

This is a country lurching from one crisis to another, a country is crying out for hope. A country that no longer works.

We tend to think of the world’s most powerful nations as unshakable actors on the world stage, but of course they are not.

The grim reality for Britain as it faces up to 2024 is that no other major power on earth stands quite as close to its own dissolution.

Given its recent record, perhaps this should not be a surprise.

By leaving the European Union, achieving the rare feat of erecting an economic border with its largest trading partner and with a part of itself, Northern Ireland, while adding fuel to the fire of Scottish independence for good measure. And if this wasn’t enough, it then spectacularly failed in its response to the coronavirus pandemic, combining one of the worst death rates in the developed world with one of the worst economic recessions.

Reaping the rewards of the Maggie Thatcher years, the United Kingdom is being confronted with huge problems it can no longer wish away.

A victim of modern privatised capitalism’s, increasing fondness for stripping out, squeezing down, and chasing dividends, it has ignored the needs of its people for the sake of GDP.

EU and Union flags

From the divisive 2016 Brexit referendum and the years long turmoil of leaving the E.U. (the world’s largest trading bloc – one that is seven times larger than the UK by population), England is now losing its wealth through a stupid gamble based on a pack of lies.

To the COVID-19 pandemic in which the U.K. suffered the worst per capita death toll in Western Europe it was then hit by multiple blows in the span of just a few months.

The downfall of Boris Johnson following a series of scandals that engulfed his government, on July 7; the death of the country’s longest-reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, on Sept. 8; the crashing of the British pound two weeks later, after then Prime Minister Liz Truss unveiled a package of unfunded tax cuts for the superrich; and, finally, the collapse of yet another Conservative government on Oct. 20.

One only has to look, to see more and more appeals for help. From charitable organisation, from the NHS, to RSPCA to the RNI, to Schools, to foodbanks, to see that it is plunging deeper into crisis by the day, with a government missing in action.

It is against this bleak backdrop that virtually everyone—from political analysts to pollsters and even most voters—expects that Starmer will become the U.K.’s 58th Prime Minister when the country holds its next general election by January 2025.

In the mean time Sunak (whose reported $837 million net worth makes him the richest-ever occupant of Downing Street) is Prime Minister without a peoples mandate.

Larry the cat walks outside 10 Downing Street on Liz Truss' last day in office as U.K. Prime Minister on Oct. 25, 2022. (Hannah McKay—Reuters)

As the U.K.’s latest leader, Rishi Sunak, emerged unelected by the people to replacement to Truss.

The fifth Prime Minister in just over six years.

A prime minister who has done more than any other person in Britain to enable division and stupidity, while life in the U.K. is becoming less hopeful, more expensive, and, increasingly, shorter.

Rishi Sunak was asked what “levelling up” actually means, he simply laughed. Starmer, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, former Prime Ministers Boris Johnson and Theresa May attend the Remembrance Sunday ceremon in London on Nov. 13, 2022. (Toby Melville—Pool/Reuters)

There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn.

There is something much deeper wrong.

It is the country itself that is now creeping out shamefacedly from its empire/ industrialist days into the light, wondering what, exactly, is wrong with it.

At the heart of Britain’s crisis is a crisis of identity. Put simply, no other major power is quite as conflicted about whether it is even a nation to begin with, let alone what it takes to act like one.

With the passing of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, it is now one of the rare states in the Western world whose name is not simply the nation it represents: The United Kingdom is more than Britain and the British. Some of its citizens believe themselves to be British, while others say they are not British at all.

For many, the root of Britain’s existential crisis today is Brexit—an apparent spasm of English nationalism that has broken the social contract holding Britain’s union of nations together, revealing the country’s true nature as an unequal union, of the English, by the English, for the English.

Although Brexit was carried by a majority of the U.K. as a whole, it was opposed by two of its constituent parts, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was the votes of England, its dominant nation, that carried the day.

Yet the truth is that the Englishness of Brexit only matters if people see themselves as something other than British.

The great British bake off, run badly, staffed by people who don’t care enough.

It has grown lazy and complacent, unable to act with speed and purpose.

The state had stopped paying attention to the basics of government, whether that was the development of its economy, the protection of its borders, or the defence of the realm.

Instead, it had become guilty of a failed elite groupthink that had allowed separatism to flourish, wealth to concentrate in London and its surrounding areas, and the political elite to ignore the public mood.

In its scramble to survive, it forgot who it was, now destine to break up into its old component parts.

The U.K., is currently projected to be the G-7’s worst economic performer this year, is on track to become poorer than post-Communist Poland by the end of the decade.

Inflation, which reached a 41-year high in October, has barely eased. The worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation has led to crippling labour strikes, prompting hundreds of thousands of workers—among them doctors, nurses, train drivers, and teachers—to walk out in demand of better pay in the past year.

The cost of living crisis didn’t suddenly materialise in 2022. The living crisis is nothing new for millions of people who have lived in fear of hunger and homelessness for 12 years.

From 2010, a decade of austerity saw £37bn slashed from the welfare system. Food banks became a shameful fact of life. Wages have continued to stagnate and access to stable, even halfway affordable housing has become increasingly chimerical.

The most up-to-date figures show that 13 million people were living in relative poverty in 2020-21, with another seven million living in a state of perpetual “financial fear” At least 320,000 people are currently homeless in the UK.

As everyday costs continue to detach from reality, pressure has ratcheted up to new extremes.

Even the proposed solutions have their own built-in traps and inadequacies. It might mean being forced into predatory loans to make increasingly frayed ends meet, or living in a home with a more costly pre-payment energy meter. It might mean a lack of access to stable credit, or even a bank account.

If budgeting was torturous before, then it is becoming borderline impossible in the current climate. This is doubly true for those with existing debts with hidden tax costing some of the poorest people an estimated additional £430 a year.

How are you supposed to plan against the future when ends never quite seem to meet?

What is happing?

For example. Under Starmer, Labour’s policies for nationalizing public utilities have been side-lined by pledges to deliver the highest sustained economic growth in the G-7.

Decades of underinvestment have taken their toll on the UK. Major infrastructure projects, from broadband to sewers, were put on hold, leading to massive issues nationwide.

————-

The UK has endured a “lost decade” of productivity.

The UK is home to an ageing population. According to the latest statistics from Age UK, there are now nearly 12 million people aged over 65 in Britain.

What is certain is that it need to channel the surplus of money more effectively towards sustainable asset classes that deliver both economic and social returns, and to correct decades of underinvestment.

Its politicians, its business and banking leaders need to collaboratively join the dots.

Against this background what we see are two worthless new aircraft carriers, a highspeed railway costing trillions, as the government prepares to finalise a £24.5bn deal to build Hinkley C, the country’s first new nuclear plant for a generation. (A fifth more expensive than in France, a third more than the US and more than twice the projected costs in China or Korea.) Despite this, nuclear power continues to form a key plank of the UK government’s “portfolio” approach to decarbonisation.

It’s hardly news that life in the UK is becoming untenable.

As the days grow darker, so too does the mood in the UK as it head’s into yet another punishing winter.

Most people in the UK will see their quality of life deteriorate in the short term.

———

Benefit spending is constantly in the news but how much do we really know about where the benefits money goes in the UK?

£159bn was spent on benefits – an increase of 1.1% on the previous year. That is 23% of all public spending. With 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners. For 9.6 million families, benefits make up more than half of their income (30% of all families), around 5.3 million of them pensioners.

The UK is home to an ageing population. According to the latest statistics from Age UK, there are now nearly 12 million people aged over 65 in Britain^[

The NHS started in 1948 and now employs over 1.5 million people. This makes it the biggest employer in the UK, in Europe, and 5th biggest in the World.

The wage bill for the NHS makes up a substantial proportion of its budget. In 2021/22, the total cost of NHS staff was £66.2 billion which amounted to 45.2 per cent of the NHS budget.

Day-to-day spending on the NHS will rise by 3.8% between 2021/22 and 2024/25, reaching a total of £166bn (in today’s prices) by 2024/25. The capital budget to cover NHS infrastructure costs will reach £10.5bn in 2024/25 (in today’s prices), in line with the REAL Centre’s projection of what is needed over this period. With a population of 67 million, that is about £2700 each.
So here is a few radical suggestion.
England the country – not the football team – it needs to take a look at itself.
Scrap first past to post voting. Replace it Proportional Representation to reflect its multi cultural population. In doing so place the Monarchy on a historical footing paying for its self from its own wealth. This requires a written constitution.
The central problem is this:
With a separate Scottish Parliament, Scottish voters can elect lawmakers to the British Parliament in Westminster, whose votes decide policies that only apply in England. English voters, meanwhile, have no say over policies decided by the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, even though the money used to pay for these policies is raised by the British government. This structural problem has no solution, either, because to create an English parliament on a similar footing to the Scottish one would mean that the most important person in the country would no longer be the British prime minister, but whoever ran the new English assembly.
Scrap the Benefit Society and charge a fees for hospital attendance while Introducing a Universal basic income for £1,600 a month for all those with citizenship earning less than living wage.

