Category Archives: United Nations

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ALGORITHMS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ARE PUTTING PAY TO SHARED VALUES.

14 Saturday Oct 2017

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Our Common Values., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WiFi communication.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ALGORITHMS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ARE PUTTING PAY TO SHARED VALUES.

Tags

, , ,

 

( A twenty-minute read, before we are all raped by Algorithms)

Strength from cultural diversity is being eroded by Algorithms.

At the moment while we’ll be striving to understand the impact of “information flows” — shared value is going out the window.

You could say that 99.4 percent of physical objects are still unconnected but algorithms but they are already transforming the world around us — in education, healthcare, manufacturing, commerce, transportation and other sectors.

In the coming years, the Internet of Everything Economy will be run by Algorithms that control smart grid, smart buildings, connected healthcare and patient monitoring, smart factories, connected private education, connected commercial (ground) vehicles, connected marketing and advertising, and connected gaming and entertainment, among others, will rule the world.

If we are honest, we have been living with the ambiguity created by SHARED VALUE for a long time.

The United nations being the prime example.

Its shared ideology values are ignored daily because they do not possess any legal or constitutional power. (They have however attained limited success in generating greater ideological consensus, whether it is the impact on the environment, on society, or in terms of how it governs itself) Now unfortunately it is trying to operate in a world that is in the middle of a technological revolution which is exposing its limits to the point of being relevance.

Technology trends (including cloud and mobile computing, Big Data, increased processing power, and many others) and business economics (such as Metcalfe’s law) are driving the IoE (The Internet of Everything economy.)

The Internet of Everything (IoE) brings together people, process, data, and things to make networked connections more relevant and valuable than ever before — turning information into actions that create new capabilities, richer experiences, and unprecedented economic opportunity for businesses, individuals, and countries.

On the other hand in my opinion it is and will be a mistake to greet every invention with applause and just let it go its way.

There are many aspect to the Technological Revolution that are desirable and needed, but at what sacrifice, and where to draw red lines is not being addressed. You could say its evolution and can not be changed or stopped.

However Artificial intelligence which is run by Algorithms is void of emotional intelligence.

The future will no doubt push for higher level automated capabilities by integrating human spoken and linguistic capabilities with other human skills such as vision, motor skills, and emotions.

This future will bring about a society of human and machine experts, that collaborate together for improved outcomes in complex processes such as decision-making.

These decisions which will be based on vast quantities of data rather than share values. They will be driven by our old friend capitalist profit, managed by platforms that are totally unregulated, unaccountable.

In a world where we are all supposed to be accountable, Artificial Intelligence must also be accountable not just to its algorithms. It must be totally transparent and regulated by an independent Organisation that ensure it enhances our shared values. As we explore all the possibilities these technologies present,  it will be critical to place us at the forefront.

The conversations around these technologies, I suppose in the future will reach an equilibrium and we will understand as a society how to use them responsibly or will it be too late. 

I think the more interesting thing that’s happening is we’re evolving into a kind of meta organism, which is the whole species on the planet connected through the Web, sharing information, sharing thoughts, sharing ideas.

We are not sharing empathy and sharing emotions, exploring and expanding the boundaries of what it means to be human, today and far into the future.

People will end up having no sense of control over their changing environments other than what their Virtual Personal Assistant lets them know.

The world we live in has and always will have problems because it is impossible of humans to act as one for the general good of all.

Rest assured that Algorithms will also suffer from the same flaw.

If left to their own devices they will destroy any sense of collaboration, reducing us to smart phone workers with no shared values or jobs for life.

We are more and more desensitized by social media platforms that are run by algorithms to ensure we remain so, we are all too busy checking our smart phones to take any notice. Most of us can not recognize our self.

HUMANIZING TECHNOLOGIES: Are smile that fits the lock of everybody’s heart.Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling

Robots are learning how to detect your personality and even your gender with just a handshake, so giving robots a personality is the only way our relationship with artificial intelligence will survive.

We have all experienced “dehumanizing” technology – software or hardware that seems to diminish our ability to communicate with others or to function effectively in the world.

Technology such as Algorithms for profit are creating new boundaries between people rather than erasing old ones, with Touchy-feely robots becoming the false face of the Algorithms, that run them. Capitalize on our unique strengths and weakness, new technologies are and will further integrate themselves seamlessly into our lives.

We are already accustomed to Amazon’s anticipatory shipping practices, where the company identifies items we may want to buy before we even begin our search. Artificial Intelligence is making technology more personal and purposeful than ever before.

I don’t know about you. Just because I bought something, viewed something, commented on something, or sent an email to someone, I don’t want Watson, Google, Facebook or any other platform invading my Privacy with annoying suggestions, as I have no shared values with any of their Algorithms.

If we don’t get a grip of what I call Algorithms for Profit connecting the unconnected: people, process, data, and things we are going to be looking at a very sad world.

Since the industrial revolution, concerns have been raised about the negative effect of development on human exploitation, inequality, the environment, and by extension, greater society.

Of all the concerns that development brings, environmental damage has a high-profile due to its long, and sometimes cruel, history from business self-interest, to a sense of responsibility, or a combination of both.

Now it is the time to make capitalism more responsive to social challenges, as corporations are directly facing the trade-offs between private costs and social benefits.

The pursuit of profit and increasing shareholder value are the only responsibilities of business.

The inclusion of non-financial issues into investment decision-making must be a priority.

Why?

Because in terms of corporate social responsibility, the long-term risk of damage to the economic system and long-term value creation, and therefore investment returns, is a palpable threat to asset owners.

National identity and nationhood are not principles that can be “mandated and managed from the top”. Instead, the nation is an “imagined reality” that transcends institutions such as government and civil society. Consequently, the citizen creates the nation.

It is the responsibility of the investor to protect an economy’s ability to create long-term value.

Given long-term horizons, diversification, and long duration liabilities, it is beneficial to work together to reduce Artificial Intelligence future risk. To verify if shared value strategies can be found in practice.

This is so that today’s efforts to create value do not impair the ability of future generations to do the same.

Driven by advances in mobile technology the United nations is total out of date.

The importance of the family as a “basic unit of society”, no longer fully address family related issues.

In today’s investment world, there is no Algorithm that is going pre-empt social change and direct it in “suitable” directions.

Artificial Intelligence is making technology more personal and purposeful than ever before. We are trying to leverage data science with natural interfaces to provide solutions tailored to human behavior, attitudes and comprehension, also known as cognitive systems.

So the Question is:

Are these profit Algorithms degrading our humanity.

Today, the most successful technology goes beyond the technical specs and is all about the user experience. The best use of technology is the one people barely notice.

Our emotions influence every aspect of our lives, from our health and well-being, to the way we learn, the decisions we make and how we communicate with one another.

Try telling that to a Digital banking Algorithm.  The only point of contact between banks and their customers.

Now we can have a whole new social class system.

Since people can be judged by their emotions, and since a persons emotional state has legal consequences in a court of law, and since corporations would love nothing more than to know how we feel so that they can control our behavior by controlling what information we receive when we are connected, and since we are always connected. ….
Well that couldn’t possibly be a problem, or could it?

We are handing over our privacy and our lively mental freedom, step by step, to the lifeless and emotionless domain of machines. We are becoming more and more dependent upon mechanistic mimicking of human qualities, and call it Machine Intelligence.

“The biggest privacy-invasive is no the way with face recognition applications”.

Why? Because the majority of how people experience each other is through screens.

this will bring a new leveraged on degrees of freedom for smart life.

