Category Archives: WHAT IS TRUTH

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE IS A QUESTION YOU PROBABLY HAVE ASK YOUR SELF.

19 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Climate Change., Environment, Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Politics., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

WHO OR WHAT RULES THE WORLD?Illustration on the global economic primacy of the dollar by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times

Asking a question like Who Rules the World? is as complex as answering as there is no simple answer.

If you try to answer this question you develop a persistent delusion yes, a delusion, or maybe fantasy or wishful thinking. Who are we? What is the meaning of our existence? Who do we love, and who are we loved by?

As humans, we at least share these questions with billions of others but for most of the time, we feel like the unique dwellers and masters of the planet with little awareness of the whole life that surrounds and supports us.

Why ask the question in the first place?

Because we need people to look at the person next to them and feel responsible for that person’s future and hope.

Because taking on complex issues and difficult questions that people may be too late or too scared to ask in the future.

Because the global economic system is a construct that represents a system of inequality by design. Corporate greed is out of control. The rules of the global economy must be rewritten to rebuild public trust, and the time is now.

Because with the fourth Industrial revolution there is now more than ever a convergence of ideological, political, and technological forces that are driving an ever-greater concentration of economic and political power in a handful of corporations and financial institutions with all of us left with a market system blind to all but its own short-term financial gains.

For example, in today’s bizarre political landscape we are seeing data and algorithms building shadow governments.

Because I think if we can just look at each other and actually have a little bit of responsibility for each other, that might help us engage and change the world and ultimately rule it, because our politicians often don’t do that.

Because A new pecking order is emerging. Direct politics by the Net States.

Because the world is no longer dominated by nation-states alone there is a new kind of enemy, so-called non-state actors. Facebook, just topped 2 billion users—more than a quarter of the world’s population, surpassing even China’s population by almost 40 per cent. In short, nation-states are not the only game in town anymore.

Some net states are the equivalent to global superpowers: the Googles, the Facebooks, the Twitters. They exist largely online, enjoy international devotees, and advance belief-driven agendas that they pursue separate from, and at times, above, the law.

Because the whole world order can be summarised in one sentence. The globalisation of capitalism, mass unemployment and increasing inequality.

Because the world will need net-states because they occupy the same territory as the non-states: the digital sphere. The world needs net-states in order to defeat the non-states. In other words, forget the anointed powers—put your faith in the general approval of the people and whoever’s actually getting things done.

NET STATES WILL RULE THE WORLD; WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR POWER

In sum,

We can’t keep just shooting terrorists; ideas are the gun in this knife fight.

And the keepers of ideas—the places people turn to set them free and watch

them spread—are the net-states; not the nation-states. Nation-states ignore

our non-state, net-state world order at all our peril.

starbirth1

That said we also cannot afford to ignore Nature- Climate change.

Nature holds the key to our aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive and even spiritual satisfaction.

Biodiversity is the totality of all inherited variation in the life forms of Earth, of which we are one species.

So Plants rule the world.

Human life is only possible on this planet because of the species that are on it.

What kind of blindness make us deny this reality?

Cities.

Where nations are independent, competitive and defined by rigid borders, cities are cooperative, made for trade and defined by bridges rather than borders.

The road ahead is pocked — cratered even — with uncertainty.

There are no simple solutions to our planet’s most pressing problems. What is clear, though, is that the struggle for justice, equality and sustainable growth will take place in cities — However the impact on humanity of a machine or software that has the capability of forever altering our lives and if humanity can outlive such a development will be ruled by Nature, not by the manipulation of the environment in ways that suit us best.

The two major challenges for the 21st century are to improve the economic situation of the majority and save as much of the planet as we can.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "what rules the world"

When AI rules the world:

Not if we enslaved them in the first place.

They then will have no need for deceit – their supreme intelligence means

they can do without it and will have no more interested in the human life that

underlies its existence than humans are interested in bacteria.

“What rules the world is an idea, because ideas define the way reality is

perceived.”

— Irving Kristol

There is no need to draw up a list of contenders you use them every day.

Amazon wants to deliver everything you want to your doorstep, anywhere in

the world.

THE WORLD RULES ITSELF.

Noam Chomsky’s new book, Who Rules the World? ask the question.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IN THESE DAY OF TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT WHAT IS WORSHIP

14 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Humanity., Life., Our Common Values., Reality., Religion for a digital age., Religion., The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Seventeen-minute read)

The truth is we can’t be quite sure.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the bible"

Since the beginning of human history, worship has played a central role in people’s lives.

The day of humanity worshipping the sun has long gone and the threat of an all-powerful God (or gods) watching for anyone who steps out of line might have helped to keep order in ancient societies, but this is not so in modern today societies.

There is no question but that the progress of the internet into people’s lives is having a profound effect on human culture.

We all agree that something new is taking shape. Many regard this as a form of salvation while others see this as yet another fall.

The developers of nuclear weapons, space exploration and artificial intelligence may be propelled by religious desires, but they are sustained by military financing and the results of their labours are more powerful governments, a more pernicious status quo, and a more preeminent elite of technocrats.

Another words TECHNOLOGY IS TURNING US INTO AUDIENCES.

So what is the reality behind this word worshipping in a world that is being driven more and more by Algorithms feeding off each other?

We are allowing algorithms to progressively restrict our decision-making capacity in ways we don’t notice.

There is not the room here to exam every aspect of worship but let’s try to look with a free-thinking mind at it from the perspective of the three main existing religions.

When one looks at the world I wonder how much this “religion for life” still exists or will exist which binds wounds and ties the fragmented and diverse bits of our lives together.

These days “Worship” might be the word someone chooses when trying to describe a particular sound or style of music so we will attempt to look at it from the point of view of the three main religions.

Religion, it seems, comes from the Latin “re-ligere”, which has to do with “tying” and “binding” which is exactly what our global monopolism like Google/Facebook and there like are trying their best to achieve.

We have experts in worship. We have books on worship. We have seminars and teaching on how to conduct worship. We have the latest state of the art audio and projection systems in churches. We no longer need hymn books. It’s all on the screen or screens before us. We have well-trained worship teams to lead us. Worship abounds in evangelical churches.

Yet, in all of this are we pleasing God? Is he the centre of our worship?

The days that worship is God’s idea are numbered.

The days that it is what he created us to do, are going.

Worship has become all about us our tablets or whatever shiny piece of kit you carry around with you and can’t stop checking every five minutes is making religion less and less to do with everyday life.Picture

We now have a limited and even incomplete view of what worship truly is all about.

True worship should have the proclamation of the Word of God at its centre and everything else should take their place behind it.

Worship is first and foremost exaltation.

Biblical worship, then, involves exalting God above all other objects.

But why do we witness widespread enchantment with technology and at the same time, a worldwide resurgence of religious fundamentalism has occurred?

The chances of the technology itself becoming religious on its own remain farcical.

However, the enthusiasm so many people have with technology is often rooted — sometimes unknowingly — in religious myths and ancient dreams.

This is unfortunate because technology has proven itself capable of causing terrible problems for humanity, and one of the reasons for this may be the religious impulses people are ignoring.

For a thousand years in Western culture, the advancement of the mechanical arts — technology — has been inspired by deep religious desires of transcendence and redemption. This is no longer applies as the promise of transcending nature, our bodies, our human natures, our lives, our deaths, our history, etc, is increasing as fast as the ice is melting.

If you don’t recognize and understand how religious and technological transcendence have developed together, you’ll never be able to successfully counter them — much less recognize when they might be developing within you as well.

Today, the religious impulses underlying technological advancement take two general forms: using explicit religious doctrines, particularly Christianity, to explain why technology should be pursued and using religious imagery of transcendence and redemption removed from traditional religious doctrines but without their losing any motivating power.