With such an income they are no longer entitled to benefits, must look after their own health and education. A UBI would directly alleviate poverty and boost millions of people’s wellbeing: the potential benefits are just too large to ignore.

No one should ever be facing poverty, having to choose between heating and eating.

Some serious consideration of reform is vital to how millions of National Lottery and public money is spent on sport which should be funded by income of Football worth trillions.

This is the time to be talking about constitutional change in order to use money and investment as a force for good not profit. Integrate the action of individual agents, such as businesses, industries, banks and hedge funds, from the ground up because with technology these systems are suddenly become wildly unpredictable, exhibiting extreme fluctuations.

It all points to governments worldwide and how they have bought into the idea that economic growth can be perpetuated for ever. But that isn’t strictly realistic without action.

For instance:

The green energy transition will affect every aspect of life. Armed Forces often have a strong influence on governments across the world and therefore if they act, governments are more likely to act. British military activity are responsible for approximately 50% of all UK government emissions, it plays a fundamental role in helping the country reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. Climate change is important, but the time scales being talked about (2050, or even 2030) are seen as distant – important, but not urgent when urgent is something faced today, tomorrow. The solution is to make the important urgent, and this is beginning to happen.

————

England is so deep in places that its secrets remain hidden.

Does the future of the United Kingdom—a political entity only 100 years old—really matter?

After all, the state that exists today is the product of Irish secession in 1921.

One of the problems in Britain is that the loss of faith in the country is now so pervasive that it is hard to know whether it can be rebuilt.

The union is not only being questioned by Welsh, Irish, and Scottish nationalists, but also, now, by the once-unionist middle classes in England for whom Brexit has broken a bit of the faith they had in Britain. Some simply no longer believe it’s worth saving.

The Republic of Ireland in recent years must also acknowledge the uncomfortable challenge it presents to British unionism.

And this is not just because it too is wealthy and settled, but because, in the imaginative sense, it knows who it is. Its national myths and stories might be just as bogus as any other country’s, but it believes them and promotes them through symbols and ceremonies. It is, in effect, a deeply conservative state that promotes a cohesive nationalism in a way the British state simply does not.

For Ireland, this success carries its own challenge as it seeks to subsume Northern Ireland and its million-strong British Protestant population, who do not share these national stories.

Look after the people first and GDP growth will follow.

It seems to me that if Britain is to survive, it has to believe that there is such a thing as Britain and act as though that is the case.

At root, Brexit was an assertion of nation—the British nation—but one mostly made by the English.

Here in lies its essential paradox. It is a revolution that has the potential to accelerate the breakup of the nation by revealing its Englishness, but also one that carries within it the potential to slowly rebuild a sense of Britishness by creating a new national distinctiveness from the other: Europe.

Outside the European Union, Britain’s collective experience becomes more national by definition.

It is for this reason that Brexit makes Scottish independence more likely in the short term, but more complicated in the long term, because it would mean imposing a hard border across the island of Britain that would not have been necessary had the U.K. remained in the EU.

In time, Brexit might prove to be the thing that finally breaks the union, or a shock that started the long, painful rebuilding process.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains an unusual country, but its vital memories are dying.

To survive, it must be more than empty pomp.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ARE WE HANDING OVER HUGE SECTIONS OF OUR SOCIETIES TO BLACK-BOX ALGORITHEMS?

02 Saturday Sep 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ARE WE HANDING OVER HUGE SECTIONS OF OUR SOCIETIES TO BLACK-BOX ALGORITHEMS?

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., digital surveillance., The Future of Mankind

( Five minute read)

Yes is the answer.

Right now, the state of the safety field is far behind the soaring investment in making AI systems more powerful, more capable, and more dangerous.

Using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to replace human decision-making will inevitably create new risks whose consequences are unforeseeable.

The more you put in, the more you get out.

That’s what drives the breathless energy that pervades so much of AI right now.

Consequences of these capabilities and systems–both intended and unintended–are significant, and growth in sensing technology will have far-reaching implications for our social norms and systems.

Data gathering is not inherently negative, it’s a matter of how transparent companies are in gathering information and the choices they make about how the data is used.

Because of the growing ubiquity of algorithms in society which are raising a number of fundamental questions concerning governance of data, transparency of algorithms, legal and ethical frameworks for automated algorithmic decision-making and the societal impacts of algorithmic automation itself we are now in a rush to regulate ( in ignorance) of their impact, which current law and regulation cannot deal with adequately.

However AI technology can provide sufficient transparency in explaining how AI decisions are made.

Transparency ex post can often be achieved through retrospective analysis of the technology’s operations, and will be sufficient if the main goal is to compensate victims of incorrect decisions.

Ex ante transparency is more challenging, and can limit the use of some AI technologies such as neural networks. It should only be demanded by regulation where the AI presents risks to fundamental rights, or where society needs reassuring that the technology can safely be used.

One thing we’re definitely not doing:

Understanding them better, and as we develop more powerful systems, that fact will go from an academic puzzle to a huge, existential question. If anything, as the systems get bigger, interpretability — the work of understanding what’s going on inside AI models, and making sure they’re pursuing our goals rather than their own — gets harder.

We’re now at the point where powerful AI systems can be genuinely scary to interact with.

Ai poses some wider concerns including data monopolies, the challenge to democracy, public participation and maintaining the public interest. Given the speed of development in the field, it’s long past time to move beyond a reactive mode, one where we only address AI’s downsides once they’re clear and present.

There is enormous opportunity for positive social impact from the rise of algorithms and machine learning. But this requires a licence to operate from the public, based on trustworthiness.

The very concept of fairness as an ethical value has not yet been sufficiently explored. Any regulations should ensure that systems adhering to them, are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is currently no specific regulation on AI and algorithmic decision-making in place.

Decisions concerning AI at a societal level should not be in the hands of “unelected tech leaders”.

We can’t only think about today’s systems, but where the entire enterprise is headed.

Most AI systems to day are black box models, which are systems that are viewed only in terms of their inputs and outputs. Scientists do not attempt to decipher the “black box,” or the opaque processes that the system undertakes, as long as they receive the outputs they are looking for.

With a Quantum self learning systems it would be possible to build brains that could reproduce themselves on an assembly line and which would be conscious of their existence.

———————–

This particular mad science might kill us all.

Here’s why.

At present this Ai — called deep learning — started significantly outperforming other approaches to computer vision, language, translation, prediction, generation, and countless other issues.

The shift is about as subtle as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, as neural network-based AI systems that smashed every other competing technique on everything from computer vision to translation to chess.

No one has yet discovered the limits of this principle, even though major tech companies now regularly do eye-popping multimillion-dollar training runs for their systems.

It’s not simply what they can do, but where they’re going.

With deep learning, improving systems doesn’t necessarily involve or require understanding what they’re doing. Often, a small tweak will improve performance substantially, but the engineers designing the systems don’t know why.

Intelligent agency is an extremely powerful force, and creating agents much more intelligent than us is playing with fire — especially given that if their objectives are problematic, such agents would plausibly have instrumental incentives to seek power over humans. We can’t pinpoint the exact reasons for our preferences, emotions, and desires at any given moment.

Current language models remain limited.

They lack “common sense” in many domains, still make basic mistakes about the world a child wouldn’t make, and will assert false things unhesitatingly. But the fact that they’re limited at the moment is no reason to be reassured.

As hard as that will likely prove, getting AI systems to behave themselves outwardly may be much easier than getting them to actually pursue our goals and not lie to us about their capabilities and intentions.

What makes it different from other powerful, emerging technologies like biotechnology, which could trigger terrible pandemics, or nuclear weapons, which could destroy the world?

The difference is that these tools, as destructive as they can be, are largely within our control.

If they cause catastrophe, it will be because we deliberately chose to use them, or failed to prevent their misuse by malign or careless human beings.

But AI is dangerous precisely because the day could come when it is no longer in our control at all. The result will be highly-capable, non-human agents actively working to gain and maintain power over their environment —agents in an adversarial relationship with humans who don’t want them to succeed.

Let us now assume, for the sake of argument, that these machines are a genuine possibility, and look at the consequences of constructing them. … There would be plenty to do in trying, say, to keep one’s intelligence up to the standard set by the machines, for it seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers. … At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control.

So a powerful AI system that is trying to do something, while having goals that aren’t precisely the goals we intended it to have, may do that something in a manner that is unfathomably destructive. This is not because it hates humans and wants us to die, but because it didn’t care and was willing to, say, poison the entire atmosphere, or unleash a plague, if that happened to be the best way to do the things it was trying to do.

But while divides remain over what to expect from AI — and even many leading experts are highly uncertain — there’s a growing consensus that things could go really, really badly.

It’s worth pausing on that for a moment.

Nearly half of the smartest people working on AI believe there is a 1 in 10 chance or greater that their life’s work could end up contributing to the annihilation of humanity.