Just because you want to believe it is true doesn’t mean it is true.

The goal should be making people to become aware of the trends and processes they are being involved by their own deeds and making them to ask important questions

In short:

Predictions are hard, but TRYING to fore see and not being blind to what is already happening is immensely important.

I wouldn’t want “devices” to sense anything. Anything.

Constantly arguing with your device about how you really feel.

What a sick world that is going to be.

Ask google why do people die before their time.

You get many answers: How can we know these things?….We can’t, unless we ask and who do we ask in order to get the correct answer.. not a Algorithm.  The basic recipes for Capitalist slavery.

How much messiness should we accept? What balance of the new and familiar is the most fulfilling? These may seem like uniquely human quandaries, but they are not. Computers, like us, confront limited space and time with no shared values.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of computer algorithms"

All human comments ( Not that I will know if they are generated by Algo) appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE: LOOKS AT THE TREATMENT OF REFUGEES.

10 Tuesday Oct 2017

Posted by in Humanity., Refugees., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE: LOOKS AT THE TREATMENT OF REFUGEES.

Tags

, , , ,

( A shameful read of twenty minutes)

One of this century’s greatest tragedies.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on refugees"

This is an issue that is long on rhetoric, as newspaper and TV news reports testify. The number of people forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict and war continues to increase at a staggering rate and will soon be overshadow by Global warming climate change migration.

This post attempts to look at where we have been, and where we are likely to go, in coping with this worlds endless stream of refugees. The refugee problems and crises are far from over and will continue to require urgent international cooperative treatment.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on refugees"

Half of all current refugees have been displaced for over ten years.

At the moment most displaced people stay in their own country this will not be so with climate change.

We all know what causes refugee displacements and asylum flows, but the effects of conflict, political upheaval and economic incentives to migrate, are going to be dwarfed by climate migration.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 217A (III), on the 10 December 1948 will be out of date. 

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

This may well represents the first global international expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled but Artificial Intelligence, and technology combined with global warming is going to create a different kind of refugee or migrant.

The right to life is humanity’s most fundamental value.   Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on refugees"

More than 65 million people are today, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons (IDPs) or refugees, illegal immigrants, to put a label on them.

The distinction between an economic migrant and a refugee is simple:

Are you running from or to? all are escaping.

Half of the world’s refugees are children under 18 years of age. The average length of time a refugee spends in exile is about 20 years, which is more than an entire childhood, and represents a significant portion of a person’s productive working years.

So let’s try to comprehend ( not that it is possible to do so with written or spoken words)  what refugees have to face.

What is a camp?  What characterizes a camp and how camps affect the lives of those who are placed in them.

On a global scale, millions of refugees are contained in camps of one sort or another.

Life goes on in camps—albeit a life that is affected by the camp.

They are places where the depoliticization of life takes place, due to humanitarian government, paradoxically they also produces a hyper-politicized space where nothing is taken for granted and everything is contested.

They are places of social dissolution, of new beginnings where sociability is remolded in new ways.

They are places with little or no human rights, dignity strippers, with no education, they are terrorist recruitment centers.

Camps are defined along two dimensions: spatially and temporally.

Temporally, refugee camps are meant to be temporary, while in practice this temporariness are becoming permanent.

Temporary are legal anomalies, in which the administration of justice is virtually in the hands of the humanitarian agencies that exercise this function either directly, or by delegating it to community leaders.

In reality temporary camp are exceptional space put in place to deal with populations that disturb the national order of things, while spatially, camps always have boundaries the fact is that in despite of ubiquitous images of sprawling refugee camps the majority of refugees are no longer confined to camps they now live in cities or towns.

So try to imagine yourself in Zaatari a Jordanian Camp set on a lump of desert.A Syrian refugee woman walks in Zattari Syrian refugee camp, Mafraq city, Jordan

It has a current population of over 100,000 souls,( Equivalent to the population of Exeter Uk or  Reykjavík  Iceland.) of which 70% are woman and children.

People are reduced to ants in this dystopian, chronically parched science – fiction setting in Jordan.

A population that is utterly poverty-stricken and powerless, reduced to de facto prisoners with no hope no food no running water, imagine the toilets. Anger blooms, mothers sell their daughters, gangs roam, children go feral:

(Non of this can be blamed on Jordan who have contributed over £500 million against contributions from other countries of around £150 million. With 14,000 new arrivals a week a half a million will only keep the camp open for a few months.)

Or

Imagine you are on a disposable barque approaching Lampedusa with 500 passenger packed like sardines having paid traffickers $ 1000 to $1600. ( Newspapers headlines constantly refer to these people as illegal immigrants. They’er not, they’er refugees. ) You have survived crossing of the Sahara, the violence in Libya and all told your family have raised $6000 for you to make the journey in the likelihood that they will never see you again.

Anyway lets say you don’t drown, now add the screaming and crying ringing in your ears as you scramble the shore to be warped in a tinfoil, and bused to a reception camp, fingerprinted though you are not a criminal.

Your only option is to vanish to continue your journey in the hands of traffickers and gangs who exploit, enslave, rape and bully.

The EU Dublin convention stipulates that people political asylum must remain in the first safe country you land in. There is no picking and choosing.

According to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, European countries have the obligation to provide asylum to those who seek it. This is not the matter of politics and economy, but of basic human rights. There is no person that should live in fear for their life and the lives of their close ones.

Its only by not looking, by turning or backs that we can sail away and think that this is sad, but it is not our sadness.

Refugees are not spread evenly across the world.

Seven countries – Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Palestine and Jordan – host more than 50% of all refugees. Many countries, including some of the richest and most developed countries like the US, UK and Australia, are not fully living up to their responsibility under the Refugee Convention.

At the moment, there are over 9 million refugees seeking asylum.

If all refugees were distributed evenly across all the countries in the world, each country would host 100,000 refugees.

By mid-2015, the World Bank’s estimated cost of the Syrian war for the Middle Eastern countries is $35 billion.

Current funding models for displacement are no sustainable.

Whether greater international coordination could produce better outcomes for refugee-receiving countries and for the refugees themselves is of course governed by funds.

The United Nations’ annual appeal for international aid has risen 500% in 10 years due to the “new norm” of multiple humanitarian crises. Only 26% of the money needed has been committed, to enable the UN to provide assistance to 78.9 million people in 37 countries.

To quote António Guterres: The UN high commissioner for refugees. “Today’s needs are at unprecedented levels and without more support there simply is no way to respond to the humanitarian situations we’re seeing in region after region and in conflict after conflict.”

It has been widely suggested that more resources should be devoted to providing aid to refugees closer to home. “80% of our emergency response is to man-made crises which are now “apocalyptic” with displacement of people the highest since the second world war and multiple crises being the “new norm”.

On average, around 100 million people are affected by natural disasters per year and disasters now cost more than $100bn in economic damages. The number of displaced people has also increased, with 65 million people displaced at the close of 2015 compared with 33.3 million in 2013.

While donors give more generously every year, the gap between funds needed and funds provided continues to widen.

This raises questions about our ability to continue to meet affected people’s needs.

Then there is the question whether to devote resources directly to repatriation and reintegration programs, or simply to provide some form of economic incentive to return.

Neither will stem the flow of long-distance illegal migrants, once such flows have become established.

The best option by far is to find ways of preventing civil wars or to stop them recurring. Civil wars suggest that the causes are chiefly economic rather than political.