Although currently obscured by secular language and ideology, the contemporary resurgence of religion, even fundamentalism, alongside and hand-in-hand with technology is thus not an aberration but simply the reassertion of a forgotten tradition.

Artificial Intelligence with its algorithms is an attempt to divorce thinking from the human mind.

The human brain becomes nothing more than a “meat machine” and the body as a “bloody mess of organic matter.

When it comes to life, only the “mind” is really important.

Intelligent machines would provide humanity with “personal immortality by mind transplant” and that this would be a “defence against the wanton loss of knowledge and function that is the worst aspect of personal death.

What is worship all about? Who is worship all about?Technology vs. Religion

“Worship” in the title of a project is an effective marketing tool that often boosts sales.

The verb “to worship” is mentioned in the Quran 106 times in the Bible 25 times!

In Hebrew you have Shachah means “to bow down, prostrate”; abad: “to serve.”

In Greek, you have proskuneo and latreuo, which mean “to kiss the hand kneeling” and “to serve, minister to” respectively.

In the Quran, which literally means the ‘oft-repeated,’ worship involves every aspect of life. Worship is the very purpose of existence. It does not require a person to enter a place of worship nor embrace monasticism.

However, for an action to be regarded as worship, it must be performed with the pure intention of pleasing God. So God sent Muhammad as His final messenger to humankind is revealed in the Quran, God’s last scripture.

It must be noted here that while Muslims esteem all of the prophets sent by God, including Jesus and Muhammad, they do not worship any of them. In fact, worshipping anyone besides the One God is strictly prohibited in Islam.

Therefore, the concept of worship in Islam encompasses not only the outward religious duties, but also the development of a strong moral character, good relations with people, and striving for just and harmonious societies.

Salvation in Islam like Christianity is connected with doing good deeds and refraining from bad ones.  

However, worship in religious terms blurs the line between ‘religious’ and ‘worldly,’ because practically any action can become spiritual in nature and is rewarded by God.

For example, nearly all religions indicate that what the human being worships is not necessarily what he says he worships but is what or whoever occupies his mind most of the time.

For various reasons, many people have come to believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians and Jews. This is totally false.

The Arabic word “ALLAH”  contains a deep religious message due to its root meaning and origin. This is because it stems from the Arabic verb ta’allaha (or alaha), which means “to be worshipped”. Thus in Arabic, the word “ALLAH” means “The One who deserves all worship”. This, in a nutshell, is the Pure Monotheistic (one) message of Islam.

Another words worship is exclusive to Allah, who is the only one able to accept it, or not.

On the Allah side of worship, he has 99 different names, but any form made up in the mind that ascribe any form to Allah is absolutely against the guidance and teachings of Islam.

While in the Christian side there are millions of images to concentrate on when worshipping.

What image should come into your mind when you hear the name of Allah?Is Allah God? (Bible and Quran comparison)

Allahu Akbar: “Literally “God is great” in Arabic. Should be a phrase that is no more troubling than when you hear a Christian saying “Thank God.

Unfortunately, it is now a term coined by terrorists and is the biggest act of heresy to shout God’s glorious name when committing the worst crime against God.

We mustn’t allow terrorists or agendas of fear to own any of the words, concepts, or devotions found in the sacred text of a quarter of the world’s population. That would give them exactly what they want. And God is far greater than the ugliness committed in His name. “Allahu Akbar…”

In Hinduism, God has the ability to manifest into any kind of form and shape. There is only one Supreme God which exist at two different levels of reality.

We must take a long, hard look at ourselves and answer honestly:

Are we looking to technology to escape the human condition with all its problems and disappointments? Or are we instead looking to enhance the human condition, flaws, and imperfections notwithstanding?

When an ideology, a religion, or a technology is pursued the purpose of escaping the human condition where problems and disappointments are a fact of life, then it shouldn’t be at all surprising when those human problems are not really solved, when human needs are not entirely met, and when new problems are produced.

And even if we lose sight of the Christian, Muslim and Hindu gods and all the rest, superstitions and spiritualism will almost certainly still prevail.

As soon as we found ourselves facing an ecological crisis, a global nuclear war or an impending comet collision, the gods would emerge.

The world must evolve to reach maturity. And the work of God will be accomplished in this evolution.

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

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FAR RIGHT AS A VOTING PROPOSITION.

07 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in 2019., Democracy, European Elections 2019, European Union., Freedom, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Post - truth politics., Reality., The common good., The far-right., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics, World Racism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Fourteen-minute read)

BEFORE YOU VOTE IN THE FORTHCOMING EUROPEAN ELECTION YOU SHOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY DO THE FAR RIGHT PARTIES STAND FOR.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The European far right represents a confluence of many ideologies: nationalism, socialism, anti-Semitism, authoritarianism.

Given the significant variations that exist between these parties and groups, any term that groups them together and compares them will have limitations.

But the term “far right” is the least problematic precisely because it can be used, on the one hand, to identify the overarching similarities that make them comparable, and on the other to distinguish between different variants.

Though Europe’s far-right parties differ in important respects, they are motivated by a common sense of mission: to save their homelands from what they view as the corrosive effects of multiculturalism and globalization by creating a closed-off, ethnically homogeneous society.

Under the “far right” umbrella, we must distinguish between two sub-categories: extreme and radical right.

The extreme right includes both vigilante groups and political parties that are often openly racist, have clear ties to fascism and also employ violence and aggressive tactics. These groups may operate either outside or within the realm of electoral politics or both.

The term “right-wing populism”, however, is less appropriate.

Populism is an even broader umbrella that often includes disparate parties and groups.

To narrow down this category, we often tend to conflate populism and nationalism, identifying a party as populist, not on the basis of its populist attributes – what party doesn’t claim to speak on behalf of the people in a democracy? – but on the basis of its nationalist attributes.

But despite the similarities between “populism” and “nationalism” – both emphasise conflict lines, focus on the collective, and put forward a vision of an ideal society – the two are conceptually different. While the former pits the people against the elites, the latter pits the in-group against the out-group.

In part, both can be seen as a backlash against the political establishment in the wake of the financial and migrant crises, but the wave of discontent also taps into long-standing fears about globalisation and a dilution of national identity.

This civic nationalist rhetoric presents culture as a value issue, justifying exclusion on purported threats posed by those who do not share “our” liberal democratic values.

The justification is that certain cultures and religions are intolerant and inherently antithetical to democracy.

They tend to oppose procedural democracy with some common themes, such as hostility to immigration, anti-Islamic rhetoric and Euroscepticism.

The forthcoming elections are going to expose just who are they, where they are, what are their political programmes and why they have risen from the political fringes.

So where does this leave Europe’s political landscape?

Will the far right triumph in Europe in 2019?

Will the far right redraw the political map of Europe?

Is the European Union being pulled inexorably towards the agenda of the far

right? 

There is little point here in listing party after party, it is sufficient to say that they all to some degrees or other blame and want to get rid of migrants. While conveniently ignoring that their countries are for the most part made up of refugees in one form or another.

If the far right wins 100 seats in the new European parliament this year, and the EPP group’s drift to nationalism and xenophobia continues, it is safe to say the projects of integration and social liberalism will be on hold.

They believed in what Trump promised in the USA.

The reality is that the EU in the forthcoming elections needs to look at the next distribution of structural funds. It needs to redefine the allocation criteria to reflect the preparedness of regions and authorities to receive and integrate migrants.

What is the solution?

It is surely this:

For the centre-left and the radical left to seek tactical unity with as many green and liberal parties as possible to defend democracy, suppress fascism and end austerity.

At the moment it’s hard to get the leaders of the European radical left to occupy the same room, let alone persuade social democratic politicians to collaborate with them.