It’s not legal for a tech company to build a nuclear weapon on its own. But private companies are building systems that they themselves acknowledge will likely become much more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

For me, the moment of realization — that this is something different, this is unlike emerging technologies we’ve seen before — came from talking with GPT-3, telling it to answer the questions as an extremely intelligent and thoughtful person, and watching its responses immediately improve in quality.

Round table on Artificial Intelligence, in San Francisco

The challenges are here, and it’s just not clear if we’ll solve them in time.

One only has to look at the above photo. A “wake-up call”

Speed is really important here.

“I don’t think ever in the history of human endeavour has there been as fundamental potential technological change as is presented by artificial intelligence,” Biden said at a news conference earlier this month. “It is staggering. It is staggering.” He does a lot of that.

If one acts too slowly, we are going to be behind by the time to take action, and any actions are going to be leapfrogged by the technology.

“My administration is committed to safeguarding Americans’ rights and safety while protecting privacy, to addressing bias and misinformation, to making sure AI systems are safe before they are released,”

This is Hog wash.

If government’s don’t step in, who will fill their place? Ai of course.

Even if these narrower issues are solved, all political contexts run the risk of unlawfully exploiting AI surveillance technology to obtain certain political objectives.

All countries with a population of at least 250,000 are using some form of AI surveillance systems to monitor their citizens. “Some autocratic governments – for example, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia – are exploiting AI technology for mass surveillance purposes.

One way of looking at the issue is not simply to focus on the surveillance technology, but “the export of authoritarianism.

One way to try to ensure continued political survival is to look to technology to enact repressive policies, and suppress the population from expressing things that would challenge a state.

AI will be the key to military superiority, investing in AI is a way to ensure and maintain dominance and power in the future.

There are plenty of problems with surveillance, but it may also be a fact of life going forward—and something people will need to get used to. Within a world where your data is everywhere, devices listen to your words, cameras monitor your face and GPS systems know your whereabouts, ubiquitous organizational tracking may be inevitable.

But like so many things, it’s not the what, it’s the how.

If tracking is occurring as a gotcha strategy—in which the goal is to catch people misbehaving or punish them—the relationships with employees and the culture will pay steep prices.

Ultimately, we need to do what’s right—not just what’s possible—by using our values as a guide, the use of technologies.

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

Contact : bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHERE ARE WE WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING?

30 Wednesday Aug 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHERE ARE WE WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING?

Tags

Genetic engineering, The Future of Mankind

( Seven minute read)

Genetic engineering is the act of modifying the genetic makeup of an organism, it can inevitably make us become the first species in history to direct its own evolution.

However there is always a but. Ignoring our ongoing evolution while pursuing gene editing would be incredibly reckless.

Like any evolutionary trait, this new ability may help our species to thrive—and perhaps even produce successor species. Or it may not. It could be one of those evolutionary traits that leads a species down a path that endangers its survival.

Evolution is fickle that way.

In other words, though genetic engineering is a very advanced technology for now, we are going to face a lot of questions not only just the confusion of our evolution. Such as if we tend to edit our gene over and over, the edit gene will be more and more common over generations, but at that time, are we still human beings or a new kind of species?

So where are?

After millions of centuries during which evolution happened “naturally,” humans now can hack the code of life and engineer our own genetic futures. Or, for those who decry gene editing as “playing God,” let’s put it this way:

Nature and nature’s God, in their wisdom, have evolved a species that can modify its own genome.

We will keep evolving one way or the other, but with genetic engineering of humans already under way, we must also consider our evolutionary future. Ignoring our ongoing evolution while pursuing gene editing would be incredibly reckless. On the other hand, genetic engineering can indeed help human to solve a lot of questions.

Before we embark on the most significant alteration to the natural evolution of life, let’s be sure we understand what we’re dealing with.

evolutionjpg

We still know very little about exactly how it works.

We are just starting to understand how the human microbiome — the billions of bacteria and other microorganisms that live in and on our bodies — influence our evolution.

China has already treated at least 86 patients using a new technique called CRISPR gene editing to treat human diseases like certain forms of cancer. So far, these approaches only affect the genes of the patient receiving the treatment, but the next logical step will be to edit genes in human embryos. This would be a permanent cure, since the edited genes would be passed on to subsequent generations.

If we are no longer subject to a natural lottery of endowments, will it weaken our feelings of empathy and acceptance?

If we are wise in how we use it, biotechnology can make us more able to fend off lethal viruses and overcome serious genetic defects.

Should humans actually alter their genetic code to introduce preferential attributes? Should parents be allowed to dictate what their children look like? And, perhaps most pressing of all, should we be altering our own evolutionary path in this extreme way? (Selective breeding is not considered a form of genetic engineering.)

If the marvellous enhancements offered at the genetic supermarket aren’t free (and they won’t be), will that greatly increase inequality—and even encode it permanently in the human race?

What might CRISPR do to the diversity of our species?

Cultural and evolutionary forces can act in opposition to one another. In other words, the population is evolving.

David Attenborough remarked that “we are the only species to have out a halt to our own evolution.

Modifications can be generated by methods such as gene targeting, nuclear transplantation, transfection of synthetic chromosomes or viral insertion.

Genetic modification/engineering of plants still in a test stage.

The technology is still relatively new, and it may take several years before new varieties of pest resistance plants are on sale.

Is this true? No. GM crops have been consumed by billions of consumers in North and South America and Asia for more than 25 years with no ill-effects.

Current genetically engineered crops include those that are resistant to insect attack or are herbicide resistant.

In Japan, you can already buy tomatoes rich in a chemical called GABA, which has a calming effect, and modified sea bream where more of the flesh is suitable for sushi. A US firm is developing seedless blackberries and stone less cherries, gene-edited wheat. Sheep and goats have been genetically engineered to produce chemicals in their milk that can be used to treat disease.

Scientists have recently added a gene to bananas.

We have cultured meat, produced in bioreactors without the slaughter of an animal, has been approved for sale by a regulatory authority for the first time.

What does the future of genetically modified crops hold?

There is no magic fix to climate change and no sure-fire way to make agriculture more sustainable, but climate change will and is transforming how we feed ourselves.

New legislation has also opens the door to the sale of meat, eggs and dairy from gene-edited animals. The new rules do not require GE foods to be labelled as such.

—————

Genetic engineering of stem cells.

Stem cell potential to use in cancer therapy and regenerative medicine are endowed with genetic circuits have the potential to transform basic science and medicine.

Significant efforts are currently underway to program stem cells with genetic circuits to push their differentiation into desired lineages. It is suggest that synthetic biologists can program stem cells with artificial decision-making abilities that can be used to direct stem cell fate into desired lineages. While some principles of genetic engineering remain steadfast, others change as technologies are ever-evolving and continue to revolutionize research in many fields. The next generation of innovators in the field of genomics and data sciences will be using Biobank data leading to patients.

Stem cells play an important role in the development and regeneration of human tissues.

The ultimate goal of the cell engineering strategy is to industrialize and form real cell products that can be marketed.

Transfer of the selected gene into other species. GM crops might breed with wild relatives of the crop plants.
Pollen produced by the plants could be toxic and harm insects that transfer it between plants.
GM crops could cause allergic reactions in people.
Crop growers cannot collect seed from their plants and sow them, because they are different genetically – they must buy new seeds every year – so people in developing countries may not be able to afford them.
The plants produce toxins, which would kill insects eating the crop.

Just like technology the world of GM is more or less non regulated.

In the end perhaps we will be eating ourselves and passing this data to a conscious robot.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT SORT OF LIFE DO YOU WANT AND WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH AI?

19 Saturday Aug 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT SORT OF LIFE DO YOU WANT AND WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH AI?

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism and Greed, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

( Ten minute read)

No matter what sort of life you might wish for it will be governed by technology, that you have little or no control over or of.

Is this true?

I want my life back. I want my soul back.

I don’t want my life to be fodder for Data harvesting.

I want digital blockchain ownership rights, so I can trade my investment into technology against profit seeking algorithms.

I want to bring us back to a more practical reality, which is that technology is what we make it, and we need to stop abdicating our responsibility to steer technology toward good and away from bad.

I don’t think any technology has some deterministic endpoint.

But there’s a catch.

Data is only as valuable as the insight you derive from it now or in the future. If we’re to avoid technological extremism we’re going to have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

We know that, at the very least, some technologies are harming our natural world, our societies and, ultimately, ourselves, turning everything into Data.

According to a prediction from Gartner, “By 2024, 30% of digital businesses will mandate DNA storage trials. This is a future that can only arrive when we learn to unlock the storage and computing capabilities of nature that have allowed life to thrive for billions of years.

Throughout human history, it has always taken significant resources to store data. Therefore, data has been stored only to the extent that it makes economic sense, if data cannot yield value, it is no longer an asset but rather a liability.

If all is turned it data stored in the cloud, the exponential growth of data will overwhelm existing storage technology. The average person makes 35,000 decisions per day.

————

So where are we?

By way of this vicious technological cycle, we are consciously causing the sixth mass extinction of species.