To really help displaced people, aid agencies must better understand how people are helping themselves, to figure out how to support these initiatives and advocate on behalf of refugees to overcome the barriers.

Education is to be seen as key to contributing to long-term solutions for refugees, ensuring that displaced generations are equipped to rebuild their lives and communities − either in the country of asylum or upon
their return home.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on refugees"

We need to fix the system – not for today, but to be ready for what the situation will be like five years from now never mind 20 or 30 years in the future.

It’s no wonder that we are living in disturbed times.

It is now time to unite and provide a new home for those who need it the most. What is needed, therefore, is a comprehensive, fully funded global program.

The world can’t keep pretending the refugee catastrophe is a European problem. The brunt of the crisis has fallen on the Turks, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Iraqis and the Lebanese.

All the goodwill, all the technology, all the appeals, all the solutions will not stop people fleeing wars, or climate change.

A smart phone can be a lifeline if you’ve had to leave everything else behind, because when you take to the roads, to the boats and to the trains, all our political leaders can think of is fences, barbed wire and more police.

There is only one way to help:

And that is to get Profit for Profit sake to contribute.

By placing a world Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $50,000, on all Sovereign Wealth funds Acquisitions. Combined this with a 0.00005% charge on all tweets, and all online purchases, on all google inquires, on all Facebook postings, etc.

Will create a permanent self funding resource of funds doing away with begging for resources.

Mr António Guterres should call a world summit of all Industrial world leaders not countries with a view to passing a people resolution to implement such a World Aid commission.

Then we might have some hope of a more peacefully world for all.

All suggestions and comments appreciate. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE RETURNS TO THE ISRAELI- PALESTINIAN PROBLEM.

01 Sunday Oct 2017

Posted by in THE ISRAELI- PALESTINIAN PROBLEM., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE RETURNS TO THE ISRAELI- PALESTINIAN PROBLEM.

Tags

,

 

( A four-minute read.)

Are you “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestine”?

It isn’t even noon yet as I write this, and I’ve already been accused of being both.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of israel"

These terms intrigue me because they directly speak to the doggedly tribal nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You don’t hear of too many other countries being universally spoken of this way. Why these two?

Both Israelis and Palestinians are complex, with diverse histories and cultures, and two incredibly similar (if divisive) religions.

After World War II, Britain decided to let the United Nations decide what to do with Palestine.

The common representation of Israel’s birth is that the UN created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the US governmental establishment supported it.

All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.

The United Nations suggested dividing Palestine into two countries, one Arab and one Jewish.

The Arab leaders said no to the plan, but the Jewish leaders accepted it and declared the state of Israel. The American President gave his support to the new state.

In reality, while the UN General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.

The General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.

In 1967 it took still more Palestinian and Syrian land, which is now illegally occupied territory, since the annexation of land through military conquest is outlawed by modern international law.

Israel, which claims to be the “only democracy in the Middle East,” decided not to declare official borders or to write a constitution, a situation which continues to this day.

To this day it has continued this campaign of growth through armed acquisition and illegal confiscation of land.

So where are we?

To come down completely on the side of one or the other doesn’t seem rational to me.

It is telling that most Muslims around the world support Palestinians, and most Jews support Israel.

This, of course, is natural — but it’s also problematic.

It means that this is not about who’s right or wrong as much as which tribe or nation you are loyal to. It means that Palestinian supporters would be just as ardently pro-Israel if they were born in Israeli or Jewish families, and vice versa.

It means that the principles that guide most people’s view of this conflict are largely accidents of birth — that however we intellectualize and analyze the components of the Middle East mess, it remains, at its core, a tribal conflict.

By definition, tribal conflicts thrive and survive when people take sides. Choosing sides in these kinds of conflicts fuels them further and deepens the polarization. And worst of all, you get blood on your hands.

It’s still too early to call Israel an apartheid state, but when John Kerry said Israel could end up as one in the future, he wasn’t completely off the mark. It’s simple math.

Israel was carved out of Palestine for Jews with help from the British in the late 1940s just as Pakistan was carved out of India for Muslims around the same time. The process was painful, and displaced millions in both instances.

There are now only a limited number of ways a bi-national Jewish state with a non-Jewish majority population can retain its Jewish identity.

Let’s face it, the land belongs to both of them now.

BUT Israelis and Palestinians remain caught in a sad, frustrating and vicious cycle that must be broken.
The Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands will turn 50 years old this year.

Some considerable time ago I wrote a blog on the subject.

Then as now I stated that the two state solution is not possible and that the only solution is for Israel to grant Palestinians full Israeli citizenship, creating one state for all.

Settlement expansion is simply incomprehensible. No one really understands the point of it. Virtually every US administration — from Nixon to Bush to Obama — has unequivocally opposed it.

It’s been almost 70 years since Israel came into existence.

There are now at least two or three generations of Israelis who were born and raised in this land, to whom it really is a home, and who are often held accountable and made to pay for historical atrocities that are no fault of their own. They are programmed to oppose “the other” just as Palestinian children are.

At its very core, this is a tribal religious conflict that will never be resolved unless people stop choosing sides.

With Israel now legalizing land grab is it not time to stop dealing with Israel as a country above the law and to make it responsible for systematic violations of international conventions and the rights of the Palestinian people.

There is no justification for it except a Biblical one which makes it slightly more difficult to see Israel’s motives as purely secular.

Let’s go straight to the point:

To end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, everyone would like a two-state solution.

This solution is impossible.

But if it Israel doesn’t work harder towards a two-state (maybe three-state, thanks to Hamas) solution, it will eventually have to make that ugly choice between being a Jewish-majority state or a democracy.

Nothing in the current situation excuses the abhorrent and immoral attacks on civilians, whether coming from Palestinians or Israelis, and any lasting solution must work to guarantee peace and security for everyone.

It’s high time we recognize that the Oslo Accords are as likely to bring peace to the Middle East as Donald Trump is to unite America.

From its conception, Oslo never required Israel to recognize Palestinian rights to statehood and has instead enabled Israeli encroachment on the West Bank.

Until now, the international consensus has been focused on a state-oriented resolution as a way to confer rights and stability to Palestinians and Israelis.

But what if that equation were flipped, if the focus were instead on enshrining full equality for everyone before even considering the creation of two states?

If this was supported by a larger Arab consensus framework, Israel would have little option as would Palestine but to come together.

This is the only realistic goal at this juncture.

To create interim arrangements to set the ground for a final agreement.

Of course both sides as in any conflict would have to want peace which now seems very unlikely.

On the Palestinian side, a lack of internal consensus remains challenging while security is the most important issue to Israel.

In such a context, nearly seventy years after the creation of Israel and the beginning of the conflict, whether the result of such an approach leads to one state or two states or 21 states on the land is immaterial.

We must put aside the concept of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in favor of an Israeli-Arab agreement as the only realistic means to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reality on the ground shows that the search for a two-state solution is a farce that suits those who aim at apartheid.

Although the entire world knows that a durable resolution to the conflict is imperative, not in the interests of justice but also in the pursuit of peace in the region. There is only one solution the creation of a single state, in which the safety and the right to the dignity of each one will be preserved.

There are 2,898,927 Palestinians living in the West Bank, 1,850,559 in the Gaza Strip, 1,471,201 in Israel, and a total of 12,365,761 worldwide.

Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle under a system that accords them fewer rights and opportunities than their Jewish counterparts. And regardless of what one thinks of Hamas, the siege that Israel imposes (with Egyptian collusion) on Gaza affects all of its inhabitants and is unconscionable.