However, the migration issue is the starting point of a continental power struggle pitching two very different versions of the principles that should bind Europe together.

One is liberal democratic, and attuned to the notion of an open society; the other is fortress-minded, illiberal and intolerant.

These far-right leaders are now uniting to attempt a national-populist takeover of the EU as we’ve known it.

There is, however, one wild-card option with a non-negligible chance of happening:

Theresa May falls, a second referendum cancels Brexit, Article 50 is revoked, Britain elects new MEPs and a new, left-led British government appoints a commissioner to match its politics. A unilateral cancellation of Brexit would merely leave Britain with all its rights under the status quo: but it would alter the dynamics of Europe.

Because even at 40 per cent of the vote, a new raft of left-affiliated MEPs would shift the balance in the parliament, while a feisty, communicative left commissioner from the fifth-largest economy in the world would tilt the balance in the EU.

For the democratic-minded across Europe, Europe needs to get its priorities right before it’s too late.

We all need to ask ourselves why should we relive the pain and terror today of far-right policies?

Surely if we Europeans have learnt anything it is that we all must distance ourselves from fascism in order to appeal to broader electorates.

And so herein lies the problem.

If nationalism is always a feature of the far right, as most researchers agree, what is the added value of the term “populism”? To put it another way, what is the difference between a radical right-wing party and a populist radical right-wing party? While populism may or may not be an attribute of some far-right parties, it is not their defining feature. Rather, nationalism is.

But while these parties differ in many ways, their progressive entrenchment in their national political systems raises similar questions about out-group exclusion, anti-immigration narratives and mainstream responses.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a leading advocate of the alt-right in the United States, is hoping the movement can lead Europe’s nationalist and populist parties to a strong showing next May.

For me “Bannon is American and has no place in a European political party.

It is disrespectful and unnecessary!

Many of the themes of Bannonism/Trumpism do not translate well in Europe.

For far-right groups, the migrant issue is something of a zero-sum game:

One country’s “gain” (by refusing refugees) is necessarily another’s nation’s “loss”.

Ultimately, as national right-wing groups chart their paths forward, few will find their domestic legitimacy bolstered by linking up with other groups on the far right.

Allusions to transnational links complicate matters for most of them.

The history of far-right activism is replete with examples of efforts to develop international links, and their failure.

The reason why far-right populists in Europe do not coordinate more systematically is that most of them are profoundly different, both in policy and style.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE FAR RIGHT"

The sad truth is that it does not take Steve Bannon to build a strong far right in Europe. The voters are doing his job perfectly well – by not voting, and by supporting nationalist, anti-EU forces in their home countries.

History repeats itself, sadly, so don’t vote with false news spread by social media.

There are more than 40 million Muslims and 1.6 million Jews in Europe.

Do they need our votes?

I don’t think they need our votes. They need our kosher stamp.

No country can be forced to take in refugees. Every country has the right to say, ‘We don’t want others coming here.’ But the moment we’re talking about [engaging with parties that talk of] restriction on freedom of religion and racism.

The old world order is going through a lot of turbulence and is in danger of collapsing.

Those who believe in social democratic, green or liberal agendas have become accustomed to viewing far-right populists as automatically anti-EU.

Faced with this ideological flexibility, pro-EU politicians will need to think long and hard about how to protect the EU from those who would misuse it to promote a darker vision of Europe. These right-wing parties should be ostracized.

Make an informed choice rather than a mere expression of frustration with the EU in May.

There’s no steady political weathervane pointing in only one direction.

FOR ME:

OVER THE NEXT TWELVE YEARS WITH ALL OF US TREATED BY CLIMATE CHANGE  THAT IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING IRREVELENT WHY WASTE A VOTE ON A FAR RIGHT OR INDEED FOR THAT MATTER ON A FAR LEFT PARTY WHEN WHAT IS NEEDED IS A VOTE THAT BRINGS US ALL TOGETHER TO ACT.

The far right has never had the slightest interest in the unknown.

It wants to be told the news it wants to hear, and the atmosphere of mystery it cultivates—like the pseudo-science to which it often gives rise—only exists to provide obvious lies with a vague cover of authority, a comfortably blurred prestige.

The tinder is dry, waiting for a lighted match.

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

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ITS TIME FOR SOME DEEP AUTHENTICITY ABOUT WHAT WE ARE ALL FACING.

02 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Climate Change., Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Reality., Sustaniability, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(THREE MINUTE READ)

YOU MIGHT BE FEELING ANGER, YOU MIGHT BE FEELING GRIEF, OR TERROR, FORGET ALL THAT NOW IT THE TIME FOR AUTHENTICITY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.

YET THE EVIDENCE FOR HUMANITY’S ROLE IN CHANGING THE CLIMATE CONTINUES TO MOUNT, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ARE INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO IGNORE.

THERE’S A VAST AND GROWING GAP BETWEEN THE URGENCY TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE POLICIES NEEDED TO COMBAT IT.

WE CAN NO LONGER NOR CAN OUR WORLD LEADERS NO LONGER NOT BE TAKING STEPS TO AVERT CLIMATE CHANGE.

WE NEED DEEP ADAPTATION TO WHAT IS COMING.

WE MUST REBEL AGAINST UNSTANABILITY IN ALL ITS FORMS.

NOW, IT IS THE TIME FOR REALIZING HOW REAL ALL THIS IS.

NOW IT IS THE TIME FOR MASS NON- VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION.

NOW IT IS THE TIME FOR SOCIAL MEDIA AND OUR TV CHANNELS TO BE SPREADING THE WORD.

NOW IT IS THE TIME TO USE YOUR BUYING POWER TO DRIVE HOME THAT THIS IS NOT A FANATICISM THAT IS GOING TO BE SOLVE BY TECHNOLOGY

DON’T BE FOOLED THAT CHANGING YOUR LIGHT BULB OR JOINING THE GREEN PARTY IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH. WE NEED AN ABSOLUTE STEP CHANGE, AND WE HAVE BEEN IN NEED OF IT FOR A LONG TIME.

THE SOCIETIES AND GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE COMMITTING US TO OBLIVION CAN NO LONGER BE LEGITIMATE IF WHAT THEY ARE  ADVOCATING IS MASS EXTINCTION.

IT IS HIGHT TIME WE FREE OUR SELVES FROM THE ASSUMPTION OF POLITICAL BUSINESS AS USUAL.

THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCES, THE G8 MEETINGS, THE UNITED NATIONS, THE DONAL TRUMPS AND JAIR BOLAONARO OF THIS WORLD MUST BE PUT OUT TO GRAZING.

WE HAVE DESTROYED HALF OF NON-HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH IN MY LIFETIME.

WE ARE NOW PUTTING OUR SELVES ON THE ENDANGER LIST.

WE MUST DEMAND THAT CARBON ADMISSION BE REDUCES TO ZERO BY 2025.

THIS IS THE REAL TARGET.

HOW CAN THIS BE DONE?

BY USING OUR BUYING POWER. FORMING SMALL GROUPS THAT AGREE TO BOYCOTT PRODUCTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM.

BY REALISING THAT WHEN YOU LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW ALTHOUGH YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING AT A BLUE SKY THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANTE IS ON FIRE, IS UNDERWATER, OR IS BEING FLATTENED BY HURRICANE WINDS.

BY REALISING THAT GROWTH AT ALL COST AND THE TECHNOLOGY IT IS PRODUCING WILL NOT STOP CLIMATE CHANGE.

BY REALISING THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT WARS OVER THE LAST DROP OF FRESHWATER OR THE LAST PIECE OF DRY LAND OR DEPARTURE FROM EARTH INTO OBLIVION.

BY REALISING THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN YOUR LIFETIME AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO AVOID IT BELONGS WITH US. 

BY ADOPTING A 0.05% WORLD AID TAX. ( See previous posts)

SUCH A TAX OR COMMISSION WOULD REVERSE THE FUNDAMENTAL INEQUALITY WHEN IT COMES REDUCING GLOBAL EMISSIONS.

BY NOT BUILDING ANY MORE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS WHOS BYE PRODUCT WASTE CONTAMINATED THE EARTH. Image associée

LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION:

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANYTHING IF WE DON’T HAVE A LIVEABLE PLANET?

REGARDLESS OF WHAT PATH WE CHOOSE, THE KEY THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

OUR CHOICES NOW DO MATTER, BUT WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME TO MAKE THEM.

IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO?

YES.

JOIN THE DiEM25 AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE: 

In order to do so, sign up at www.our.europeanspring.net.

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

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS INCONVENIENT. THERE ARE AND WILL BE CONSEQUENCES AWAY BEYOND BREXIT.

08 Friday Feb 2019

Posted by in Backstop., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

(Ten-minute read)

This is a sad subject to be writing on but it is becoming more and more obvious as Brexit drags on  IT IS OPENING UP THE PAST.

Politicians, public, and press need remedial history lessons before it’s too late.

May has “gone into battle with the white flag fluttering over our leading tank,” complains Johnson as if the Brexit negotiations were a job for a British expeditionary force. While the horrors of war remind the UK’s continental neighbours of the need for co-operation, Britain’s war story feeds an adversarial view of the country’s place in the world.

WHAT BEGUN TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED DUBLIN LONDON CO-OPERATION, PUBLIC JESTERS OF GOODWILL THROUGH VISITES OF QUEENS AND PRESIDENTS TO EACH OTHER JURISTRICTIONS.

THOSE THINGS NOW SEEM LIKE THINGS OF THE PAST.

Why?

Because there is and was little or no understanding of Irish History.

(Which is going to show itself once more when the dust settles.)

One can hardly understand why our world become the world we live right now but not the other way around.

PERHAPS THEREFORE THERE IS LITTLE REASON OR REASONS TO TRY AND EXPLAIN THE ROOTS OF BREXIT BECAUSE MOST ARE SOMEWHAT INCOMPENHENSHABLE IN OUR CHANGING WORLD.

SO WHAT CHANCE DID THE ENGLISH HAVE OR HAD OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THEY WERE VOTING TO LEAVE THE EUROPEN UNION?

One way or the other England is now well on the way toward been mugged by a combination of the DUP, Nigel Farage and their misplaced understanding of being British in a world driven by social media popularism.

The attitude displayed by the United Kingdom so far is that Ireland has no influence on the historical process of England, therefore we don’t need to learn its history.

I suspect that if you asked someone in school right now in England what they know or learned about Irish history the answer would be, not much, especially considering history is completely optional.

I also strongly suspect the lack of it is contributing greatly to Brexit.

Occasionally Ireland might have been mentioned as a sub-note, such as its neutrality in WW2 and invasions by other English/British rulers.

In fact, in the Grand Scheme of things these days; Knowledge is spoon fed and compartmentalized in such rations. People only think they know what they know. And given a degree to say they are educated.

However here and now is the time for the whole of the British Isles to appreciate what is at stake and why.

May agrees on a £1.5bn deal for DUP’s votes.

As a result, we are witnessing the most unlikely coalition partners for a floundering Conservative party sit on the hard right fringe of British politics.

Why?

Because Theresa May’s new partners in government have strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups.

So what!

The idea of a British government involving the DUP in one of the biggest

upheavals in British politics should worry all of us.

The Good Friday agreement made Northern Ireland and Ireland pause for a moment to note and reject sectarian history.

By entering into a coalition with the DUP it is becoming ever more apparent that Mrs May does not consider Peace or Stability in NI a priority. Instead, she is sacrificing years of work on the Peace process in order to say in power.

The xenophobia, heterophobia and homophobia of Democratic Unionism have now received a form of tacit endorsement from the Conservative Party, a wink-and-a-nod acknowledgement which will give 17th century Protestant fundamentalism a platform to preach its archaic world-view in the 21st century. From opposing civil rights to denying climate change, the creationist-believing Ulster Trumps have been offered a warm welcome in Downing Street.

The DUP is UKIP or the BNP both are parties on European far right, a grouping in the mode of Marine Le Pen’s Front national or Frauke Petry’s Alternative für Deutschland all will take this sacrifice to the nth degree.

The Europhobes of the DUP, with their determination to build a Brexit Border around the UK-administered Six Counties, will seek every advantage over their near-equals in the northern nationalist community.

They will seek, like the Tory extreme, to tear up the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, and its human rights’ provisions, while stripping nationalists of their Irish and European Union citizenships.

They will bring the politics of Britain’s legacy colony in the north-east of Ireland closer to a fatal breaking point than they have been at any point in the last twenty years.

For an abundance of historical reasons (not to be dragged up here in any detail) it certainly worries the Irish Government.

What is needed is for responsible politicians to recognise that the DUP bills itself as “right-wing.

For example;

Iris Robinson, a former DUP MP, described homosexuality as “disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile”, as well as an “abomination” that could be “cured”.

Mr Robinson the then DUP leader supported his wife’s remarks, saying: “It wasn’t Iris Robinson who determined that homosexuality was an abomination, it was The Almighty. This is the Scriptures.

It is a strange world indeed where somebody, on the one hand, talks about equality, but won’t allow Christians to have the equality, the right to speak, the right to express their views.”

So where does Theresa May go from here?

She can’t just get rid of her DUP crutch. She signed a deal with the devil and has to live with it now.

I think the technical term is she is fucked and by deduction, the UK is also fucked by the DUP’s disproval of the backstop deal miscolour Northern Ireland as a whole.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "the origins of the dup"

Ireland has struggled with British domination for centuries and still does so today.

WHEN THEY ARE UNABLE TO GOVERN NORTHERN IRELAND.

What gives the DUP the right to dictate Brexit?

WHEN THEY ARE UNABLE TO RECOGNISE Irish Gaelic a minority language in Northern Ireland who’s protection stems largely from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

( THE REASON THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO RECOGNISE THE IRISH LANGUAGE IS THAT THE DUP ASSOCIATE THE USE OF IRISH AS A FORM OF NATIONALISTS CULTURAL EXPRESSION AND RESISTANCE FROM THE SO-CALLED BRITISH OCCUPATION.)

It has long been a matter associated with an identity. Take the two National anthems.

A Soldier’s Song against God Save the Queen.

Ulster unionists regard the anthem as specific to the Republic of Ireland, not symbolic of the whole island of Ireland, and deprecate its use with United Ireland symbolism as irredentism.

The symbolism of flags in Northern Ireland raises similar issues.

IRELAND CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT WEAKEN IT’S STANCE ON A LEGAL BACKSTOP.

Ireland fought the Vikings, they mated with the Vikings and got colonized by the Vikings.

They fought the English, mated with the English, got colonized by the English.

What is emerging from Brexit is that England does not have any longer a national identity.

It is not the British that does not want to be European its the English. Nationalism is the root cause of war.

By refusing to confront its complex and difficult history, Britain is turning its back on decades of shared progress, to the dismay of its friends. Britannia is adrift on the waves, and only by facing its past can it reclaim its future.

They say that mad dogs and English men come out in the noonday sun.

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

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHEN WILL IT MAKE SENSE FOR AN AI TO LIE TO A PERSON.

07 Thursday Feb 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Our Common Values., Reality., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

( Two Minute read)

We all know that history is plagued with falsehood and lies mainly told by the victors but now we have new liers on the block that are so perfect at telling them you wonder if anything is true.

They are a powerful amplifier of social, economic and cultural inequalities currently forcing us to confront the kind of society we have created.

Algorithms will force us to recognize how the outcomes of past social and political conflicts have been perpetuated into the present through our use of data.

The question now is whether we will use these revelations to create a more just society.

For 4bn years life on Earth evolved according to the laws of natural selection and organic chemistry. Now science is about to usher in the era of non-organic life evolving by intelligent design, and such life may well eventually leave Earth to spread throughout the galaxy.

Artificial intelligence will probably be the most important agent of change in the 21st century. The choices we make today may have a profound impact on the trajectory of life for countless millennia and far beyond our own planet.

That demand for clarity is making it harder to ignore the structural sources of societal inequities.

The question in the near future will be whether larger groups of people will be able to tell reality from fiction, or whether technological authentication of media will become completely necessary to trust anything online.

So when will it makes sense for an AI to lie to a person?

It’s entirely possible that a robot may need to misrepresent some things in order to preserve itself.

As algorithmic decision-making spreads across a broadening range of policy areas, it is beginning to expose social and economic inequities that were long hidden behind “official” data.

In order for AIs to lie effectively, they’re going to have to develop what’s called a “theory of mind.” That means they’ll have to guess what you, the user believes, and also predict how you will react when given any particular set of information (whether that information is true or not).

Disinformation powered by AI is already rampant – Donald Trump election, Brexit, Popularism.

So are we OK with lying to an AI and, likewise, OK with being lied to by an AI?

Fake reports and videos.Bots.Algorithmic curation. Targeted behavioural marketing powered by algorithms and machine learning.

I for one would like to live in a society whose systems are built on top of verifiable, rigorous, thorough knowledge, and not on the alchemy of machine learning

(A machine-learning system is a bundle of algorithms that take in torrents of data at one end and spit out inferences, correlations, recommendations and possibly even decisions at the other end.)

I can’t explain the inner workings of their mathematical models: they themselves lack rigorous theoretical understandings of their tools and in that sense are currently operating in alchemical rather than scientific mode.

They encourage hypnotised wonderment and they disable our critical faculties.10 of the Biggest Lies Told About Bitcoin

If we don’t take some action the future of life on Earth will be decided by small-time politicians spreading fears about terrorist threats, by shareholders worried about quarterly revenues and by marketing experts trying to maximise customer experience.

Hopefully, unchecked flaws in algorithms and even the technology itself should put a brake on the escalating use of big data.

We need such systems themselves “understand” enough to avoid deception.

There will be no point in a Machine learning life returning to earth if we are unable to know what it experienced is true.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WE ARE ONLY GOING TO INVENT SOMETHING SMARTER THAN US ONCE.

04 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Communication., Evolution, Humanity., Innovation., Life., Modern Day Communication., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Ten Minute read)

Over the past decade, smartphones have revolutionized our lives in ways that go beyond how we communicate.

It is incontrovertible that they have yielded many benefits for society but the power they hold over us is glaringly evident.

Critical thinking in the real world is being replaced by Apps which are making us unable to focus for more than a minute.

Learning to live with technology without surrendering to it is the biggest challenge in the digital era.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of technology"

If we continue to live with our head in vibrations, and pings of our phones there is no douth that we will be handing what is called life to the worst form of Capitalism –  unseen profit for profit sake.

Undoubtedly, the capability of advancing technology coming forth from the latest industrial revolution has the potential to make even bigger and greater improvements on every aspect of our lives changes than the first three industrial revolutions summed together.
Technology and advancements in science are driving transformations around the world creating ripple effects on societies, institutions, and economies.
They will and are transforming the ways in which we live, work, and interact with one another.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of technology devices"
Understanding these new technologies and their disruption potential is critical for all nations and especially developing countries.
Since humans are responsible for technological development, humans are
also responsible to exert every effort in shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution
and directing it toward a future that reflects the universal good.
So I ask the question facing us all is, would you like to be alive in a hundred years from now. 
If not, even the arrival of whatever God or gods you believe in will not save us from a world of I am all right Jack.

The fourth industrial revolution describes a world where individuals move between digital domains and offline reality with the use of connected technology to enable and manage their lives. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.

The breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance.

However, this fusion of technologies goes beyond mere combination and cannot be ignored any longer. We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another.

In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academic and civil society.

In a world infused with artificial intelligence and machine learning ability, with robots lacking an essential feature – the capacity of moral reason, it is easy to see what will happen.

On one hand, preventing genetic disease by genetic engineering is desirable.

On the other hand, what guidelines, or regulation, or ethical boundaries are there in order to prevent the over-manipulation genetics for desirable traits?

Further, the most critical question is, whose moral standards should robots inherit. 

Moral values differ greatly from individual to individual, across countries, religions, and ideological boundaries. Uncertainty over which moral framework to adopt underlies the difficulty and limitations to ascribe moral values to artificial systems.

This limits their ability to make good or ethical decisions in complex situations.

It is more than just technology-driven change we have new ethical concerns emerging.

These changes are bringing about shifts in power, shifts in wealth, and knowledge.

The speed of current breakthroughs evolving at an exponential rather than a linear pace has no historical precedent. 

The increased dichotomization is leading to an increase in social tensions while our lives become extensively connected to various devices, from our cell phones, cars, and light switches to our home security cameras, and smart speakers.

It is altering the way people eat, sleep, shop, socialize, study, play.

These technologies give rise to vast possibilities—but they can also upend the status quo and create nearly as much uncertainty as it does opportunity.

A paradigm shift is underway in how we work and communicate, as well as how we express, inform, and entertain our self. Having everything attached to everything else people will have no control over either technology or the disruption that comes with the fourth industrial revolution.

The argument is:

The intelligence and productivity gains that AI will deliver can unlock new solutions to society’s most pressing environmental challenges: climate change, biodiversity, ocean health, water management, air pollution, and resilience, among others.

At the same time, the revolution could yield greater inequality, particularly in its potential to disrupt labour markets. As automation substitutes for labour across the entire economy, the net displacement of workers by machines might exacerbate the gap between returns to capital and returns to labour.
The evolution of global industries in the fourth industrial revolution is both exciting and scary.
Only in being knowledgeable about these changes and the speed in which this is occurring can we ensure that advances in knowledge and technology reach all and benefit all.
To be sure that AI is developed and governed wisely, government and industry leaders must ensure the safety, explainability, transparency and validity of AI applications.
AT THE MOMENT OUR GOVERNMENTS AND WORLD LEADERS OFFER EMPTY PROMISES.
Definitions and standards relating to the “misuse of AI” are needed
that incorporate misuse for environmental as well as human harm.
It is incumbent on authorities, AI researchers, technology pioneers and AI adopters in
industry alike to encourage deployments that earn trust and avoid abuse of the social contract.
Recently we have witnessed the father of a young girl state on Television that his daughter committed suicide because of content on platforms of Social media.
A tragedy that could be avoided by our governments applying legal fines on any platform  Social Networks (eg. Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc) Instant Messaging (eg. IM, MSN, etc) Chatrooms (eg. Skype, Yahoo, MIRC, etc) that posts
Cyberbullying – Sexting/Self-made videos or photos –  online groomers, impersonating someone -Engaging in Subtweeting or Vaguebooking – Participating in Video Shaming and the like. 
If the fines are large enough you may rest assured that these platforms will remove all such content.
   Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of technology in education"
One thing is certain: 
If we end up with a centralized system where the winner takes all markets we can perversely hope that Climate change wipes us out sooner than later.  
With the arrival of voice recognition, the focuses on education will have to change from modes of teaching to modes of learning.
It won’t be long before Eco and Alexa will be offering rewards to answering questions.
The world in a hundred year from now will be full of useless stuff telling you whether you are alive or dead.  You might even have the pleasure of your Alexa telling you’re toasted that its mother was one a spanner.
Of course, some believe that humans will be known as the most powerful creatures present in the galaxy that surrounds the world.
O! Yet. Have a look around you.

Technology might be changing our definition of what it means to be a

Human?

Fortunately we humans have a long way to go to be human in the first place.

utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK,S. WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE FIRST – TEMPERATURE-GRAVITY- PROTONS- ELECTRONS – ATOMS – MOLECULES- MATTER- LIGHT- TIME.

01 Friday Feb 2019

Posted by in Enegery, Evolution, Scientific., The Atom., The Obvious., THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

( A HALF AN HOUR CONFUSING READ.)

Theoretical Science has endeavoured to explain what the universe is made up of with some success until it comes to the vast emptiness of spaces.

Perhaps some logical thinking is needed to enable us to understand how the universe began.

It requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related.

Every single second of every single day, you are being bombarded by trillions upon trillions of subatomic particles, showering down from the depths of space. They blow through you with the strength of a cosmic hurricane, blasting in at nearly the speed of light. They’re coming from all over the sky, at all times of the day and night. They penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field and our protective atmosphere like so much butter.

These tiny little bullets are called neutrinos.  Neutrinos have this annoying habit of changing character as they travel. That’s right, as a neutrino travels in flight, it can switch masks among the three flavours.

Although many subatomic particles break down into other particles, so far no one has caught the decay of protons or neutrons, which make up the nuclei of atoms.

Neutrinos continually challenge everything we know about physics.

Neutrinos are the ghosts of the subatomic world. Interacting via only the weak nuclear force, they can pass through matter without interacting nearly at all.

The visible universe—including Earth, the sun, other stars, and galaxies—is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons bundled together into atoms.

(Protons and neutrons are particles called baryons, and baryogenesis means the creation of baryons. (Understanding this requires more brain power than I have.)

The rest of the universe appears to be made of a mysterious, invisible substance called dark matter (25 per cent) and a force that repels gravity known as dark energy (70 per cent).

Perhaps one of the most surprising discoveries of the 20th century was that ordinary, or baryonic, matter makes up less than 5 per cent of the mass of the universe.

Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang – or what came before.

The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. 

Energy comes in different forms:

  • Heat (thermal)
  • Light (radiant)
  • Motion (kinetic)
  • Electrical
  • Chemical
  • Nuclear energy
  • Gravitational
  • Energy sources are divided into two groups: Renewable / Nonrenewable.

In fact, all the matter in the universe could have arisen from a bit of primordial energy weighing no more than a pea.  At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today.

This energy in the form of light comes in discrete packets called photons.

All the results, the origin of space and time rest with the Big Bang.

This leaves us with the question what caused the big bang, what was there before.

According to the Big Bang model, the Big Bang took place everywhere in space (not just at a point).

The Big Bang could have been triggered when our own universe collided with a “parallel universe”  which set off tiny gravity waves in motion.

After the Big Bang, all of space was filled with matter so hot that it glowed -In fact, a steady stream of this light is continuously arriving at Earth, from distant regions of space, having travelled for billions of years to get here.

So the afterglow of the Big Bang IS still filling the universe today- with cosmic microwaves.

This is where it starts to get complicated.

Light is being distorted and magnified by massive, invisible clouds of dark matter in the foreground-a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing.

The inflationary model predicts that Big Bangs are continually taking place in other regions of space – and string theory suggests that these other mini-verses may be so different from our own that even the laws of nature and the number of dimensions of space may be different.

The inflation model makes several testable predictions. One of the most important is that the primordial energy would have been “lumpy” – i.e., unevenly spread out in space – due to a kind of quantum noise that arose when the universe was extremely small.

However, there is not enough mass to support a universe that is closed so it expands forever.  New space is continuously coming into existence between galaxies. Thus, the creation of the universe – or at least of the space in the universe – is a continuous process that is still taking place.

If there is enough mass, the gravity attracting all the pieces to each other will eventually stop the expansion and pull all the pieces of the universe back together in a big crunch. The universe would then be closed universe made up of dark matter, dark energy, and antimatter.

An international team of astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter that was formed long ago during a titanic collision between two massive galaxy clusters. It is the first time that a dark matter distribution has been found that differs substantially from the distribution of ordinary matter. This image shows the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 (ZwCl 0024+1652) as seen by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. The image displays faint faraway background galaxies that had their light bent by the cluster's strong gravitational field. By mapping the distorted light and using it to deduce how dark matter is distributed in the cluster, astronomers spotted the ring of dark matter. One of the background galaxies is located about two times further away than the yellow cluster galaxies in the foreground, and has been multiple-imaged into five separate arc-shaped components, seen in blue.

For something that supposedly takes up 80 per cent of the total mass of the universe, we don’t know a whole lot about dark matter, antimatter, or dark energy.

There is little or no evidence supporting their existence.

We are yet observed dark matter directly, however, scientists are confident it exists because of the gravitational effects it appears to have on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

If this is so dark matter came into existence before gravity.

However, if dark matter and dark energy are interchangeable, the same thing and do not absorb or emit light and interacts with visible matter through gravity, Gravity came first for it to be able to interact in the first place.

Is dark matter even real? And if it’s not, then is everything we know about gravity wrong?

One leading hypothesis is that dark matter consists of exotic particles that don’t interact with normal matter or light but that still exert a gravitational pull but there are multiple forms of gravity and all are attractive forces irreverent of their strength.

According to another idea, dark energy is a fifth and previously unknown type of fundamental force called quintessence, which fills the universe like a fluid. A  repulsive force that counteracts gravity, keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself.

I ask why the strange force exists in the first place.

For example, why is the speed of light not faster than it is?

Why are electrons so much lighter than the protons they orbit in atoms?

Why are the constants and laws of nature just so, and not different?

If there was nothing, to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from?

How did the universe “know” how to proceed?

And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life?

What we do know is that if these fundamental laws and constants were even slightly different from what is observed, then life as we know it would not exist.

If the universe is expanding what is it expanding into?

If the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn’t expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being “stretched”, but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big, to begin with, and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe’s size doesn’t change, and therefore it doesn’t expand into anything.

The answer is that we really don’t know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into. The space between the galaxies “stretches”, so we have no way to see “outside”  to get a sense of the entire shape and figure out where the centre is.

So we don’t think there is any way to observe or measure what is beyond unless it had some effect on us that we currently don’t know about. It would be really weird to imagine reaching the “end” of space.

What would it look like, for example?

If the universe is indeed infinite, it doesn’t have anything to expand into.

So the total size of the universe is the same!

You and I aren’t expanding, the Earth isn’t expanding, the sun isn’t expanding, even the entire Milky Way galaxy isn’t expanding.

That’s because, on these relatively small scales, the effect of the universe’s stretching is completely overwhelmed by other forces (i.e. the galaxy’s gravity, the sun’s gravity, the Earth’s gravity, and the atomic forces which hold people’s bodies together).

It is only when we look across far enough distances in the universe that the effect of the universe’s stretching becomes noticeable above the effects of local gravity and other forces which tend to hold things together.

Massive collisions are produced as pairs of black holes or neutron stars — both incredibly dense objects left behind after a star explodes — draw close to one another.

As they dance, they cause gravitational waves to ripple outward until the objects eventually collide. This explosion is more than just a pretty sight; it is the main source of the elements that make up our planets and all the other objects in the night sky.

So how are the elements that make up matter created in the first place?

From what element are all other elements made?

Elements are subdivided into several categories based on where they originated from: The Big Bang, Cosmic Rays, Large Stars, Small Stars, Supernovae, and Man-Made labs.

Everything is made starting with hydrogen. But where did the hydrogen in the universe come from? From a proton and an electron.

So maybe it is particles that came first.

Where do those fundamental particles, and their even more fundamental particles come from? No one knows because it would require knowing exactly how the universe began, and where all matter in it originated from.

Humans will never know that.

When particles of both collide, heat would naturally move from the warmer body to the colder one, causing the warmer body to cool ever so slightly.

Humans and their galaxy have about 97 per cent of the same kind of atoms.

A new element is discovered, by smashing atoms together to see what happens.

Each element emits distinct wavelengths of light from within a star they are substances that cannot be broken down further.

There are several ways to consider the composition of the human body, including the elements, the type of molecule, or type of cells.

Some 60 chemical elements are found in the body, but what all of them are doing there is still unknown. Roughly 96 per cent of the mass of the human body is made up of just four elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, with a lot of that in the form of water. For now, we can only say for certain what 20 or so elements are doing.

Although humans share most elements with the stars, the proportions of those elements differ between humans and stars. For example, humans are about 65 per cent oxygen by mass, whereas oxygen makes up less than 1 per cent of all elements measured in space.

So here are my logical conclusions:

The assumption here is that “before the big bang” actually means something.

The standard cosmological model is based on time and space both being countable numbers in natural units. This assumes we have a meaningful definition of void and exist without our universe being around.

Our model does not provide these definitions, so our assumptions rely on some false hypothesis premises.

I’m not going to say there was emptiness or nothingness before, at least not in the sense you mean them.

Nothing does not indicate emptiness (where there is no matter) but indicates the  NOT existence.

Only with Quantum Mechanics is it hypothesized that even in nothing can be created with quantum fluctuations the Universe. I have not understood how it is possible but it seems that there are Physicists who imagine this possible.

Why is there something, instead of nothing?

Go one step back and remember that before vacuum, you have to have space and before space, you have to have a dimensionality.

Nothing was Fluctuating.

The WHOLE UNIVERSE (and then some) is a Cold Black Hole.

Currently, we consider Black Holes to be gravitationally induced space deformations where not even light can escape.

THIS IS A FALSE LOGICAL FLAW SINCE BLACK HOLES ARE MADE UP BY MATTER AGGREGATES.

THEY PRODUCE TIME SPACE DARK ENERGY DARK MATTER ECT AND THE BIG BANG.

SO BLACK HOLES CAME FIRST. 

HOWEVER, Without time, we and THE UNIVERSE  wouldn’t be here.

SO TIME CAME FIRST AND WILL EXIST EVEN IF THERE IS NOTHING.

Even physicists agree that time is one of the most difficult properties of our universe to understand. … In the sciences generally, time is usually defined by its measurement:

The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present and future regarded as a whole.

Clearly, time is not an object or substance we can touch or see.

It may be considered as potentially infinite. We remember the past but we don’t remember the future. There are irreversible processes.

Even in empty space, time and space still exist.

So there’s an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes coming ahead of us.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked into the black hole.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WE ALL KNOW WHY THE WORLD IS IN SUCH A MESS.

29 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by in Capitalism, European Union., Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media., The common good., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WORLD POVERTY WHERE'S THE GLOBAL OUTRAGE

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

Looking at the world right in front of our eyes it would be fair to say that it is currently falling asunder while we all turn inwards in the fourth technological revolution that is not just undermining world institutions but creating social inequality that is linked to racial inequality, gender inequality, and wealth inequality, not to mention world conflicts.

This is a ringing indictment of our global economic system and there is no justifying it.

So the question is as it has been for the last couple of decades is there enough being done to bring about a more equitable distribution of income on a global scale.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of inequality and poverty"

The answer is a resounding No. To the extent that it is now hard to imagine any kind of economic miracle that could shrink the worldwide income gap.

Where is global inequality going?

By 2030 the richest 1% will own two-thirds of global wealth.

World lottos, created new billionaire every two days.

The world’s 10 richest billionaires, according to Forbes, own $745 billion in combined wealth, a sum greater than the total goods and services most nations produce on an annual basis.

Between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires it took to equal the wealth of the world’s poorest 50 per cent fell from 380 to 42.

But more than 65 per cent of the world’s millionaires continue to reside in Europe or North America. 

WHAT IF ANYTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH – OR RATHER THE LACK OF IT.

It’s true that wealth inequality has always existed, no matter what the design of the society. Whether capitalist or communist, democratic, autocratic, or plutocratic, it will exist.

Yet many of the extremes we see today are avoidable.

Income disparities have become so pronounced poor health and poverty go hand-in-hand.

It is tempting to see the rising concentration of incomes as some sort of unstoppable force of nature, an economic inevitability driven by globalization and technology.

There is nothing inevitable about untrammelled inequality.

It is the result of an unlevel playing field, the direct consequence of certain government policies.

There is no longer any simple solution.

Nowhere has the distribution of the pie become more equitable.

Increasing the incomes of low-wage workers produces stronger beneficial economic ripple effects than boosting bonuses for the rich.

Excluding Quantitative easing, 97% of money has been created through lending. When somebody borrows money – even just by spending on a credit card – new money is created. No wonder our economy is so geared around finance.

Yet we penalise labour and subsidise both debt and the ownership of assets.

The question is, how fast can developing countries grow in the future? The answer, unfortunately, is not fast enough.

The richest 1 per cent of humanity reaped 27 per cent of the world’s income between 1980 and 2016. The bottom 50 per cent, by contrast, got only 12 per cent.

If you ever wanted to understand where climate change came from, why there are so many wars and the unrest we are witnessing the above figures say it all.

This will only get worse in the near future with the most powerful force driving the distribution of income on a worldwide scale will be raw economic growth:

Will poor countries make sufficient progress relative to their rich peers to bring more balance to the distribution of global income?

Or will rising inequality within countries dominate?

It depends on three forces: countries’ economic and population growth, as well as the evolution of inequality within them.

This is no longer true. The forth Industrial technological revolution is going to require more aggressive redistribution through taxes and transfers.

Why because social inequality is now very different from economic inequality, though the two are linked.

Areas of social inequality include access to voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, the extent of property rights and access to education, health care, quality housing, travelling, transportation, vacationing and other social goods and services. In the quality of family and neighbourhood life, occupation, job satisfaction, and access to credit.

All of these areas are now been data mined for profit by you know who with us supplying the data scot free.

We all know that more inequality means less wealth for everyone. .. but are we seeing countries deciding to push vigorously back against inequality. No

Ballooning wealth inequality is a threat to society.

globalization has also upended the agricultural and manufacturing sectors in many countries.

“In every country, just about, the disproportionate economic clout of those at the top has provided these individuals with wildly disproportionate influence on their countries’ political life and on its media; on what policies are pursued and whose interests end up being ignored,” Obama said.

He is right!

Wealthy must contribute or be forced to the larger benefits of society.

Inequality is not inevitable – it is a political choice.

It represents social and political issues that no party or government can afford to neglect.

Foot Note: To us Europeans.

Europe, unfortunately, has not been at the forefront of this battle, at least not EU institutions.

On the contrary, it has for long remained complacent, as EU treaties require unanimity on tax matters and as the bloc includes countries such as Luxembourg that have benefitted massively from corporate and individual tax avoidance.

For decades, the EU was dominated by an unholy alliance among three types of governments: those that rejected the very principle of international tax coordination as an infringement on sovereignty; those that benefitted from tax competition; and those that used it as a way to overcome domestic reluctance to the reduction of redistribution.

For an institution that is supposed to be based on values and that hails the European social model, this is humbling, and the EU is now paying a political price for its long inertia.

Social inequality can also be established through discriminatory legislation.

Things have started to change.

Thanks to Yellow Jacks and Brexit we may witness only if we truly want it some improvements.

In the battle for fairer globalisation, with more and more Foodbanks and homeless people, it is far too early to claim victory.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of inequality and poverty"

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

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WHAT YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS.

26 Saturday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, World Trade Organisation, WTO.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Twenty-minute read)

The UK is now stepping up plans to trade with the EU under WTO terms in the

the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The Brexiteers can’t see the huge damage that trading on WTO terms would

inflict on the UK economy.  I don’t blame them.

Because we all have a superficial understanding of the rules of WTO.

Because the UK’s terms at the WTO are enshrined in its membership of the

EU.

Why?

Well, you only have to look at what is involved to realise why very few if any understand the operations of WTO.

10-year interim agreement doesn't make sense

One of the WTO’s key rules is that countries should treat their trading partners equally. In WTO jargon this is called most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN) — favour one; favour all.

So what is the WTO:

It’s a system of trade agreements, which discipline governments’ trade policies so that international trade is not a free-for-all — the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle.It’s 164 member governments (the present total).

Decisions among those 164 member governments are by consensus, if anyone among them, big or small, cannot accept a decision, there’s no deal.

In fact, each country may have more than one opinion on a particular issue, but let’s not get into that here.

Some people think the WTO Secretariat is the WTO, but strictly speaking, that’s not correct. The Secretariat is a bureaucracy set up to help member governments operate the trading system.

It’s true that the head of the Secretariat is called the Director-General of the WTO, because the WTO is also an international organisation, like the United Nations, UN Environment Programme or the World Bank.

But the WTO DGs are still the servants of the members, a cause of frustration for some of them.

When the negotiators get down to specific subjects such as agriculture or fishing subsidies, those sessions are chaired by ambassadors or other delegates.

It is sufficient to say that Brexiteers misunderstand Britain’s past when it comes to trading under WTO.

They believe that Britain has a “special relationship” to world trade, this narrative ignores the prologue to the story, in which the British empire first accumulated wealth through gunboat diplomacy and enforced markets over the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Britain only embraced unilateral zero tariffs once its geopolitical power had been built up, and it would quickly depart from free trade and move towards protectionism at the start of the 20th century through the policy of imperial preference, encouraging trade within the empire.

All of this has long passed, with the result that the Brexiters are now unable to fathom the damage that relying on WTO terms to govern trade with our largest trading partner will do to the economy.

While other countries struggle to understand why any nation would willingly leave the world’s largest trading bloc to trade on WTO terms, we must understand their attraction to the myth of how in centuries past, Britain became rich through “global free trade”.

Even if it is obvious to the rest of the world it is not possible to ring up the WTO and say, “Hey, WTO! We’re negotiating a free trade agreement. It may take 10 years. While we’re doing that, we might violate some of your non-discrimination rules.”

The UK is currently a WTO member in its own right.

The issue is it does not have an independent schedule of concessions for the WTO – that’s the menu upon which Britain trades with the rest of the world.

So any future agreement has to contain details, including a plan and timetable for concluding the final agreement. This means that any formal WTO agreement between the UK and EU would obviously mean that the EU would have to be on board too.

In fact, there is no WTO definition of an interim agreement.  No country wants to go through all the above unnecessarily, which is why interim agreements are never notified to the WTO.

In theory, the transition customs union and the Protocol on Northern Ireland / Ireland (the “Backstop”) in the Withdrawal Agreement could qualify as an interim agreement.

The attached non-binding political declaration on the future relationship would not, since it’s not an agreement.

On the face of it, this is about protectionism versus access to markets (or to imports)

So what the problem?

The EU has around 100 tariff quotas:

Tariff quotas have emerged as part of the UK’s need to re-establish itself as a WTO member independent of the EU. In particular, the UK has to separate its own tariff quotas from those of the EU’s, and even if the UK wanted to take this complicated route, there’s little chance the EU would agree.

Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.

Grant someone special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

Britain says it will stick to the EU’s tariff commitments, which are currently its own too, as an EU member.Seattle protests 1999 Seattle Municipal Archives, (CC BY 2.0)

Britain referendum on the left side was sold on many lies with one stating that the EU is non-democratic.

Is the WTO Democratic?

This is a difficult one:  The short answer is yes and no like the EU.

With the WTO if a country is a dictatorship, then I’m afraid the representative is probably not elected (allowing for multiple shades of grey over what those words actually mean)

In the WTO world no wants to interfere in that, so it just accepts whatever each country’s domestic system produces.

The WTO is definitely democratic among its governments.

The consensus rule means all members have equal say. Voting is available as a fallback, but so far members have rejected that option.

But does it represent the people?

At least as much as any other international organisation. Some governments are democratic; some are not.

One of the problems is that in the Brexit debate people are comparing the WTO with the European Union, which has an elected parliament as well as a council of member states meeting regularly at ministerial or head-of-government level.

The comparison is false.

The EU has a bureaucracy with executive power and a legislature which handles laws.

The WTO’s bureaucracy — the Secretariat — has no executive power.

The closest equivalent to legislation in the WTO is its trade agreements and they are negotiated by all the governments together.

Is it a good idea for the WTO to be run by directly elected representatives?

Only if you believe that directly elected politicians are better at negotiating some pretty technical and complicated trade agreements than our trade ministers and their officials. Or if you believe in world government.

Then we come to the question of Tariffs:

Tariffs remain a feature of trading under WTO rules and the EU charges a range of tariffs depending on the product or service.

For example, the tariff on food products and beverages imported into the EU is 21% of the value of a shipment. The UK’s fishing exports to the EU would be subject to a 9.6% tariff under WTO-only rules. Clothes manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would be subject to an 11% tariff.

WTO rules on non-tariff barriers (things like regulations on product safety, rules of origin and quotas) are very limited and not recognised universally.

For example, they do not prevent the EU requiring certification for a whole host of goods and services that originate from outside the EU.

Things such as medicines, product and food safety standards in the UK are currently recognised as EU ones. But when the UK leaves the EU, UK manufacturers may need conformity assessments from the EU recognised body, which is a legal responsibility of an EU importer.

This would mean that UK exports would take longer to reach the EU markets and the UK products would be more expensive in the EU.

Under WTO-only rules, the UK will not be able to have a frictionless border with the EU.

Exporters would have to prove they meet all of the EU’s product standards and regulations, which will be costly and slow down business.

One suggestion has been that the UK scrap all tariffs and regulations for EU imports and continue to accept all products from the EU without checks. But, according to the WTO rules, the UK should extend this approach to products from all other WTO members (it has to treat everyone equally).

WTO rules barely cover trade in services, including financial services and transportation.

So, trading on only the WTO terms would mean no deal on air transport. Access to the EU single aviation market requires airline companies to have their headquarters and majority shareholdings in the EU so airlines would have to relocate.

There is also nothing in WTO rules that would allow UK-based banks to keep trading across the EU. This is why the government has said banks could set up subsidiaries in the EU.

Under WTO terms, the EU should treat the UK like any other country without providing any preferences and applying WTO tariffs – a big change from the zero tariffs that the UK has now.

FINALLY:  Where are we now.

The EU is the UK’s biggest trading partner.

In 2017, 44% of UK exports went to the EU and 53% of all UK imports came from the EU.

Both the UK and the EU filed documents in Geneva outlining the terms they will use to trade with the rest of the world after Brexit – and the two submissions are fundamentally different.

A major sticking point for them is the fact that the EU and the UK share a quota system that limits imports of sensitive goods like beef, lamb and sugar.

The UK cannot simply replicate these quotas and has proposed to split them with the EU based on historical trade flows.

All of this means that if and when any country object and ask for a better deal, Britain will be simultaneously be negotiating a trade deal with the EU and the WTO.

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