Technology destroys places.

Aside from the oceans, rivers, topsoil, forests, mountains and meadows, it helps us massacre and pollute with ever-improving precision and speed, its complex set of cogs quickly spreads us out all over the world, safe in the knowledge that we can stay in touch with loved ones via technologies that offer what is really only a toxic substitute for real connection and time together.

It is badly injuring, perhaps fatally, rural communities, luring their youth into industrial and financial centres – cities – whose existence is premised, as the American writer and environmentalist Wendell Berry said, on the devastation of some other far-flung place, which consumers don’t have to look at thanks to the out-of-sight, out-of-mind distance afforded by technology.

And now look at the state of us.

Capitalism’s survival now depends not just on recapturing all of this data but the CO2 it is a releasing.

Workers must work and produce value. Capital must exploit them, connected, by a peculiar sort of invisible cable, to the global network of quarries, factories, courtrooms, mines, financial institutions, bureaucracies, armies, transport networks and workers needed to produce such things. Reflective of a generic, transient and whimsical culture, spending more time watching porn than we do making love. Because we stare into screens instead of eyes, while social media are making us antisocial.

Technology destroys people.

We’re already cyborgs (pacemakers, hearing aids) of a sort, and are well on our way to the type of Big Brother dystopia of the techno-utopians. Our toxic, sedentary lifestyles are causing industrial-scale afflictions of cancer, mental illness, obesity, heart disease, auto-immune disorders and food intolerances, along with those slow killers, loneliness, clock-watching and meaninglessness.

If one rejects technology that means no laptop, no internet, no phone, no washing machine, no tapped water, no gas, no fridge, no television or electronic music; no anything requiring the copper-mining, oil-rigging, plastics-manufacturing essential to the production of a single toaster or solar photovoltaic system.

It destroys our relationship with the natural world. It first separates us from nature, while simultaneously converting life into the cash that oils consumerist society.

Without biodiversity, life on earth as we know it would cease to exist.

And it’s not just about rare or endangered species, it’s everything from genes and bacteria to entire ecosystems like forests and coral reefs, not technology. So think about it this way. Biodiversity is us — it’s like a big, interconnected web where each species has a role to play, and the only way to achieve this is that we all invest and benefits from investing in world of green energy.

Awareness of the importance of biodiversity remains low, inclusion of biodiversity in development projects is rare. Time is running out for our planet, for its people, and the delicate ecosystems that hang in the balance. This is not the life that anyone would chose.

——————–

Rejecting technologies that my generation considers to be the basic necessities of life, one might instead of making a living to pay bills, make a living of ones life, denouncing complex technology simply by renouncing it.

Our cultures need to make a Faustian pact, (a pact whereby a person trades something of supreme moral or spiritual importance, such as personal values or the soul, or data for some worldly or material benefit, such as knowledge, power, or riches ), on my behalf, with Speed, Numbers, Homogeneity, Efficiency and Schedules, are not listing when I say I want my soul back. person on a smartphone

Our brains have become wired to process social information, and we usually feel better when we are connected. Social media taps into this tendency. “

When you develop a population-scale technology that delivers social signals to the tune of trillions per day in real-time, the rise of social media isn’t unexpected. It’s like tossing a lit match into a pool of gasoline.

About 3.5 billion people on the planet, out of 7.7 billion, are active social media participants. Globally, during a typical day, people post 500 million tweets, share over 10 billion pieces of Facebook content, and watch over a billion hours of YouTube video.

Social media has become a vehicle for disinformation and political attacks from beyond sovereign borders.

What can we do about it?

We’re at a crossroads. What we do next is essential, so I want to equip people, policymakers, and platforms to help us achieve the good outcomes and avoid the bad outcomes.

People obtain bigger hits of dopamine — the chemical in our brains highly bound up with motivation and reward — when their social media posts receive more likes.

Researchers found that on Twitter, from 2006 to 2017, false news stories were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than true ones. Why? Most likely because false news has greater novelty value compared to the truth, and provokes stronger reactions — especially disgust and surprise.

Social media is an attention economy, and businesses want you engaged. How do they get engagement? Well, they give you little dopamine hits, and … get you riled up. That’s why I call it the hype machine. We know strong emotions get us engaged, so [that favours] anger and salacious content.

Simply counting clicks is not enough.

To understand how we got here and how we can get somewhere better.

We need to.

Interduces automated and user-generated labelling of false news, and limiting revenue-collection that is based on false content. However tagging some stories as false makes readers more willing to believe other stories and share them with friends, even if those additional, untagged stories also turn out to be false.

To allows people to find out what information companies have stored about them for data portability and interoperability, so consumers would own their identities and could freely switch from one network to another. We need to embrace this longer-term vision of a healthier communications ecosystem.

This can be achieved with Blockchain plate forms.

Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets. An asset can be tangible (a house, car, cash, land) or intangible (intellectual property, patents, copyrights, branding). Virtually anything of value can be tracked and traded on a blockchain network, reducing risk and cutting costs for all involved.

A blockchain network can track orders, payments, accounts, production and much more. And because members share a single view of the truth, you can see all details of a transaction end to end, giving you greater confidence, as well as new efficiencies and opportunities

Each block is connected to the ones before and after it.

These blocks form a chain of data as an asset moves from place to place or ownership changes hands.

The blocks confirm the exact time and sequence of transactions, and the blocks link securely together to

prevent any block from being altered or a block being inserted between two existing blocks.

Each additional block strengthens the verification of the previous block and hence the entire blockchain.

This renders the blockchain tamper-evident, delivering the key strength of immutability. This removes the

possibility of tampering by a malicious actor — and builds a ledger of transactions you and other network

members can trust.

With blockchain, as a member of a members-only network, you can rest assured that you are receiving

accurate and timely data, and that your confidential blockchain records will be shared only with network

members to whom you have specifically granted access.

If things continue without change, Facebook and the other social media giants risk substantial civic

backlash and user burnout. Ask me to stay on social media to speak out about the technology issue,

make a comment. All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

https://youtu.be/QJn28fFKUR0

https://youtu.be/Se91Pn3xxSs

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: FROM HERE INTO THE FUTURE WILL TECHNOLOGY’S BE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERATIONS?

17 Thursday Aug 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERATIONS, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: FROM HERE INTO THE FUTURE WILL TECHNOLOGY’S BE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERATIONS?

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., The Future of Mankind

( Fifteen minute read)

We could be the first in human history to leave our children nothing.

No greenhouse-gas emissions, no poverty, and no biodiversity loss but they say that the attention spam of the generation of social media is only eighth minute.

So here are a few facts.

We have 8 billon of us on the earth, with around 35 mega cities, built on the back of fossil fuels, feed by monocultural farming. 4% of all animals are wild, all the rest are domestic. There is no technology that will save humanity against Climate change.

Only if we put the Earth first will there be a future generation.

There will be no encore.

————

When we talk about generational differences, we no longer can just identify differences between generations, but we can identify differences within generations as well.

Technology is the catalyst for the rapidity with which generations now evolve. Change, hitherto that was a gradual process, has become, for us, cataclysmic.

It has become a tidal wave that threatens to overwhelm us.

A decade to-day is the equivalent of a generation, and standards and values topple over like ninepins.

Take smartphones for example. They have only been in widespread use for a decade, but they’re now so fundamental to our daily lives that it’s hard to remember life without them.

How could we possibly see those who can remember life before the smartphone as part of the same generation as those who’ve known nothing else?

If we name each generation based on the technological conditions it experienced, generations may soon encompass only a few years apiece. Slicing the population into ever-narrower generations, each defined by its very specific relationship to technology, is fundamental to how we think about the relationship between age, culture, and technology.

They include the digital natives, the net generation, the Google generation or the millennials.

But generation gaps did not begin with the invention of the microchip. What’s new is the fine-slicing of generational divides, the centrality of technology to defining each successive generation.

It’s not politics or sociology, because they don’t move fast enough, it has to be video based.

We’ve moved from a view of generations as biological “in the sense of the generation of a butterfly from a caterpillar,” as Hentea puts it, to a view of generations as sociological. By no longer limiting political power to a defined group but rather encouraging political participation across social strata.

At the same time, democratization paradoxically created generational categories.

With aristocratic privileges abolished and duties diminished, the Internet generation provided a fall-back for social belonging:

Not everyone can belong to my generation, so the vestigial desire for distinction is satisfied, but at the same time, no one remains without a generation, so the democratic impulse toward equality is met.

Since the dotcom bubble burst back in 2000, technology has radically transformed our societies and our daily lives. Today over half the global population has access to the internet. At the same time, technology was also becoming more personal and portable greatly shaped how and where we consume media.

While these new online communities and communication channels have offered great spaces for alternative voices, their increased use has also brought issues of increased disinformation and polarization.

It is indisputable that thanks to technology, we are getting a chance to live a life our predecessors could not even dream about.

The next generation is not going to sit and read policy and procedure manuals. Nor are they going to spend their time dealing with complex reports.