According to the Israeli organization Gisha, over 70% of Gaza’s population relies on humanitarian aid, while 47% suffer from food insecurity. In the second quarter of 2016, unemployment was at 41.7%, and at a staggering 57.6% among young people.

(In fact, slim majorities of both Palestinians and Israelis still support a two-state solution.)

What matters is that we finally wake from the 23-year-old slumber induced by Oslo, the numbing half-century of occupation, and the nearly 70 years of Palestinian dispossession, to see that the only durable resolution to this conflict will be one that protects Israelis and Palestinians equally, with liberty and justice for all.

Israelis “deserve security” (and Palestinians don’t?)

Such a move would break with the political history of the United States and would run counter to the UN position, for which the status of Jerusalem, the Palestinian eastern part was occupied in 1967 and annexed by Israel in 1980, could be settled through negotiation.

A Confederation of Districts according to the historical name, defined by the good geographical and ethnic sense. As homogeneous as possible, they would necessarily include religious minorities.

Each have a Parliament and a Constitution which legislate on everything related to religion, taxation, police and education.

Insurance law, the management of national research institutes, diplomacy and the army remain the prerogative of the Confederation.

Thus, the cantonal tax authorities collect the tax and return a minority share to the central power, the wealth of each canton being largely the result of the labor of its inhabitants.

Each canton freely decides its name (in the image of Switzerland, where the Republic and Canton of Geneva, then the State of Vaud, and later the Canton of Valais, With whom everyone lives in peace).

Each district decides on the religion it wishes to inscribe in its Constitution (if it wishes to inscribe one … In Switzerland, the cases are very diverse).Image associée

Thus, Tel Aviv could decide that its official religion is Judaism, with a taxation in support of its religious institutions.

Many issues remain to be negotiated, including the division of districts, the question of return, the participation of the Palestinian populations in the army (with a staggering of the rules over several years), the creation of a national Constitution, a Constituent Assembly, etc.

From the outset, the state would be recognized by all the countries of the Arab world.

According to the initiative of Saudi Arabia in 2002, the benefits would no longer be counted: Disappearance of separation walls and checkpoints, development of very fruitful economic links, and especially the normal life, finally. For everyone.

So you really don’t have to choose between being “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestine.” If you support secularism, democracy, and a two-state solution — and you oppose Hamas, settlement expansion, and the occupation — you can be both.

Again you don’t have to like what Israel is doing.

If Israel truly wanted to destroy Gaza, it could do so within a day, right from the air.

How can this possibly ever be in Israel’s interest?

 When civilians die, Israel looks like a monster. It draws the ire of even its closest allies. Horrific images of injured and dead innocents flood the media. Ever-growing anti-Israel protests are held everywhere from Norway to New York. And the relatively low number of Israeli casualties repeatedly draws allegations of a “disproportionate” response. Most importantly, civilian deaths help Hamas immensely.
So please tell me — how can anyone conclude that religion isn’t at the root of this, or at least a key driving factor?

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. ITS TIME FOR THE UNITED NATIONS TO STAND ON ITS OWN FEET.

26 Tuesday Sep 2017

Posted by in United Nations

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. ITS TIME FOR THE UNITED NATIONS TO STAND ON ITS OWN FEET.

Tags

,

( A FIFTEEN MINUTE READ)

You only have to look at the state of the World that we all live on to know what is coming needs to be addressed.

For more than 70 years, world leaders have gathered before the United Nations General Assembly to speak and to be heard.

Recent remarks by President Trump and Mrs T May during the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly showed that the General Assembly is in need of revitalization in order to stop rhetoric that clearly breached the core principle of the United Nations aspirations, Peace in the world.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "how is the current united nations president"

The United Nations Emblem

The design is “a map of the world representing an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole, inscribed in a wreath consisting of crossed conventionalized branches of the olive tree, in gold on a field of smoke-blue with all water areas in white. The projection of the map extends to 60 degrees south latitude, and includes five concentric circles”

The “UN” stands for the united nations. Nations meaning just that…all of the nations on our GLOBE.  The olive branches signify peace.

It is easy to call for reforms and to threaten withholding funds or for that matter to stir up what is already a threat to world peace by making promises of total nuclear destruction.

On the other hand it is right to call on the Organisation to reform so that it can addresses the world it now exist in.

So is the UN still a force for global good, or is it another of those world organisations that is out of date.

If one looks beyond the organisation’s flaws and points to the importance of the UN on the global stage there is no doubt providing aid to the more than 55 million refugees in 123 countries is good.

The UN is a large employer but it can only operate if it receives sufficient funds.

To turn it from a begging organisation to an organisation with clout to handle the worlds coming problems due to Climate Change, Artificial Intelligence the UN needs a source of unlimited funding, so that is not attached , or reliant on any donator Country. (See previous posts)

To have any chance of being relevant in a world that is changing it must remove the United Nations Security Council “power of veto” wielded solely by the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), that enabling them to prevent the adoption of any “substantive” resolution.

At this point in the post it is worth mentioning how we got the UN in the first place.

After two major wars, it was relatively easy to get smaller nations and middle powers to give up a level of sovereignty while providing little to no recourse in return. At the same time, a carrot needed to be used to lure the major world powers to the table. In an effort to give these countries a reason to come to the table — and, in effect, subjecting themselves to the will of the other major powers — they were given the power to stop substantive resolutions that might impinge on their interests from passing.

It is important to remember that the United Nations is an institution that largely owed itself to American foreign-policy thought and, as such, it was understandably influenced a great deal by how America perceived the world to be (and, just as importantly, how America perceived the world would be).

This was centered around the idea that the post-war system was going to be predicated on the idea that each of the four major players of the Allied powers– the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the Republic of China– were going to be responsible for looking after their respective sections of the world and trying to prevent smaller conflicts from growing into larger conflicts.

In order to entice countries to join everyone agreed that decisions would require unanimity. This was, as one might guess, an astoundingly stupid decision since it meant that anything of substance was really hard to pass and remains so to the present day.

With or without the veto power the Security Council would continue to be the ultimate authority in the UN.

If somehow the veto power were taken away I personally doubt that any state would leave especially if the organisation became self financing.

If the US left, suddenly all their diplomatic power in the UN would be diminished and they run the risk of it being dominated by China or Russia.

I would say that the UN’s existence has become far more integrated and involved than the League of Nations and even with the US leaving would continue to be so important that it would not be the end of it.

It has become too useful and with almost 200 members interacting not just on security issues but environment, social, economic, refugees, labour, health, trade etc.. it has become far too important not to reform. 

The UN already does pass lots of resolutions that states such as China and the US ignore anyways, and removing the veto power would hardly change that.

Bilateral treaties and multilateral between states are not upheld because of the UN or because of the veto power, but because of the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). Multilateral treaties as well as UN resolutions have vast exception mechanisms in order to get states to agree to them, and getting rid of the veto power again would not change that.

It is difficult to assess or speculate towards any consequences of removing the veto power as the process of how it happens needs to be known. If done in agreement the UN would probably continue to live on, most likely becoming more focused on negotiations and dealings with states on the Security Council to ensure that whatever proposed resolutions are passed/blocked.

Many different scenarios could be created that could change the outcome, but one thing is certain.  If the UN wants to live up to its Legitimacy it must be able to override concerns of Sovereignty which will come to the forefront in the next hundred years or so.

This can only be achieved when it becomes an Organisation that truly representative the people’s of the world, is totally transparent and Self financing.

Here is what it looks like to-day.

At the moment it’s better for the U.N. if the permanent members keep their veto power and continue funding the U.N. (particularly, the U.S., since it supplies approximately 22% of the U.N. budget at the current time).

(In 2000, the UN employed 33,049 people. In December 2016, the latest figures provided by the UN, 76,234 people were employed by the organisation – that’s more than double. Those figures don’t include people working on the UN’s peacekeeping operations.

The largest part of the total is the secretariat – the UN’s bureaucracy. That’s more than trebled in size since 2000 – from 13,164 to 39,651. But recently it’s been getting smaller. The secretariat has shrunk every year since 2010.

UNICEF, which provides aid to children, employed 13,093 people in December and has seen staff numbers rise by more than 75% since 2000.

Numbers in the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees have grown by nearly 160% from 4,142 to 10,763.

The biggest percentage change was the International Court of Justice – it has nearly four times as many staff as it did in 2000, although it still only employs 107 people.

Not everyone working for the UN will be a staff member.

For example, Unops, the UN’s project management service, employs fewer staff than it did in 2000. But it hires people for particular jobs on consultancy contracts – and those people aren’t counted.

In total, around 4,500 people are currently working for Unops – but only 843 of those are staff.)

The regular budget is agreed for two-year blocks – for 2000-01, it was a little over $2.5bn (£1.9bn at today’s rates). For 2016-17, it’s just over $5.4bn – a rise of roughly 119%, not adjusted for inflation. Not quite 140%, but still a significant increase in cash terms.

The regular budget isn’t the whole story, though. It doesn’t include the cost of peacekeeping operations. A sum of $2.7bn was set aside for those in the year 2000-01, compared with $6.8bn for 2017-18 – an increase of 148% in cash terms.

There are other costs at the UN, which fall outside both of those budgets.

There’s the cost of running the UN’s special tribunals when they’re in session – most recently examining alleged war crimes and genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

And the UN spent an extra $1.9bn outside the regular budget on refurbishing its headquarters between 2002 and 2013.

The World is bigger than 5. nuclear stockpiles.  

Most current world problems have their roots in inequality caused by greed.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of famines"

Take Yemen for example it is in the grip of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

What can be done to bring an end to the war in Yemen? And is the international community ignoring what is happening on the ground?

Nothing can be achieved, unless the United Nations taps into Greed to fund itself. 

Apart from current wars it is more than shameful that in the 21st century with all our technology, globalization, and so-called International community we have not one, not two, nor three, but four famines. That we continue to destroy the planet for shot term gain to the point that there will be no need for nations never mind United Nations.     Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of famines"

It must pass a people’s resolution to place a World Aid Commission of 0.05% (See previous posts)

All comments or sharing of this post appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

http://players.brightcove.net/665003303001/SJg0bzqkZ_default/index.html?videoId=5579866419001&autoplay

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY DOES THE UNITED NATIONS TOLERATE SPEECHES THAT ARE IN BREECH OF ITS CHARTER.

22 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Climate Change., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Nuclear power., The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY DOES THE UNITED NATIONS TOLERATE SPEECHES THAT ARE IN BREECH OF ITS CHARTER.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

 UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.

Chapter I

                            PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

  • To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  • To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  • To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The Rt Hon Theresa May MPRésultat de recherche d'images pour "Donald trump recent speech at the un"

A charter represents a document that describes a project, its rationale, its goals and its participants. The purpose of a charter aims at aligning the expectations of all the contributors so that their energy focuses on the project’s priorities.

The Charter is not to be confused with The Universal Declaration of Human rights adopted after World War 11. It is perhaps the closest thing we have to a global Constitution- categorically states that the right to life is humanity’s fundamental value. Death is a crime.

It would appear that from the speeches given by either of the above that they DO NOT fully comprehended the above charter.

In his Sovereignty – centric speech Mr Trump threatened to totally destroy North Korea, called Iran a corrupt dictatorship whose main export is violence.

While Mrs May in her speech threatened withdrawal of funds.

This is not the first time not will it be the last that a World leader has used the UN to criticize other nations. Mr Bush with the axis of evil. Mr Khrushchev trumping the table and calling Filipino some obnoxious name in Russian.

Both Mr T and Mrs M appear to think that the yard stick to measure a nation’s success is GDP. This kind of thinking is driving humankind to make happiness a second goal for the twenty-first century which is highly unlikely unless inequality, war, and climate change disappear.

Surely the UN is not the platform for sovereign selfish nations to be expressing treats to other nations. Stirring up hornets nest is not what the world needs.

Here a few examples from each of their recent addresses to the UN.

MR D Trump first:

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. “Rocket Man” is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

” It has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.”

Then a raft of contradictions:

” In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch.”

” We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution, the oldest constitution still in use in the world today. This timeless document has been the foundation of peace, prosperity and freedom for the Americans, and for countless millions around the globe whose own countries have found inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity and the rule of law.”

“But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.”

“As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.”

“The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more. In fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes.”

“The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security and prosperity for all. Now we are calling for a great reawakening of nations, for the revival of their spirits, their pride, their people and their patriotism.”

“Our hope is a word and (sic) world of proud, independent nations that embrace their duties, seek friendship, respect others and make common cause in the greatest shared interest of all, a future of dignity and peace for the people of this wonderful Earth.”

“This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security and promote their prosperity.”

The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.

“We do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.”

“Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts and our minds in our nations – if we will not build strong families, safe communities and healthy societies for ourselves – no one can do it for us.”

“This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is the foundation for cooperation and success. Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect. Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny, and strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.”

We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are guided by outcomes, not ideology. We have a policy of principled realism rooted in shared goals, interests and values.

And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil and terror.

“We will fight together, sacrifice together and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity and for the almighty God who made us all.”

“Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures? Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?”

The UN relies on the independent strength of its members.

Theresa May:

“We face challenges that go right to the heart of who we are as nations.”

“I believe that the only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create and the values by which we stand. For it is the fundamental values that we share, values of fairness, justice and human rights, that have created the common cause between nations to act together in our shared interest and form the multilateral system. And it is this rules-based system which we have developed, including the institutions.”

This statement in the light of Brixit is total hogwash and on we go.

“Indeed, the defining purpose of the UN Charter is to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of those common ends.”

“An outward-looking global Britain and the second biggest funder of the UN the UK will remain committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on development and humanitarian support. And that is why we will remain generous in our funding but set aside 30% to be paid only to those parts of the UN that achieve sufficient results.”

It is true to say that the UN needs reform, but it can only become relevant if it is financed to tackle world problems. ( See previous posts)

Both Speeches ignore Climate Change and the need to address inequality that is the spawning bed of all terrorism, driven by the technology of the smart phone.

The world is changing and we don’t have to be prophets to see if we as its intelligent guardians don’t address its underling problems there will be problems that will put all our technology, all our unsustainable greed, all our power of destruction, into the shade.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SHINES A LIGHT ON A WORLD WHERE NEARLY 20 PEOPLE ARE FORCIBLY DISPLACED EVERY MINUTE.

16 Saturday Sep 2017

Posted by in Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Refugees., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Aid., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

(A shameful twelve minute read)

We got it all wrong when it comes to helping Refugees.

They are not invisible people.

Camps are the wrong way to help today’s refugees.

We cannot turn our backs on the ten million people who have been forced to flee their homes. Every decent society knows this and knows that it’s our moral duty to come up with a workable way of helping the refugees.

So here’s the crucial question: what, beyond safety itself, are the critical elements of normality for any refugee?

The entire international refugee support system has presumed that the answer is food and shelter.

But is this really the right response in 2017?

The system was designed to cope with the displaced of post-war central Europe, many of them Germans who had fled the Russians, or Jews freed from the concentration camps.

Refugees nowadays do not have the luxury of a short-term solution. The problems they are fleeing are likely to last for a very long time. Imagine yourself in their position, displaced with your family. Would you really resign yourself to years in a refugee camp, living off food tokens, housed in a converted container?

UNHCR, and its penumbra of similar organisations, are designed for care.

Like all welfare programmes, theirs treats people as passive recipients. Inadvertently, it infantilises.

That so many refugees forgo this care, preferring the struggle of earning a living beneath the official radar of regulations that prohibit it, is testimony to the heroism of the human spirit. We shouldn’t, even with the best intentions, crush that spirit. We should do what we can to make autonomy less grim.

The key confusion has been to conflate refugees with migrants.

Refugees, by definition, are people who didn’t choose to be migrants: they wanted to live at home but their home became unsafe. Migrants are people who seek a better life. Migrants go to honeypots — dream locations can readily be ranked by their desirability.

Refugees do not go to dream locations; they are seeking proximate havens. All of the top ten destinations for refugees are themselves countries of emigration. All are poor countries in disorderly neighborhoods.

So this is the real answer for refugees, not tents and food but autonomy and community. It’s what you would want in their position.

In asking the development agencies to scale-up and integrate the new mechanisms for generating jobs for refugees with those for speeding post-conflict recovery, it would at last become possible to meet our true international duty of rescue. In the process we should free ourselves from the lazy trap of fitting the present into the past.

But try telling that to the current wave of some 65.6 million people around the world that have been forced from home from today’s wars and conflict zones. 65.3 million people on the run – most are now crammed into often squalid and unsafe camps as they wait in increasing desperation for a home, somewhere.

65.6 million is according to the UNHCR the latest figures (which should be taken with a dose of salt as many nations are not equipped with refugee registers or effective data collection procedures. It excluded people who were displaced by natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes, which separately uprooted at least 19 million people in 2015.

To put this number into perspective, one in about every 113 people in the world is currently a refugee. This means that of the 7 billion people on earth, over 65 million of them are living as refugees –– forced to leave their homes. The numbers are so breathtaking that they take a while to settle into the mind.  This is the largest number ever recorded – and a testament to massive failures of both the international community and the United States in dealing with this crisis.

(There are also 10 million stateless people who have been denied a nationality and access to basic rights such as education, healthcare, employment and freedom of movement.)

I say the US, because it is the worst offender. It led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without a legitimate casus belli. It set in motion the events that produced the Arab Spring resulting in immense forcible displacement in the region.

Just compare this 65 million with one of the greatest humanitarian crises in history — when a shattered Europe at the end of the Second World War had to resettle a staggering 16 million displaced persons.

A horrifying number certainly, but only a third as many as we have now.

The fact that the average amount of time people worldwide are living in displacement is now a staggering 17 years suggest that something is going terribly wrong in how we’re dealing with this issue.

In this climate, it is not surprising that there is animosity towards refugees by so many people.  There has been a perceptible rise in racist and xenophobic acts in many nations, sometimes fueled by politicians and the media. The political reality suggests most countries will remain reluctant to house all but a very small minority of those displaced by violence.

We now live in a world where nearly 20 people are forcibly displaced every minute and we have seen anything yet. Wait till uninhabitable regions due to climate change then we will have millions turning into billions.

Combined this with the violence in the Middle East and North Africa, with nine civil wars now going on in Islamic countries between Pakistan and Nigeria and half of the 23 million population of Syria been forced from their homes, plus 2.6 million Iraqis displaced by Islamic State – Isis – and 1.5 million people displaced in South Sudan.

Religious, ethnic and separatist conflicts are tearing countries apart.

Nationalism and socialism no longer provide the ideological glue to hold together secular states or to motivate people to fight.

Wars are currently being waged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, south-east Turkey,Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and north-east Nigeria and none of them show any sign of ending. sanliurfa-syrians-getty.jpg

Europeans were jolted by pictures of the little drowned body of Alyan Kurdi lying on a beach in Turkey and half-starved Syrians crammed into Hungarian trains.

What is to be done to stop these horrors? Perhaps the first question is how we can prevent them from getting worse, keeping in mind that five out of the nine wars have begun since 2011.

Let me begin by attempting to demonstrate why the refugee question must be addressed:

The waves of refugees now are just the leading edge of a global catastrophe, just watch as global warming takes its toll in the coming years.

The core problem remains the amount of violence we have in too many areas of the world. Until we figure out how to isolate wars and cut off their oxygen — as was done eventually in the Balkans in the 1990s — we will only delude ourselves in thinking our era grows less violent.

There is a danger that by attributing mass flight to too many diverse causes, including climate change, political leaders responsible for these disasters get off the hook and are free of public pressure to act effectively to bring them to an end.

Not an easy delusion to maintain as 48 million people call out to us from refugee camps that now seem as much prisons as safe havens. 

It is better first to be informed and draw an opinion, rather than only to be opinionated. Half of refugees worldwide are children.

But why has this topic been so often ignored, or if mentioned, referred to as a “taboo”?

The fact is that world media in all its forms is dissenting us all to the point that refugees from war-torn countries are considered collateral damage, making good news footage.

World leaders can no longer watch passively as so many lives are needlessly lost.

We must be smart about finding solutions to help refugees.

We must find humane and dignified means to ensure refugees don’t risk their lives and those of their families by resorting to ruthless traffickers.

We must open designated channels of entry and offer tagged shelter under repatriation once its is safe to do so.

We must stop the world media spreading a climate of xenophobia.”

We must stop the growing resistance from nations to providing asylum for refugees.

We must stop spreading (due to political rhetoric) painting refugees as terrorists or beggars. “Refugees… don’t bring danger” but “flee from dangerous places.

 

The world governments will resist doing anything until such time as it is profitable to do so. This will be too late.

One of the more comforting claims in recent years is that the world is a less violent place than the blood-soaked centuries gone by. Bull shit.

The modicum of UNHCR support before abandonment, puts a spotlight of Shame on our world!

I have this awful feeling of deja vu. One begging UN resolution after another.

However there are the beginnings of an awakening about all this. In October the World Bank approved its first refugee loan — for job generation for Syrian refugees in Jordan.

Perhaps if the top five Tech Conglomerations were to charge a cent on all like clicks, on all shared photos, on all sales, all up loads, on all searches, on all tweets, on all e mails, on all Skype calls, they could save the world from melt down.  This combined with a 0.05% world aid commission,( See previous posts) would create a perpetual fund of trillions to address inequality that leads to all our troubles.

In just a single minute on the web 216,000 photos are shared on Instagram, a total of £54,000 ($83,000) sales take place on Amazon, there are 1.8 million likes on Facebook and three days worth of video is uploaded to YouTube.

All suggestions and comments appreciated. All like click chucked in the bin till they are chargeable.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WAKE UP-THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT IS A JOKE.

09 Saturday Sep 2017

Posted by in HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Paris Climate Change Delegates., Post - truth politics., Social Media., Sustaniability, Technology, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WAKE UP-THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT IS A JOKE.

Tags

, , , , , ,

( A One minute Read)

Wake up. The Paris Climate Change Agreement which covers the period 2020 to 2030, : A system of voluntary, unenforceable pledges relies on peer pressure for ambitious commitments and the “naming and shaming” of countries that drag their feet, is a JOKE. It’s just worthless words. All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

Climate change is an issue of huge public interest.

One of the biggest problems that the world is facing aside from the economic pitfalls is the unprecedented occurrences of natural calamities. Not only does a calamity bring about massive death and destruction to the country, but it also causes great financial issues.

The exit of the United States could multiply those troubles, or it could provide an opportunity to fix the looming problem of incredible goals.

Time has nearly run out for limiting warming to 2 °C. “If we wait until 2020, it will be too late.”

The talks were rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

Demonstrating, yet again, the utter folly of an approach that is attempting to save the world by putting it on a collective energy diet.

Every major climate change initiative to date has gone up in smoke.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sought to cut emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, was doomed from the start.

The 2009 Copenhagen conference to hammer out a Kyoto sequel was an even bigger debacle.

The carbon market is a concept based on “polluter pays” and cap-and-trade principle. The objective is to reduce gas emissions through the use of market law. It assembles voluntary organizations that exchange the rights to issue carbon dioxide.

During the year, if a company manages to emit less than the allowable amount, it can sell the remainder to another company. This transaction doesn’t change the total emissions of the group. Therefore, one company must emit a lower-than-allowable amount in order for another company to emit more.

It works pretty much like the stock exchange. The problem with this system is that it needs rigid regulations and enforcement in order to have a large impact. There is no law limiting the amount of carbon emissions by a company. The carbon market is purely based on volunteerism, which works well for the companies already involved. This system was at the heart of Kyoto.

 

We watch large global corporations make billions, we watch governments spend billions on arms, we watch drug companies make trillions, energy giants make trillions,we watch Google/Alphabet/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/ Facebook/Twitter/Algorithms plunder the world, while the United Nations has to beg for funds.

So where are we.

We either spend trillions and sacrificing millions of jobs, to reduce the average global temperature. Or Spend trillions on mopping up disasters and stopping mass immigration.

Or

Place a world aid commission on all Transactions that are Profit for Profit sake, on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions of $50,000, on all Sovereignty Funds Acquisitions, on all form of online Gambling. Creating a perpetual fund to address the problem and reduce inequality.

Ban all air/road/sea traffic one day a month.

Even if the always-wrong climate change computer models turned out to be right, no one wants to pay the cost.

Recent images bear little resemblance to reality;

Bangladesh underwater, Mexico shaking, Vast areas on fire, West Indies blown away, Wars a bucket full and inequality rampant. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "the top world forest fires"

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the latest hurricane"

May all those caught up in any of the above survive.

 

Stupidity consists in wanting to come to a conclusion.

All support appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the latest hurricane"

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF LIP SERVICE.

08 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by in Capitalism, Climate Change., Environment, Evolution, Google, Humanity., Life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF LIP SERVICE.

Tags

, , , , , ,

( A three-minute read)

We live in a world where turning on the news every day means getting updated on the latest tragedy and not just finding out what the weather will be like tomorrow.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the living world"

2017 is a year of unrelenting misery and fear. We live in a world where people feel more afraid of someone with a gun than protected.

We live in a world where text messages surpass face to face conversations.

Image associée

We live in a world run by Algorithms. In a world where if you didn’t snap chat it or post it to Facebook, “it didn’t happen”.

We live in a world that has so many people without the words, “thank you” in their vocabulary.

We live in a world where people would rather sit in the comfort of their anguish and anxiety than take a small step to a better life.

What happened to the world where everyone minded their own damn business?

What happened to the world where people actually knew their neighbors, and didn’t fear them? What happened to the world where people got together and lost track of time because they didn’t have their phone attached to their hip?

What happened to the world where people could voice their opinion without getting hate mail? What happened to the world as one nation?

We live in a world where our self-esteem is managed by the amount of “likes” on our selfies and statuses.

I don’t need to tell you world news is pretty grim right now – if you use social media, it’s nigh on impossible to avoid articles about bubbling permafrost, drug-resistant gonorrhoea, and deadly obesity treatments.

And that’s just the science headlines.

We live in a world with rampant inequality due to capitalist greed, void of any common values.

We live in a world with global environmental changes locked into our future, with hidden threats to sustainability,not just because of migration that is just beginning due to lack of fresh water.

Stop, take a step back and think.

Isn’t it absurd that we, 7 billion of us living in the same planet, have grown further apart from each other? What sense does it make to turn your back on the thousands, maybe millions, of people living around you.

If we want wars we have all the ingredients.

We live in a world where our i pads and cell phones get thinner and our bodies get thicker.

We live in a world where people pass each other on the street and can’t even smile back.

We live in a world where people dish hatred out on a serving platter.

We live in a world where our world organisation called the United nations s just a gossip shop that has to beg for funds. Unable to cuts through the rhetoric because of

We live in a world where people take more than they give. We live in a world where people have completely forgotten what they were given knees for.

What happened to our world?

Most of us haven’t quite realized there is something extraordinary happening. I want to see it through a child’s eyes again.

Why is the world-changing?

We live in a world where  because we are too afraid of hurting kid’s feelings instead of teaching them the value of hard work. You get a participation trophy for merely showing up.3278764814_4d666f44ee_o-crop

We live in a world of lip service.

We are reaching our limits. It’s time for people to switch on the blender, stirring events in the non-human part of the world into their everyday lives, and see what happens.

Google might knows our names but it knows Sweet Fanny Adam about the natural world. The rest of the living world can get along without us, but we can’t get along without them.

Perhaps all living things comprise one biological entity, one large functioning ecosystem (life-force) with planet Earth as skeleton if so we had better learn quick that a skeleton earth whether it is due to Climate change, Nuclear war, or Algorithms will be worthless.

We are not isolated from the world around us by the boundaries of our bodies. Modern science has blurred the lines of the individual by shedding light on how interdependent life is. We are dependent on microbes. In essence, all life is connected to other life because we all exist in the same space.  If you don’t like bacteria, you’re on the wrong planet.”

When it comes to making sense of the incomprehensible we can only place our trust in tales of the imagination.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "videos of the living world"

The problem is that no one is will to bear the cost not even earth so why not make Greed pay. ( See previous Posts)

All comments appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THAT’S TRUMPED IT FOR ME.

02 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Post - truth politics., Sustaniability, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THAT’S TRUMPED IT FOR ME.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( A four-minute read)

Climate change is real and so are its effects, despite what Trump and his 22 Republican senators might stubbornly, short-sighted and nonsensical choose to believe.

Indeed, that climate change is real and caused by human activity is no longer an issue up for debate. That time has long passed.

It’s true that the train may be out of the station when it comes to avoiding climate change altogether, but we can still attempt to mitigate and alleviate the worst of the effects.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change"

The fact that an agreement was achieved was a breakthrough. Never before have 195 countries agreed to some form of emissions reductions, even if they aren’t exactly binding.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced he was pulling United States out of the agreement, which means the US would join Syria and Nicaragua as the only nations that did not agree to the pact. Even Palestine and North Korea signed it.

In that context, Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, the most promising global initiative addressing climate change, seems like a big deal. And it is, but not because his decision to withdraw will catapult us toward assured and quick global demise.

It is perhaps the best thing that could happen for the future of the agreement and, by side effect, the planet. After all, the accord is largely a voluntary gentleman’s agreement.

Trump’s decision might actually have a positive effect on the future of climate negotiations, freeing world leaders to pull together a stronger agreement that forces greater action.

It sends the message that the agreement is more about symbolism than action. Despite all of the fanfare that went on at the time, it seems that there are currently only 3 European Union countries pursuing climate policies that put them in line with the agreements made at the Paris Climate Change Talks.

The great majority of countries want to rig the law with loopholes so they can continue business as usual.

Some of the primary  loopholes in question, are the use of higher baselines for measuring CO2 emissions reductions and a greater use of forestry credits (tree planting as an offset). Also, 9 member states “want to exploit the ETS’s huge surplus of 100 million allowances, worth an expected €2 billion, to help them meet their emissions obligations on paper.”

In effect, the U.S. risks becoming an unreliable country run by an administration that explicitly prioritizes corporate greed, short-termism, isolationism and nepotism over science, reason, growth and global sustainable prosperity.

The response to such a senseless act by the Trump administration should be a renewed and strengthened international commitment to combat climate change and the maintenance of a global climate governance regime that will be effective in keeping global warming below the critical 2 degrees Celsius.

This will never be achieved.

Why ?

Because man down through the age has demonstrated that he is incapable of cooperate with each other in large groups.

The modern deal offers power provided we renounce our belief in a great cosmic plan that gives meaning to life. On an individual level we are inspired to constantly increase our income and our standard of living. Greed comes easily to humans.

Don’t worry,  The ecological meltdown is going to be great.Image associée

God like technology has it downside, like how or what is going to control these structures as traditional political structures can no longer process the data fast enough to produce meaningful visions.

We live in a world full of small interest groups and ruthless billionaires, we becoming chips enabled and manipulated by algorithms.

An international fund to help countries transition to green economies and cope with climate change will have an expected $100 billion US dollars per year. So far, only $62 billion US dollars has been gathered.

The whole thing will end in gridlock.

The climate change narrative is beginning to change.

There is only one way to stop climate change and that is to place a world aid commission of 0.05% on all transactions that exploit us and the world for profit sake.

For Example:  High Frequency Trading, Sovereign Wealth Fund Acquisitions, Foreign Exchange Transactions over 50,000$, World Lotteries etc.

This will create a perpetual funded world aid fund to address climate change and the inequality that drives it.

Failure to act—or worse, acting to exacerbate—climate change could have lasting implications for the entire planet. The world has already burned more than two-thirds of the carbon that is expected to raise global temperatures by 2 degrees celsius (the previous target)–a catastrophic threshold.

If developing nations followed similar development trajectories as the US, for instance, then there would be no possibility for keeping climate change under control.

Emissions targets will never be legally binding, but report cards and updated promises are binding. No penalties will be given out for countries who fail to meet targets.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS OUR WORLD SO COCKED UP.

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Modern day life., Our Common Values., Populism., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS OUR WORLD SO COCKED UP.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

( A five-minute follow on read:  Broadening the Subject of Brexit to a Global view)

Because we never see or experience time and space; they are like glasses through which we view the world. Each day, we hear about countless instances of greed, hatred, violence, and destruction, and all of the pain, suffering, and sorrow that ensues.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of a global eye"

About 100 years ago, the world sleepwalked into World War 1, which lead to world War 11.

Today the world sleepwalking  into the next global disaster.

WE ARE INCAPABLE OF ACTING TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

BRIXIT BEING THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE.

Take your choice CLIMATE CHANGE or UN-REGULATED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

Technology increasingly prevents us from seeing ourselves in others – we increasingly see others as data, which tell us all about their employment outcomes or what degrees they have, but which keeps their dignity out of plain sight.

How is it that technology has and still is superseding human intelligence, when it’s the humans that are discovering new technologies?

The question is how to change human being, since we are the root cause of everything.

The earth is on the brink of environmental disaster because human beings (at least those in power during the modern age) have drawn sharp distinctions between the human and non-human world.

The world is and has always been divided into two opposing camps: female/male; non-white/white; haves/have-nots; young/old; conflict theorists/functionalists; developed nations/less developed nations; oppressed/oppressors; industrialized/non-industrialized; Western/non-Western, etc.

They all stem from a mindset that envisions a world of you versus me, us versus them, self versus other.

We can look at almost any social problem—racism, sexism, poverty, homophobia, ableism, bullying, terrorism, domestic violence, human trafficking, slavery, religious fundamentalism, immigration —and at the core, is a dualistic orientation.

A dualistic orientation is one that focuses on our differences instead of our similarities, promotes arbitrary divisions at the expense of social cohesion, neglects our interdependence by nurturing our sense of independence, and fashions a deeply polarized world where if you are not with us (or like us) then you are against us (and therefore, we are against you).

The world is certainly a mess of socially created divisions. And while these differences seem real, and have very real effects, we must not forget that they are indeed social creations.

When we speak about problems between women and men, people of color and whites, Christians and Muslims, or any of the other numerous dualisms that we regularly invoke, we are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) suggesting that these two groups are essentially and inherently distinct, that at the core of these two groups is some fundamental difference.

Although the ubiquity of these problems makes them seem so normal and ordinary that we may not even question.

We need to question and challenge the way we unreflectively describe and divide the world into dichotomous and opposing camps.

In both our words and our actions we need to construct real alternatives to these arbitrary constructions, emphasize our similarities instead of our differences, build bridges instead of borders, and recognize that interdependence sustains us while independence tears us apart.

It may seem fruitless to try to identify a single contributing factor to all of society’s collective dilemmas. Ultimately, the challenge is to see others as us.

We first need to recognize ourselves in others before we can treat them like we would want to be treated.

Treating everyone equal, but in a real scenario, this is not possible.

Leave apart treating humans equal, we do not even spare the nature that lets us live or wildlife that maintains the ecological balance.

We destroy them all if it is serving our purpose.

We need to end the era of easy money. We need to stop subsidizing financial markets. We need to let our economy reorient itself from its short-term and transactional focus back to one based on long-term investment and long-term relationships.

We must encourage not discourage immigration. Immigration is morally correct, is good foreign policy and is economically beneficial. Immigrants must be viewed as assets, which they are, not liabilities.

Populists continue to come to power but it has no long term objectives.

The rich stay rich, the powerful stay powerful and the poor stay poor. Trade suffers, immigrants are shunned. Economic growth is weak. Capitalism continues to be viewed as the problem, big government as the solution. Maybe another financial crises that we can inflate our way out of. Maybe another financial crises that we can’t.

Sooner or later the music stops. It’s time for us to be better.

We are nowhere near as free as everyone thinks, and that makes my skin crawl.

All in all, of course there is a lot of good in this world, but even with all that good, the bad shines, so bright and with that brightness it sometimes gets hard to see the good.

Why settle other planets when ours is in danger of an impending doom?

It’s easy to assume that we’ll charge into our new home disregarding the existing ecosystem or any potential inhabitants. We’ll change shit around so it works for us and in doing so we’ll make the same mistakes we’ve made for centuries on Earth.

What the hell is going on in the world?

IT’S TIME WE PUT ON Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of a global eye"

IT’S TIME TO REVANT THE UNITED NATIONS. TO ESTABLISH A NEW WORLD ORGANISATION TO VET ALL TECHNOLOGY, ARTIFICIAL NOR NOT TO ENSURE IT COMPLIES WITH CORE HUMAN VALUES AND NOT PROFIT.

IT’S TIME TO GET OFF YOUR SMART PHONES AND PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR REAL WORLD.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