If the role of technology in shaping an emergent generational consciousness seems obvious, but no one attributes the evils of the age to its machines. By growing up with mobile devices and social networks, the skills they bring into the workplace for collaborative capabilities is profound compared to what we saw with Millennials just 10 years prior.

————-

However as we know each generations live in the shadow of the generation before it.

The technology there are using are filtrated with all the positives and negative of the generation before them.

But do all tech advancements bring sole good to our lives?

Or, maybe, the impact of tech innovations is quite ambiguous.

It’s easy to become desensitized to the importance of innovations and advancements for the overall progress of society.

All countries share responsibility for the long-term stability of Earth’s natural cycles, on which the planet’s ability to support us depends. We are the first generation that can make an informed choice about the direction our planet will take. Either we leave our descendants an endowment of zero poverty, zero fossil-fuel use, and zero biodiversity loss, or we leave them facing a tax bill from Earth that could wipe them out.

There’s no sugar-coating the truth that different generations interact with technology differently.

Advancements in technology have already tapped into every area of life. There is a dedicated mobile app for everything.

Every living person today can be considered part of a digital generation, because — no matter how much we engage with technology — we are living in a digital-first world. Of course, the degree to which each person is comfortable and willing to embrace technology is also dependent on when and where they entered the world.

To some degree, it’s actually something we’re born into, depending on how tech-forward the world was when we entered it.

Technology is ever-evolving and each digital generation adapts to these advancements at their own pace.

However the digital generation can be considered as encompassing only people who were born into or raised in the digital era, meaning with wide-spread access to modern-age technology such as smartphones, tablets, computers, and digital information like the internet.

There are differences in the motivations underlying technology behaviour in each generational group, and there may be variances in the way each generational group uses and gets engaged with technology.

Research findings indicate that millennials mostly use and get engaged with technologies for entertainment and hedonic purposes. They use technology as a means to go after their aspirations and dreams, looking to gather and share information that quickly moves them and their ideas forward.

They are prone to act faster once they make a decision and technology has made a true quantum leap, with augmented reality, blockchain, artificial intelligence, and 3D printing being just a few examples of the most recent inventions.

The days of simple demographic segmentation are gone.

With every new generation, the access to limitless amounts of data has created a much more complex level of fragmentation and micro-segmentation.

To day the average person has an attention span of just 8 seconds.

Digital citizenship now applies to everyone but not everyone is the same in any generation, and everyone is subject to different economic circumstances regardless of their generation.

Though it may be tough to predict which advancements technology would bring next, some innovations are already changing our beliefs about the world around us.

Clearly, technology by itself is neither good nor bad.

It is only the way and extent to which we use it that matters.

While some people want just, to sit back and watch the world burn.

We are now the generation under constant surveillance, sharing our data with companies all the time online. Tracing our shadows that allows them to get a glimpse into the digital traces you’re leaving – how many, what kinds, and from what devices.

The use of surveillance cameras in modern society has always been divisive, requiring governing bodies to perform a fine balancing act between respecting the nation’s civil liberties and keeping its citizens safe and secure. It’s a multi-layered issue incorporating many dimensions, including technology, legislation, code of ethics and conduct, and one that triggers conversation year-round.

When the Covid pandemic hit, a number of governments rolled out or extended surveillance programs of unprecedented scale and intrusiveness, in the belief, however misguided, that perpetual monitoring would help restrict people’s movements and therefore the spread of the virus.

It’s important to ask when technology adds value, and for whom.

If technology can indeed aid in pandemic response and recovery, it is essential to have open, inclusive, transparent, and honest public discussions on the appropriate type of public digital infrastructure people need to thrive.

The rush to embrace digital contact tracing has opened a Pandora’s box of privacy.

As the technology develops, we are seeing more sophisticated AI being integrated into surveillance systems and facial recognition technology, in particular, is creating a stir in terms of practice and legislation. Surveillance is a vast and varied topic and one that can present some very emotive and social issues, as well as legislative and technological ones. Without real reflection on the rights implications, there’s a real risk of deepening inequality and vesting considerable power to coerce and control people in governments and the private sector.

Any deployment of technology should be rooted in human rights standards, centred on enabling people to live a dignified life.

It’s up to every digital citizen — whether they’re a digital native or digital immigrant — to practice cyber safety and, in turn, instil it in digital generations to come.

New technologies such as virtual visits, chatbots are being used to delivery healthcare to individuals, especially during Covid-19.

The ability to understand and respect someone else’s feelings is always important but even more so online. That’s because written communications and online interactions, such as text messages and social media comments, are often missing the nonverbal cues we have in the physical world that give us a well-rounded understanding of someone else’s stance.

Every user of the internet has a right to privacy. Still, we share The law still applies when we’re online

On the downside, some technological developments prove to be a curse rather than a blessing. Overindulgence in the use of digital apps and smart devices, overreliance on online tools may sometimes lead to tragic effects.

If you believe that technological conditions profoundly shape the life experience and perspectives of each successive generation, then those generations will only get narrower.

Doesn’t the leap from Facebook to Snap Chat constitute its own profound generational divide?

If we name each generation based on the specific technological conditions it experienced during childhood or adolescence, we may soon be dealing with generations that encompass only a few years apiece. At that point, the very idea of “generations” will cease to have much utility for social scientists, since it will be very hard to analyse attitudinal or behavioural differences between generations that are just a few years part.

I do expect new social platforms to emerge that focus on privacy and ‘fake-free’ information, or at least they will claim to be so. Proving that to a jaded public will be a challenge. Resisting the temptation to exploit all that data will be extremely hard. And how to pay for it all? If it is subscriber-paid, then only the wealthy will be able to afford it. But at the end of the decade, humans will still be humans, and both greed and generosity, love and hate, truth and lies, will likely still exist in the same proportions as they do today.

We are looking to technology to lead us towards a carbon-neutral world but there are other factors at work, [to] the growth of authoritarian governments and social inequalities.

Climate change will change the temperatures up or down till a tipping point plunges us into a non reversible disaster, with consequence of unimaginable survival.

We are headed toward an increasingly panoptic society, as represented by the Chinese government’s emerging social credit scale. In other words, just as digital world is shaping the physical world, physical world shapes our digital world as well.

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

Contact : bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED JUST HOW MUCH A GOAL IN FOOTBALL COST?

12 Saturday Aug 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED JUST HOW MUCH A GOAL IN FOOTBALL COST?

( Five minute read)

Most of the world is football mad however the world pays a high price for a goal considering the amount of prize money that a victorious Gladiator could expect, which varied depending on the time he lived.

In the Year 177 AD, Gladiators could get between 12 and 60 Sesterces if they were slaves and 15 to 75 sesterces if they were auctoratii. Free Veteran Gladiators without an owner, could negotiate their pay.

Since they were Veterans with a huge reputation and a corresponding fan base they would make much more than 12-75 sesterces per fight.

The highest-paid gladiators might make up to 5000 sesterces around £50 “of our present money”.

Well here is the answer.

Top 10 highest-paid soccer players in the world (September, 2022)

1. Kylian Mbappe = $125 million total ($105 million salary + $20 million endorsements)

2. Cristiano Ronaldo = $113 million ($53 million salary + $60 million endorsements)

3. Lionel Messi = $110 million ($62 million salary + $48 million endorsements)

4. Neymar = $91 million ($56 million salary + $35 million endorsements)

5. Mohamed Salah = $39.5 million ($24.5 million salary + $15 million endorsements)

6. Eden Hazard = $31.3 million ($28.6 million salary + $2.5 million endorsements)

7. Andres Iniesta = $30 million ($23 million salary + $7 million endorsements)

8. Raheem Sterling = $29.4 million ($21.4 million salary + $8 million endorsements)

9. Kevin de Bruyne = $29 million ($25.5 million salary + $3.5 million endorsements)

10. Antoine Griezmann = $27.5 million ($22 million salary + $5.5 million endorsements)

—————————-

Ranking	Club	Average Attendance	Average Matchday Income per game (£)
1	Manchester United	74,498	3.96 million
2	Arsenal	59,898	3.1 million
3	Liverpool	52,983	3.01 million
4	Tottenham Hotspur	54,216	2.92 million
5	Chelsea	40,437	2.08 million
6	Manchester City	54,143	2.08 million
7	West Ham United	58,336	1.23 million
8	Newcastle United	51,121	1.9 million
9	Southampton	30,435	0.77 million
10	Brighton	30,425	0.77 million
11	Everton	39,043	0.59 million
12	Leicester City	31,814	0.59 million
13	Crystal Palace	25,455	0.5 million
14	Fulham	24,371	0.47 million
15	Wolverhampton	31,030	0.46 million
16	Watford	20,016	0.44 million
17	Cardiff City	31,408	0.37 million
18	Burnley	20,534	0.36 million
19	Huddersfield Town	23,340	0.25 million
20	Bournemouth	10,532	0.21 million

Infographic: How much does a goal cost Premier League spectators? | Statista

When it comes to matchday income, gate receipts is by far the most significant resource. However, its importance varies between one club and another based on several factors, including the capacity of the stadium and the general status of the club.

Matchday income is the total revenue generated by a club when hosting a match on home turf. In the Premier League, the home side exclusively receives the money generated from gate receipts. Every season, each club hosts 19 league fixtures, and is entitled to earn all the cash generated from its home games.

Naturally, box office income is the largest percentage of the matchday revenue, but it also includes food and beverage sales, as well as merchandise sales. For instance, Tottenham Hotspur is believed to generate around £800,000 per game from food sales.

On the other hand, TV money made up almost 60% of the clubs’ incomes, while commercial revenues averaged around 27% of the total income.

The Premier League clubs paid out an astonishing grand total of over £261m on striker salaries last season, this divided by how long the strikers spent playing shows just how much they pay per minute.

Arsenal pay their strikers the highest amount of £3,721.37 per minute,

The average Blues fan (who regularly attended matches at the Stamford Bridge) spent £1,648 during that campaign.

The up and coming World cup tournament in Qatar has also incurred a human cost as well as a financial one. The total outlay paid out by Qatar is staggering, around $ 7 billion.

————————–

I want you now to close your eyes and picture the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,

Now what comes to mind?

Membership has its privileges. And before you can buy a ticket for 19 grand, you must be a member of the Economic Forum which costs a mere 52,000. And remember, that’s only if you’re invited.

For most it’s billionaires, CEOs, and world leaders hobnobbing in the Alps, but not for me.

It’s the $43 hot dog or Caesar salad, just short of $ 60 bucks.

Don’t get me wrong I love sport.

But how did we get here?”

The answer lies in decades of peddling the myth that wealth and success flow from personal endeavour and skill, and that poverty and failure are due to personal shortcomings.

The reality that most wealth and success stems from a mix of good fortune and the appropriation of other people’s resources and labour over centuries.

Yes, a handful of individuals with exceptional talents can make a quantum leap from poverty to fortune, but most are constrained by the realities of an economic system that has, for decades, seen a reduction in the share of wealth going to those reliant on their own labour for income.

I’d be interested to see what responses would be to questions such as this (considering that poverty is the main cause of world problems nowadays)

It’s 2020 now. Look what’s happened because of humanity! Australia is on fire! The endangered list is now 41,416! You know how big that number is, that’s a really big number! People think climate change doesn’t exist, yeah, people only believe things when they cause problems. Maybe people will believe climate change exists if every country is on fire.

People make fun of this topic but don’t! It is a serious problem and if we don’t solve it we all will die because of our actions.

Is there such a thing as Global Cooling? Probably not, but I like the sound of it.

There are too many people who don’t and can’t have enough, and it’s detrimental to continue to add to the population so rapidly. Of course, if those who selfishly own so much for themselves or to save so future generations of their family will also be wealthy would just share with those who are here and in need..

Gareth Southgate

At the moment we have the Woman’s world cup , Harry Kane – Spurs – just sold to Bayern München – 86 million.

So why pressurise FIFA the world governing body to let every goal in the coming World Cup in Qatar to contribute to reliving poverty. Lets say 50,000 per goal.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY ASK’S. BACTERIA IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE BUT COULD NEW ANCIENT MICROBES RELEASED BY CLIMATE CHANGE END IT.

09 Wednesday Aug 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASK’S. BACTERIA IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE BUT COULD NEW ANCIENT MICROBES RELEASED BY CLIMATE CHANGE END IT.

Tags

The Future of Mankind

( Four minute read)

Humans coevolved with their microbial partners and parasites for hundreds of thousands of years.

No matter how hard you try getting rid of bacteria is a futile task. Bacteria is in the air we breath.

Here are few that live in you, on you, with exotic names, to terrify you.

Salmonella is a very common bacteria so common that you may not realize that it actually lives in your intestines.

E.coli like Salmonella, that is perfectly healthy and safe when it lives in your intestines, but can be harmful.

Campylobacter bacteria, are very common and are found in the organs and muscles of many livestock animals, birds and are also present in soils.

Pseudomonas is a very common family of bacteria and is found all over the world. Found in soil, water, on plants and healthy people often have Pseudomonas bacteria living on their skin, in their hair and in places like their armpits.

Micrococcus is a very common genus of bacteria that has many different species. These bacteria are found all around us, including in the dust we find in our carpets and on our furniture in our homes.

Staphylococcus aureus or S.aureus an opportunistic bacteria, is found on our skin, in our nose, armpit, groin and other warm parts of your body is a bacteria that lives, with little to no impact on our health, in our noses and throats. It lives within our lungs and on our mucous membranes.

Bacillus bacteria are a group of bacteria that are found commonly in the environment but can cause illness in humans.

Clostridium perfringens another common bacteria that is found in the environment and in the intestines of many animals is This bacteria is found all around us and in most cases is harmless.

There you have it, a few bacteria’s that usually live peacefully with us, day today. However, when the conditions are right, they can make our lives miserable and uncomfortable.

If we ignore them, we are looking at our lives through a keyhole.

They guide the construction of our bodies, releasing molecules and signals that steer the growth of our organs. They educate our immune system, teaching it to tell friend from foe. They affect the development of the nervous system, and perhaps even inﬂuence our behaviour. They contribute to our lives in profound and wide-ranging ways; no corner of our biology is untouched.

In 2019, 7.7 million deaths around the world were found to be linked to bacterial infections. That equals 1 in 8 of all global deaths. It makes bacterial infections the second largest cause of death globally.

Three unknown species have been discovered growing on the ISS, but don’t break out the anti-bac wipes just yet, because there are bacteria that live in solid rock, metabolising radioactive waste, and even some that survive in boiling water.

Imagine if all microbes on the planet suddenly disappeared.

On the upside, infectious diseases would be a thing of the past, and many pest insects would be unable to eke out a living. But that’s where the good news ends because there would be complete societal collapse only within a year or so, linked to catastrophic failure of the food supply chain.

Over the past decade or so, the list of medicines we can use against harmful bacteria has been dwindling. At the same time, other disease-causing organisms – fungi, viruses and parasites – are also developing resistance to the drugs.

Bacteria are when it comes to straight numbers, the biggest population of organisms that exist on Earth. Bacteria can be found almost anywhere on the planet. The total estimate of bacteria that live around us is five million trillion trillion.

Sounds like a bunch of trillions, but the number would look like this: 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. An easier way of putting this would be ‘’five with 30 zeros after it’’ or, if you are a strict mathematician: 5 x 10 to the 30th power.

Somebody calculated, taking the average size of bacteria into account how much distance would all the bacteria stacked on top of each other. As it turns out, that long chain of bacteria would extend for a trillion light-years.

Out of all the bacteria that exist around us, less than one percent would, technically speaking, be considered dangerous.

Without a doubt, the stability of the Earth’s system largely depends on the world of bacteria.

There are more than 400 species of bacteria that make up the gut microbiome, helping digest food, ward off harmful pathogens, and synthesize vitamins.

The global antibacterial products market size was valued at USD 27.04 billion in 2020 and is expected to pass 30 billion this year.

We are surrounded by infections.

The release of just 1 per cent of pathogens trapped in the planet’s melting ice could pose a real risk of damage to the Earth’s ecosystems and potentially threaten human health, according to a new study.

As a society, we need to understand the potential risk posed by these ancient microbes so we can prepare for any unintended consequences of their release into the modern world.

COVID-19 is or was a virus not a bacteria.

Extreme weather events have come to dominate the disaster landscape in the 21st century.

To give some context, 689 million people – more than 9% of the world’s population – live on less than $1.90 a day.

The world’s 10 most affected countries are spending up to 59% of their GDP on the effects of violence. 2% reduction in the global impact of violence is roughly equivalent to all overseas development aid in 2019.”

With climate change releasing new ancient microbes the risk is no longer simply a fantasy.

With the state of the planet deteriorating, instead of working together to solve our problems, we spend time blaming, shaming, and attacking others—and the problems only escalate.

The question is how far do we have to go before we ask people in conflict to look beneath their differences to discover their shared needs.

Ajax kill all known clingon’s but remember we are tethered to the Earth.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: OUT OF A POPULATION OF ALMOST 340 MILLION IS THIS THE BEST THE USA CAN OFFER ITS PEOPLE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION – JOE BIDEN OR DONALD TRUMP.

09 Wednesday Aug 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: OUT OF A POPULATION OF ALMOST 340 MILLION IS THIS THE BEST THE USA CAN OFFER ITS PEOPLE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION – JOE BIDEN OR DONALD TRUMP.

( Eight minute read)

America is a Consumer Nation and its elections are all about money with the true sources of funds becoming increasingly opaque.

With the world’s most powerful military, a huge economy, home to many entrepreneurs it has created many iconic products which are highly sought after around the world.

However it didn’t invent steel, the car, radar, the gas or steam turbine, the television, the ships propeller, the aircraft carrier or even the steam catapult or angled flight deck. They definitely didn’t invent the steam engine, the railway, or the first mechanical computer. They didn’t invent the loom, or even the gun. They didn’t discover Penicillin, build the first successful VTOL aircraft, the first jet airliner, the first jet fighter or even the first jet engine, the hovercraft, the ships propeller, or the Bessemer converter so they could invent steel.. They didn’t invent the aircraft carrier, the battleship, the television (oops I already mentioned that one),and trust me I could add more..

Television – John Logie Baird – Not American

Telephone – Alexander Graham Bell – Not American

Radio – Gugliemo Marconi – Not American

World Wide Web – Tim Berners-Lee – Not American

Cars – Carl Benz – Not American

Penicillin – Alexander Fleming – Not American

Pasturisation – Louis Pasteur – Not American

Jet Engine – Frank Whittle – Not American

Splitting the Atom – Lord Ernest Rutherford – Not American.

Discovery of Radiation – Marie Curie – Not American.

Now we know what they didn’t invent, please tell us what they did.

They did invent.

The USA gave the world some of the greatest programmers, scientists, biologists and physicists.

Tupperware, defibrillator, Video games, the bill of rights, the Kul Klux Klan, motion pictures, light bulbs, advances in agronomy, Norman Borlaug awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for a lifetime of work to feed a hungry world, the telephone, Microwave ovens, industrial robotics, Washing machine, Television, Hollywood films, Fast food, the integrated circuit, the laser, the PC, the transistor, the Webb telescope, Calvin and Hobbes – Apple and Facebook.

What is the single greatest American Invention?

I think the answer is America itself. It keep being re-invented all the time.

The current contenders contributions.

Biden’s flagship victories.

The approval of a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package, a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, appointed 41 federal judges, reinstated a national freeze on federal executions, re-joined the international Paris Climate Accord, overturn Trump-era ban on openly transgender members of the U.S. military, reduce the rate of national unemployment, chaotically ended the war in Afghanistan, imposed several sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, released 180 million barrels of oil from the country’s Strategic Oil Reserves.

Overall, Biden’s tenure as president has been the proverbial “glass half full, half empty.

Trump’s presidency may be best remembered for its cataclysmic end. A four-yearlong storm of tweets, rallies and on-air rants that ended in a mob riot and historic second impeachment. Trump didn’t repeal Obamacare — he accidentally bolstered it. Arguably the most consequential decision Trump made involving American workers was something it chose not to do: He declined to implement a so-called “emergency temporary standard” when the coronavirus pandemic hit.

Cannabis is now legal in some form in 36 states, meaning that a majority of Americans have some form of legal access even though the drug remains officially illegal at the federal level. It’s easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering. On gas emissions, Trump went the opposite direction from the rest of the world, he made it possible to follow the Pentagon’s money. His biggest legislative achievement was arguably the $1.5 trillion tax cut package Republicans pushed through Congress, which he said would super-charge the economy. Rallied the world against China’s 5G dominance, doled out billions in aid to farmers shrinking the food safety net — a lot.

————

Sure, not everyone can run for president. Anyone under the age of 35 is out, as are those born overseas and non-residents of 14 years or more.

It helps to be well-known, popular and to sit on an eye-watering pile of money;

The 2020 presidential election cycle, for example, cost candidates a combined US$5.7 billion ($A8.37 billion), more than the GDP of several small countries. But even with all that considered, the pool of possible surely could not be reduced to the same two candidates as 2020.

So, why then are the odds of Biden and Trump going head-to-head once again so good?

With only ten of the 45 former presidents unable to secure second terms, incumbent presidents generally have a pretty good shot at winning a second term in office..

More than half of American voters do not want Biden to run in 2024, but dissatisfaction with a sitting president isn’t new. For example, 60% of Americans did not want Reagan to run again in 1984, despite him having a relatively high approval rating at the time. No prominent Democrat officeholders appear willing or have enough support from the party or the public to suggest a challenge would be successful.

The reality is, despite being 80 and sometimes appearing frail, Biden is an electable leader. He won the popular vote in 2020 by more than 7 million votes and a 4.5% victory margin.

Trump’s campaign to reclaim office is the first attempt of any former president to regain office after losing in over 130 years.

Almost all the Republican primary challengers are reluctant to openly criticise the former president. They have stood him even amid the two recent criminal indictments, which would ordinarily present a golden opportunity for opponents to give their own campaigns an edge.

The major question facing the party is, if not him, then who? And the party is coming up short with a more compelling answer. But, at this point in the election cycle, despite the wants of the majority of Americans, and no matter how uninspiring – 2024 looks to be 2020 all over again.

The extremes are now feeding off each other, allowing both parties to ignore the voices of the exhausted majority. This is exactly why so many Americans are fed up with Washington.

The truth is there is more that unites as Americans than that which divides us. Consumerism.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF NATO ?

25 Tuesday Jul 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Nato, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF NATO ?

( Five minute read)

At NATO’s founding on April 4, 1949, President Harry S. Truman described the creation of the Atlantic Alliance as a neighbourly act taken by countries deeply conscious of their shared heritage as democracies that had come together determined to defend their common values and interests from those who threatened them.

After years of fighting disastrous wars, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, NATO can now forget about them – whatever the enduring human disasters they leave behind.

Today, NATO has thirty members, including ten countries that used to be members of the Warsaw Pact or were part of the Soviet Union and continues to grow.

Only once in its seventy-one-year history, in the aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, has the alliance needed to invoke the mutual defence obligation.

After Russia began its aggression in Ukraine in February 2014, few (including Russian President Vladimir Putin) would have expected NATO to move so quickly from crisis management to a fundamentally new defence posture. But the alliance has done just that, and it took less than six months to get there.

So what exactly will be decided that is so earth-shattering?

It is the biggest strategic shift in NATO’s posture in a quarter century,

NATO is entering a new phase in its history with its reputation now so bound up with the fate of Ukraine that, in the unlikely event that Russia makes substantial military gains in the conflict, Kyiv cannot be allowed to lose. NATO’s future will be rendered hopelessly irrelevant if it loses, as it well might, the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

With the United States now paying for almost 75 percent of its cost, things may look rosy for NATO today, but climate breakdown, not wars, are the biggest threat to global security. The war in the Ukrain is very widely seen as a massive diversion from this much more significant challenge. Spending billions on the military may make for high profitability but is entirely missing the point when it comes to the greatest security challenge facing the entire world. Military alliances like NATO won’t solve our greatest security threat – THE CLIMATE

To make matters even more rosy, military budgets are rising, lots of new weapons are being developed and existing ones produced in huge numbers. Both will lead to more sales for the armourers as countries across the world rush to buy new kit, even if their armed forces have no connection with the war in Ukraine.

Ukraine’s defence minister, Oleksii Resnikov, put it more bluntly: “Our Western allies can actually see if their weapons work, how efficiently they work and if they need to be upgraded. For the military industry of the world, you can’t invent a better testing ground.”

Questioning the need for NATO and America’s role in it isn’t new.

NATO has been an alliance dedicated to military protection for well over 70 years, but it is a military alliance is unsuited to meeting the world’s greatest security challenge: Climate breakdown. NATO will have to change in order to keep going, that might just lead to a badly needed change in NATOs priorities.

In other words, a continued existence of NATO is essential not only because it allows the US to expand its influence worldwide, but also because NATO is the umbilical cord that militarily connects the US with Europe, keeping the latter dependent on the former. By ensuing a continuing relevance of NATO in the present geo-political context, the US hopes to maintain its own relevance for Europe.

Put it another way, whether in Ukrain or Kosovo or Afghanistan, NATO serves chiefly to camouflage and thereby legitimate what is substantively a unilateral action by the United States.

To my mind the American idea that NATO reinvent itself as the security core of a global club of democracies against China at present, owes more to wishful than to strategic thinking.

Underlying this is the increasingly dominant view that global climate breakdown and the many consequences of that evolving catastrophe, especially for poorer people, are a far greater challenge than the war in Ukraine.

Let me state the obvious: You don’t have to be a military general to know that climate change is going to bring wars.

The Climate Clock countdown that tracks the deadline to stay below 1.5°C of global warming will flip from 6 years 0 days 00:00:00 to 5 years 364 days 23:59:59 for the first time in history on Saturday 22 July 2023.

Europe must guarantee its security all by itself.

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

Contact: bobdilllon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. REPRESENTIVE DEMOCRACY IS COMING (IF NOT ALREADY) TO ITS END.

09 Sunday Jul 2023

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in REPRESENTIVE DEMOCRACY, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. REPRESENTIVE DEMOCRACY IS COMING (IF NOT ALREADY) TO ITS END.

(Twelve minute read)

Politics has long pervaded every facet of human life, dictating interactions and experiences on local, national and international levels. However one does not have to be a political analyst to see that young people are disengaging from more traditional and institutional forms of participation or to know that how to govern effectively with beneficial policies that uphold and promote democracy are becoming more challenging than ever, especially with increasing and unprecedented technological advances.

We know that trust in politics is declining across large parts of the democratic world because the lines between fact and fantasy are blurred by Social Media.

Many people have lost faith that politicians can change their lives for the better.

For me, what’s important here is that people are recognising and acquiring ownership of their power and are becoming important political players – reclaiming democratic processes of contestation, political conflict resolution.

I cannot stress this point enough:

We need to decolonise the democracy project.

Engagement of local people and their capacities are critical, as opposed to more Euro-centric approaches which assume western superiority in building and sustaining democracy.

With democracy disappearing into the black box of technology and algorithm analysis what we’re witnessing now is actually a very revolutionary moment, that will lead to no universal health care, no universal pension system, no universal educational system.

Basically, everyone is on their own.

What’s the point of the state when it cannot even provide basic necessities, could not organise a basic emergency response to the Covid pandemic until thousands died, cannot implement long term solutions to providing green energy to revert Climate change, because of short term aspirations in political power.

—————-

This has been a year of uncertainty.

The events of this year and the cumulative effect of recent years as a whole are not only “consolidating” the tendency for protests and social movements to become politicised, they have problematised it.

It seems now that what is considered progressive can only be expressed in a very reactionary way.

What can be done?

Democratic protest politics is being born before our very eyes, but what will it actually look like once consolidated? What will the fight really be about? Who will become its collective subject?

This is the question that has a global dimension.

We see that the conservative political agenda – the conservative populist appeal to ethnicity, tradition, preservation against western or foreign influence – is gaining momentum.

The images of huge demonstrations in France are just the tip of the iceberg.

Behind it lies a huge experience of self-organisation.

On the one hand, protest has started becoming part of representative politics. On the other, protest movements have found themselves in the centre of “programmatic” discussions about how to change society.

Will it be Twitter or Threads, or TikTok or a combination of Spotify, MeWe and the rest that will drive the future of political representation? How then can we ensure platforms designers are equipped with sufficient knowledge to make the best decisions?

Current measures against disinformation and hate speech are “insufficient to counter the assault on our democracy. The need for clear rules for internet giants, whose “policies have an impact on the real world” and who seem to be the ones deciding which messages are acceptable or not.

Raised the problems created by large companies dealing with personal data and asking them to solve them by arbitrarily censoring harmful content themselves is not an option for democracy.

We need to bring order to the digital expression of democracy and to end the digital Wild West.

There is no online or offline world, only one world, in which we must protect our citizens’ rights and our democracies in equal measure both online and offline.

Platforms will have to run every notification through their algorithm and the consequence will be overly politically correct censorship.

On the internet, the freedom of one group of people shouldn’t stop where the big platform bosses decide. It is up to the democratic institutions, our laws, our courts to set the rules of the game, to define what is illegal and what is not, what must be removed and what should not be.

The kind of new social media platform that I believe could dominate the industry in the future will be premised on a decentralized model; it will use blockchain and open-source technology with the intent to make the platform more democratic and grant its users full ownership of their accounts and profits.

They the young prefer alternative forms of political engagements such as protesting, demonstrating, being part of organisations, signing petitions, volunteering, and engaging online through digital tools.

People have become increasingly concerned about the security of their mobile devices.

Elections lie at the heart of representative democracies underpinned by the core idea that citizens elect citizens to represent their values and interests. There claimed is that “we need to get back to some form of legitimacy.

Through digital tools that help governments to be more transparent or that help citizens to take part in public policy decisions.

That’s the most irrelevant thing you could hear during a revolutionary moment.

What kind of legitimacy? Revolutions are made to subvert the existing legitimacy.

So what if anything would drive participation Politics?

With the citizen at its core, Political Participation can be defined as any lawful activity undertaken by citizens that aims to influence, change or affect the government, public policies, or how institutions are run.

The will of young people and the necessity to involve them in decision making, not only in youth-related issues, but in all societal decisions is paramount to democracy survival.

Re-establishing local self-government, building a new system of communication and local leadership from the ground up will require Citizens participation assemblies that are offering ownership and responsibility of provision/supply with participatory budget of financing decided by communities.

We must learn to trust in citizens’ capacity. Because citizens and governments are not only part of the problem but part of the solution.

It is necessary to rebuild the social fabric and support political transformation.

This is not a trivial exercise and not easy to implement, as it requires a new understanding of the role of the state, of civil society groups, and above all of what it means to be a citizen in the 21st century.

If you highlight the ‘will of the people’ as a key normative criterion of democracy, and yet fail to acknowledge the plurality of this ‘will’, then this means your political response will be non-reflexive.

This political transformation will not come from a single place, nor will it come only from the state or only from civil society groups, but it will have to come from both – Ultimately, we are talking about a type of politic transformation towards politics that are more human, more accountable, more transparent, tolerant, organic, and empathetic, open to recognizing mistakes and to experimentation, and focused on the public good.

——————–

Considering the current state of democracy, these are just some of the big questions.

WHY?

Because participation is an inseparable element of democracy. Every society is based on shared values and collective ideals acquired throughout the socialisation process.

Because the rules of the electoral game influence the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between citizens and parties. Artificial intelligence is repacking it in Algorithms.

Because Social media is exposing its weaknesses. Creating a more fragile relationship with democratic values, greater distance from the political process and new forms of participation in organised groups. Young people’s attraction to the populist movements found in many countries reflects this apparent fragility. , Ties with democracy have come increasingly under pressure among the least educated young people.

Because decisions taken by the majority are becoming less reflective of young people’s views and expectations. such as the demands of Climate change.

Because Populism and technocracy see themselves as anti politics and, more specifically, antiparty’.

Because the representative democratic system (for example political parties) as a way of colonising the system by exposing and exploiting its institutional biases.

Because populists are usually not able to deal with complex issues or to point out alternatives for the public good.

Because the gap that develops between what the public expect from party representation, and what it delivers is winding.

Because the existence of representative institutions at the national level is not sufficient for democracy … for a democratic polity to exist it is necessary for a participatory society to exist, i.e. a society where all political systems have been democratized.

Because the corruption of political and economic elites is essentially irredeemable.

Because the narrative of “us against them” to safeguard individual privileges.

—————

The search for peace remains high on the global political agenda.

We all aspire to contribute to governmental accountability to population, to building peaceful inclusive societies with accountable political actors. We have the chance to use the dissatisfaction, frustration, and indignation in society to create new relationships and new social pacts. From protesting to voting, young people are showing up for our planet, our future and our political systems.

But they still face many barriers to representation.

The importance of offline political participation experiences in increasing both online and offline participation with the intergenerational dialogue about the future is Climate Change.

Participatory and technocratic anti-politics promote reflexivity, while elitist and populist anti-politics reject it.

The roles of young people go beyond being taught, that acknowledges the contributions of young people to political participation and to how it can be understood.

Participation (in student councils, groups or clubs) and political interest have an effect on civic participation, and students recognize the formative value of debates and confrontation of opinions as well of participating in school councils and assemblies in fostering interest in social issues.

It’s time for change to ensure that the vacuum is not filled by those who seek personal gain and that this indignation does not result in social isolation and cynicism or even violence.

You cannot put the genie of AI back into the bottle.

But we can with Caught in the Act data collection methods (developed to capture hard-to-reach group, such as people attending demonstrations) ask or at least encourage motivations for them to join participation.

Not been asked by anyone to participate/ get evolved, will eventually drive the young of the world into the slavery of digitalized citizens.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

	Jason Lawrence on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WIT…
	benmadigan on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHA…
	bobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
	OG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
	benmadigan on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONC…

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

Category Archives: Uncategorized

THE BEADY EYE: TAKE’S A LOOK AT THE CURRENT STATE OF ENGLAND.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ARE WE HANDING OVER HUGE SECTIONS OF OUR SOCIETIES TO BLACK-BOX ALGORITHEMS?

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHERE ARE WE WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING?

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT SORT OF LIFE DO YOU WANT AND WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH AI?

Without biodiversity, life on earth as we know it would cease to exist.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: FROM HERE INTO THE FUTURE WILL TECHNOLOGY’S BE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERATIONS?

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED JUST HOW MUCH A GOAL IN FOOTBALL COST?

Top 10 highest-paid soccer players in the world (September, 2022)

THE BEADY ASK’S. BACTERIA IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE BUT COULD NEW ANCIENT MICROBES RELEASED BY CLIMATE CHANGE END IT.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: OUT OF A POPULATION OF ALMOST 340 MILLION IS THIS THE BEST THE USA CAN OFFER ITS PEOPLE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION – JOE BIDEN OR DONALD TRUMP.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF NATO ?

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. REPRESENTIVE DEMOCRACY IS COMING (IF NOT ALREADY) TO ITS END.

It is necessary to rebuild the social fabric and support political transformation.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Without biodiversity, life on earth as we know it would cease to exist.

Share this:

Share this:

Top 10 highest-paid soccer players in the world (September, 2022)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

It is necessary to rebuild the social fabric and support political transformation.

Share this: