We live in a digital age with both positive and negative influences on society.
But is the human brain, that most sensitive of organs, under threat from the modern world?
We are becoming more and more reliant on technological devices for nearly everything we do.
Unless we wake up to the damage that the gadget-filled, pharmaceutically-enhanced 21st century is doing to our brains, we could be sleepwalking towards a future in which neuro-chip technology blurs the line between living and non-living machines, and between our bodies and the outside world.
Human identity, the idea that defines each and every one of us, could be facing an unprecedented crisis.
Of course, there’s nothing new about that:
Human brains have been changing, adapting and developing in response to outside stimuli for centuries.
However our brains to-day are under the influence of an ever- expanding world of new technology: multichannel television, video games, MP3 players, the internet, wireless networks, Bluetooth links, Smart Phones, – the list goes on and on.
Electronic devices and pharmaceutical drugs all have an impact on the micro- cellular structure and complex biochemistry of our brains. And that, in turn, affects our personality, our behaviour and our characteristics.
In short, the modern world could well be altering our human identity.
It is a crisis that is threatening the long-held notions of who we are, what we do and how we behave.
It goes right to the heart – or the head – of us all.
This crisis could reshape how we interact with each other, alter what makes us happy, and modify our capacity for reaching our full potential as individuals.
And it’s caused by one simple fact:
The human brain, that most sensitive of organs, is under threat from the modern world.
Already, it’s pretty clear that the screen-based, two-dimensional world that so many teenagers – and a growing number of adults – choose to inhabit is producing changes in behaviour.
Attention spans are shorter, personal communication skills are reduced and there’s a marked reduction in the ability to think abstractly.
Add that to the huge amount of personal information now stored on the internet – births, marriages, telephone numbers, credit ratings, holiday pictures – and it’s sometimes difficult to know where the boundaries of our individuality actually lie.
And could weaken further still if, and when, neurochip technology becomes more widely available. These tiny devices will take advantage of the discovery that nerve cells and silicon chips can happily co-exist, allowing an interface between the electronic world and the human body.
Then, if both devices were connected to a wireless network, we really would have arrived at the point which science fiction writers have been getting excited about for years. Mind reading! We becoming more and more immune to what we are doing to ourselves in our lives. That cherished sense of self could be diminished or even lost.
So far:
Facebook is eating away at your time. Making you into a Likeaholic.
Our Intimacy is being eroded.
We inundated with information overload to the point that only sensationalism attract our attention.
Pure’ pleasure – that is to say, activity during which you truly “let yourself go” – was part of the diverse portfolio of normal human life. Until now, that is.
Now, coinciding with the moment when technology and pharmaceutical companies are finding ever more ways to have a direct influence on the human brain, pleasure is becoming the sole be-all and end-all of many lives, especially among the young.
We could be raising a hedonistic generation who live only in the thrill of the computer-generated moment, and are in distinct danger of detaching themselves from what the rest of us would consider the real world.
In the mean time we continue polluting the planet will nilly.
But we mustn’t be too pessimistic about the future.
What if we could create an environment that would allow the brain to develop in a way that was seen to be of universal benefit?
I’m not convinced that scientists will ever find a way of manipulating the brain to make us all much cleverer (it would probably be cheaper and far more effective to manipulate the education system).
Well, that debate must start now.
Biometrics has long been put forth as the next big thing in authentication, replacing or supplementing the concept of “things that you know”—passwords, PINs, and so on—with “things that you are.”
Fortunately, there’s no shortage of qualities that are unique to each person on the planet, and which could be potentially combined to create a comprehensive picture of you that’d also be really hard to fake.
Unfortunately the challenge will be to ensure that all income growth does not end up with those who own the machines and shares.
Identity, the very essence of what it is to be human, is open to change – both good and bad. Our children, and certainly our grandchildren, will not thank us if we put off discussion much longer.
Perhaps it will not matter in a few hundred years when we are all singing from the same hymn sheet
Our politics have become so polarized and increasingly volatile; and our politicalinstitutions have lost the public trust.
There is (Almost) No Such Thing as the “Common Good”
We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where group selfishly protect their own benefits. Our most fundamental social problems grow out of a widespread pursuit of individual interests and greed.
Recommitting ourselves to the general welfare could solve the deepest problems the world now face.
The very idea of a common good is inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours.
Different people have different ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes “the good life for human beings”, differences that have increased during the last few decades as the voices of more and more previously silenced groups, such as women and minorities, have been heard.
Given these differences, some people urge, it will be impossible for us to agree on what particular kind of social systems, institutions, and environments we will all pitch in to support.
It might seem that since all citizens benefit from the common good, we would all willingly respond to urgings that we each cooperate to establish and maintain the common good.
Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system.
Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning.
So why is it that we are unable to act for the Common Good of humanity and the Planet?
Our culture views society as comprised of separate independent individuals who are free to pursue their own individual goals and interests without interference from others.
In this individualistic culture it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, some of their personal goals, and some of their self-interest, for the sake of the “common good”.
This combined with the fact that we have turned everything into a commodity to be bought or make profit on has blurred our values of the common good.
These days one might describe the common good as “certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage”.
Even if we agreed upon what we all valued, we would certainly disagree about the relative values things have for us.
Such disagreements are bound to undercut our ability to evoke a sustained and widespread commitment to the common good.
In the face of such pluralism, efforts to bring about the common good can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others, violating the principle of treating people equally.
Moreover, such efforts would force everyone to support some specific notion of the common good, violating the freedom of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism (imposing one group’s preference on others), tyranny, and oppression.
We left with cultural traditions, that in fact, reinforce the individual who thinks that she should not have to contribute to the community’s common good, but should be left free to pursue her own personal ends.
WHERE DOES ANY OF THIS LEAVE US?
A good questions but complicated because complete societies all with different laws, rules, and beliefs,(which we can call ‘polities,’ or ‘countries’) take many forms in different times and places but they always include some kind of rule ordering them to the common good.
This may well be so but the overriding self interest Resulting in a planet of Inequalities, rampant climate change, conflicts, wars, pollution on a massive scale, corruption, and profit at any cost.
Not all people live under a state, but every [complete] human community by definition is a polity.» Polities enable families, local communities (‘villages’), and associations to flourish by realizing many common goods, but polities also allow for the achievement of greater common goods.
The good news is with modern-day technology we are on the threshold of discovering a new way.
It is possible for acts of individual humans armed with powerful technologies to make decisions that may affect the future survival of the whole human race.
We can imagine the possibility of extinction (whether by our own efforts or due to some external cause), and we can agree to work together to prevent such an eventuality.
Of course, even while we work on a common goal of preserving the species, we will still all be competing to maintain a larger share of descendants within the future population, and this may still result in technological developments that threaten the extinction of everyone.
Whether one goal (survival of the species) can win out against the other goal (relative reproductive success of the individual) is not a fore-gone conclusion.
For me it consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people.
The internet revolution is transforming the way knowledge is disseminated and how people unite over causes. ( see post: The Beady Eye asks: Are we condemned to reaction politics for the foreseeable future)
This means that our out of date world organisations need to come up to speed.
Establishing a pro active chamber of Governance with non political expert representatives, immune from lobbing, that would be concerned with the long-term view to avoid potential threats or to capitalize on potential opportunities.
This Chamber actions subject to Social Media network electronic voting by the tax paying citizens.
Placing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% ALL HIGH FREQUENCY STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS. ON ALL FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS OVER $20,000. ON ALL SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS ACQUISITIONS . ON ALL NEW DRILL LICENCES.
THIS WOULD CREATE A PERPETUAL FUND FROM PROFIT FOR PROFIT SAKE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE AND ALL OTHER WORLD PROBLEMS OF INEQUALITY.
WHY SUCH A FUND? Because appeals to the common good are confronted by the problem of an unequal sharing of burdens.
Our desire or desires are personal incapable of being satisfied because of our internal sense of imagination.
If good is the cause of desire, how can it be that people do not want what is good?
Indeed, all sense pleasures seem to be intended by nature to be connected to actions that lead toward the lower and more basic of the honorable goods such as the preservation and reproduction of life.
This is lost in large complex societies.
Is this the reason we are unable to act for the common good.
To define the good as ‘what all want’ is therefore a definition not of an effect by its cause, but just the opposite: a definition of a cause by its effect. The good is a cause. It is the final cause, the end or purpose.
If you get what I mean.
Hunger is the desire for food, but food is not good because there is hunger. Rather, there is hunger because food is good and necessary for the preservation of one’s substance.
The good is desirable as known, and therefore as long as it is unknown it is powerless to cause desire.
Many economists claim that in any free exchange each party must think that they are getting something better out of the deal.
But people are not such fools.
Whoever wins, others must lose.
Therefore, for humanity, there is no “Common Good”.
Other than the continued survival of the human race as a species.
Unless, perhaps, we can avoid the finiteness by expanding into outer space.
Historically, our darkest hours on Earth have given birth to some of our most brilliant moments—our brightest ideas and most illuminating conversations.
The challenges we’re facing can spur us towards brilliance—and prompt a course correction. We must be both far-sighted and courageous in our thinking.
Our house is on fire. What will we save?
Not the redistribution of wealth by governments Tax to create greater equality.
Especially insofar as they are only concern with interior acts power rather than the outward behavior which directly affects other people.
We must also support thinkers and leaders who can help expand our collective understanding of what’s valuable beyond the narrow one-dimensionality of a profit margin.
We may never find a truly satisfying and conclusive answer.
Maybe its the wrong question altogether. You will never really know what it is to be me and I will never really what it is to be like you. And this very unknowability of other humans beings is what is the common good.
The human common good—now understanding that phrase without restriction to the state’s or political community’s good is impossible.
When you look at the state of the Planet is it time for world Governments to have a third level of Governance.
Our political discourse is shrinking to fit our smart phone screens.
( If we don’t open our eyes we will be governed by natural-born troll, such as MR TRUMP who is adept at issuing inflammatory bulletins at opportune moments, he’s the first candidate optimized for the Google News algorithm.)
A pro active house of power with non political representatives immune from lobbing that know what they are talking about.
Such a house would address the long-term views about family welfare, social conditions, the environment, crime and virtually every aspect of our lives that our national government policy effects.
“When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s difficult to remind
yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.”
Our political actors can only focus on a few core issues simultaneously, the construction and selection of the problems on the agenda constitute a key phase of the policymaking process.
It is far more effective and cheaper to prevent problems from occurring than to let problems grow and then try to solve them.
A proactive approach to change is needed to avoid a potential future threat or to capitalize on a potential future opportunity.
It would not be effected by the political strategies surrounding the construction of insecurity or the currently political needs of focusing on the acquisition and retention of power.
Unfortunately, as human organizations or societies get bigger, older and more complex, “Destructive Achievers” tend to become dominant. They are promoted or elected to power because they are willing to satisfy the short-term desires of the most powerful members of the group, even at the expense of the group’s long-term health.
Every political power has to go through the media.
These days it is impossible to deny the significant role of the media in the life of societies it influence the opinions and beliefs prevailing in society through content management – which is more difficult now with social media , however, to categorically determine the nature of this impact.
While this maybe true political actors wanting to create and maintain their place in the media must comply with the policies of the mass media, based primarily on the desire to garner the greatest possible interest in the message.
Hence, politicians in their activity must adapt not only to the needs of potential voters, but also to the needs of the media, among which the most prominent ones are the sensational nature of the content and availability of the politician.
As a Result the politics presented is superficially world that is reduced to news, schemas and scandals.
A pro active Chamber may cause in the electorate the expectation of integrity, reliability, conscientiousness from their potential political leaders.
Is such a suggestion feasible or foolish?
Both the development of transmission technology and dissemination of information, increased strength and importance of the media in society. As a result political discourse is contaminated.
It would be feasible if all decisions from this house were electronically vote on by the electorate before submission too Parliament for approval.
The Internet revolution has transformed the way knowledge is disseminated and how people unite over causes.
It is now more than ever necessary to understanding some of the most influential social and political processes of our time. Social networks are playing a key. It is and has transformed elections.
In the 1920s, radio disembodied candidates, reducing them to voices. It also made national campaigns far more intimate. In the 1960s, television gave candidates their bodies back, at least in two dimensions. Today, with the public looking to smartphones for news and entertainment, we seem to be at the start of the third big technological makeover of modern electioneering.
This shift is changing the way politicians communicate with voters, altering the tone and content of political speech. But it’s doing more than that. It’s changing what the country wants and expects from its would-be leaders.
What’s important now is not so much image as personality.
Social media favors the bitty over the meaty, the cutting over the considered.
It also prizes emotionalism over reason.
The more visceral the message, the more quickly it circulates and the longer it holds the darting public eye.
In something of a return to the pre-radio days, the fiery populist now seems more desirable, more worthy of attention, than the cool wonk.
In my eyes, social media is one of the most important global leaps forward in recent human history. It provides for self-expression and promotes a mutual understanding. It enables a rapid formation of networks and demonstrates our common humanity across cultural differences. It connects people, their ideas and values, like never before.
It is in its infancy.
Once we truly learn how to harness this new technology and these new ways of communicating, we will feel the full impacts of social media.
It is responsible for the roots of the Arab Spring in the Middle East, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and others have played not just an important role, but also an instrumental one.
The truth is the fear that some governments have about truly empowering their citizens through these new technologies. They are afraid of power of human connections online forming communities of interest because they are self-monitoring, with their own norms and expectations.
In China, the government of President Xi Jinping has expressed concern about the real power that social media has to spread information
From the printing press to the telephone to the Internet, each of these tools has been a way to organize and activate — to give people the voice they want and deserve.
Forward-thinking governments will listen to those voices and empower them.Others will be fearful of the voice of the people and remain on the losing side of history.
Today’s society, in a similar manner to liquid, adopts various unstable forms under small amounts of pressure. They are incapable of stabilizing in a consistent form, which results in consequences to social relationships and politics.
Meanwhile, political parties, bureaucracy and institutions seem to remain firmly in the 17th Century.
Democracy has to reinvent itself in accordance with this new “liquid society” where collaboration happens between many millions of people directly.
Leadership is not vertical, as in the past, but horizontal.
There is no time and space limitation for public accountability on the Internet.
Creative commonality is standard and does not resemble the authoritarian style of the dead communist experience.
It seems that it is no longer society’s obligation to understand legislation, it is a duty for governments to be understood by their people.
More than ever, the citizen is now part of the solution. Decision-makers must take advantage of technological tools to listen to the people and raise public awareness of controversial debates. If society has logged out of the virtual world it is time for government to realistically log on in an effective way to chat with citizens.
Ultimately, the discussion is all about what government is doing to the people, as in France in 1779, Russia in 1917 and 1991, in addition to many other uprisings in past. After all, it is much easier to listen to people now.
Open government is what politics will be in the Future.
While the possibilities are promising, there is also risk and danger.
It is now evident that there is no such thing as privacy. Google is omniscient of what people search for and do. Facebook has over a billion subscribers meaning Mark Zuckerberg has personal information about one in every seven people on earth. USA, Brazil, Mexico, India and Indonesia are at the top of that list.
Companies collect and negotiate information about customers and often without permission. There have been notorious cases of non-authorized government investigations on people, from autocratic regimes to alleged democracies.
Evgeny Morozov calls for a cyber utopia of ingenuity with the perspective for digital technologies. The dark side seems closer to scenarios depicted in fiction such as 1984, A Brave New World or, more recently, the Guy Fawkes face mask borrowed by the Anonymous movement from the V for Vendetta movie that has become omnipresent throughout the latest uprisings in Turkey, Egypt, Brazil and the United States.
President Obama is the best-known politician to be exploring the possibilities of new technologies to converse with the people.
Others must follow his lead and innovate. It is inevitable.
Facebook´s average user is 22 years old and the digital world continues to evolve bringing greater potential. Soon, every protester will have a smart phone with an HD 3D camera. The ascension of mobile caused Steve Wozniak to announce the end of the personal computer, which he himself invented with Steve Jobs three decades ago.
Politics needs to adapt. Like it or unlike it.
The technology is just scratching the surface of its promise.
Smartphones are cheaper than computers and will become ubiquitous; Everyone will be connected through phones.
A major effort needs to be made to educate voters about proactive vs. reactive approaches to issues.
It’s not just about economics.
We are dealing with the mechanism of the spiral of silence, which pulls individuals into a paradox of sorts: to ensure social acceptance, he or she resigns from forming own thoughts and views on certain topics, withdrawing from discussion
The culture of diversity removes any moral (good/bad) and evaluative (positive/negative) dimension that justifies the political, social and ethical associations linked to the dynamics of diversity.
It’s only right that I follow the last series of posts on what is Wrong with a post that asks the above question.
BECAUSE ITS MONEY THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM.
I guess the answer to the question “What is wrong with capitalism today?” is dependent on who you ask.
Capitalism works for capitalists.
The Problem is 90 percent of us are not capitalists, we are employees.
Without us noticing, we are entering the post capitalist era.
We need to reexamine the models that have gotten us to this point.
Complete change will not happen overnight. Nor will it be built on the back of one investor or one innovative entrepreneur.
It will be something that business owners, investors, political leaders, consumers and entrepreneurs must all work together toward.
Currently, our planet is on track to fly past the 2 degrees Celsius warming that scientist have repeatedly warned marks the safe range for humans on this planet, but at the heart of further change to come is information technology, new ways of working and the sharing economy.
The old ways will take a long while to disappear but millions of people are beginning to realise they have been sold a dream at odds with what reality can deliver.
The democracy of riot squads, corrupt politicians, magnate-controlled newspapers and the surveillance state looks as phoney and fragile as East Germany did 30 years ago.
Why should we not form a picture of the ideal life, built out of abundant information, non-hierarchical work and the dissociation of work from wages?
So are we witnessing the first stage of an economy beyond capitalism?
Is technology creating a new route out or is it consolidating power into the hands of a few like Google, Microsoft and Apple?
Will its future be shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being, reshaping the economy around new values and behaviours?
Will Capitalism as we know it be abolished by creating something more dynamic that exists, at first, almost unseen within the old system, but which will break through because of what Information technology has brought about in the past 25 years.
It is blurring the edges between work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages?
Or is the current wave of automation, currently stalled because our social infrastructure cannot bear the consequences, will hugely diminish the amount of work needed – not just to subsist but to provide a decent life for all.
These are all questions to be answered before we see what I call post capitalism.
The Questions are numerous, and there have been hundreds of books, papers, and talks on the subject few however with any positive suggestions.
Before I put the only suggestion that is viable lets start with what is wrong with the present state of Capitalism.
Here is way I see what is wrong;
Today capitalism isn’t about real markets and commodities with the price mechanism being fixed by competing supply and demand, now today it is about casino economics. You throw the dice and when you loose … all that global connectivity means you lose globally. We are all in this together – that is why we call it a global economy – oh apart from the 0.1% – they are the ones throwing the dice. We are just the ones picking up the tab when the bets don’t come off.
Although economics likes to think of itself as a science in reality it ignores the fundamental laws that govern science – the first two laws of thermodynamics. This isn’t a smart thing to do. There actually are limits to growth.
They told us wealth creation was a trickle down theory but in reality it is a trickle up theory. The rich really do get richer and richer and it is not down to merit. The question is what is going to stop them: war or politics?
The big problem is humans are human, both doing bad things and good things. Capitalism only works if enough of us do the right thing.
The price mechanism is faulty unless it includes the environmental cost now and in the future of our consumption. This it doesn’t done at present and we are free-loading off nature.
Often we think it is the only way to do things. It is not the only way to even do capitalism! Alternatives exist, other brands are available. There are even other ways of thinking about economics that we don’t even call capitalism; they may be a bit racy for us right now so lets start with re-imagining what a good effective form of capitalism could be like if humanity fully realized its role and impact upon the planet that sustains it.
Modern capitalism is so big and complex that who can say that really understand it.
I don’t.
But I do understand by building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information, Google and such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely.
Never has humanity been better fed, lived longer, used more energy and had more stuff than today so what is wrong.
One of the fundamental faults of capitalism is the basic axiom that if everybody tries to accumulate as much property as possible the general interest of the people will be served.
All this seems to do is create exploitation.
The problem with capitalism is that it isn’t very good as what it says it is good at, spreading wealth, enabling good technological progress and helping us become more human, more free.
Adam Smith – you know him graces the back of the £20 note – founding father of modern capitalism back in the 18th century – hero of Margaret Thatcher. When he famously asserted:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
What Smith was talking about was the idea that self-interest – the rational underpinning of economic man – was not only good for you but for everybody else – society.
Unfortunately the line between self-interest and greed is always fine – and we are human man not economic man and we find it very easy to cross that line – or certainly some of us do – lets call them the 0.1% – the 700,000 of us who have a lot – somewhere north of $5 million each.
The consequence of this trend as it unwinds over time is that wealth progressively becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
The rich get richer – that’s that 0.1% again. Or to put it another way wealth stays with those that are born to it and the idea that merit – how good you are at something – determining your economical price in the market place, or wages as most of would say, becomes far less important than we thought.
In fact there are plenty of things wrong with capitalism.
Those that shout this apparent self-evident reality the loudest own the media, the means of communication, they own your stability through the derivative bets they hold and they are telling you don’t blink – this is the natural way of things , capitalism the way we see it, the way the 0.1% see it.
So the more we have of everything, food, power, stuff, the more energy we must use (even if we get more energy-efficient in doing things).
The nitty-gritty of it is we have fucked up the world with Capitalism idealism.
I don’t approve of Communism or Socialism either, the truth is that every system is flawed.
I think a system which is based on an assumption that man is basically piggish and therefore only fit to look after his own needs; such system impedes rather than promotes the good within each person.
Geographers have away of describing this situation it is called the IPAT equation.
Impact = population x affluence x technology. You note there is no Money in the equation.
The impact.
Physicists would call it entropy, biologists pollution and economists externalities – is of an order defined by how many of us are using how much however efficiently.
If you want impact in a nutshell it is climate change, it is salinization of soil, it is depleting geological resources , it is reducing biodiversity.
There really are limits to growth.
Capitalism is a perpetual motion machine, striving for more and more growth makes us in the long run weaker not stronger. Well, if only we were all-knowing, rational and optimal in our behavior maybe it would be so. But we are not.
In the past the trend towards greater and growing inequality has been neutered by war – nothing equalizes society more effectively than war – we do tend to be all in it together at such moments.
Today in our global economy is held together with a digital architecture that enables the reduction of wealth to so much digital code life has become one big transaction.
The most spectacular aspect of this transactional world is the derivatives markets.
(A derivative is a bet on a price changing within a market – say interest rates, or currency exchange values or a commodity price such as that for coffee. The value of all derivatives worldwide in 2013 is thought to be about $1.2 quadrillion although nobody knows exactly as, a like a lot ordinary betting the betters don’t want necessarily want to admit to it.)
So that is $1,200,000 billion laid out in bets about what may or may not happen.
Billions of transactions.
Let’s quickly remind ourselves. The global economy – the real economy – is worth about $85 trillion – that is about 7% of the notional sum bet on what that economy will do.
Now, take a deep breath and think about it.
If you don’t now believe that we could have another global economic crash in the style of 2008 – a massive bursting asset bubble – you need to think again and cast your eyes to Asia – you might be wondering where much of that quantitative easing – free money that the US and the UK created ended up. Try property speculation in Asia.
We are quickly reaching the tipping point where growth in GDP in any particular country comes at the expense of growth in GDP of another.
We do not have global organizations capable of managing these tension points nor are societies willing to curb growth and consumerism.
Capitalism as currently practiced is simply not sustainable.
Modern market capitalism has shifted recently with the emerging supremacy of money markets and the financial system over the actual trade of goods. Under this, you’ll make more money trading in derivatives than actually physically trading in commodities.
Capitalism, or the recent move into financial market dominated capitalism.
The “new capitalism” is based on mathematics rather than trade; credit default swaps over goods and services; when odds are stacked in the favor of big banks because of hedging, derivatives and CDS’s; when there is little to no penalty for market manipulation by investment banks, power brokers, Ponzi schemers … these inefficiencies in the market cause redistribution of wealth to the people in power who design the system.
The mass media is becoming more and more an opiate, an aid for living the unexamined life. replace it (capitalism)?”
Through the millions spent in lobbing reasonable controls upon business have been removed. The desire for economic success and the influence of the powerful elite have ruined the mass media.
Our political problems have deepened with the demise of unions as an effective political force, the continued growth in the belief in the desirability of pyramid economics and class structure (which has been sold by a media controlled by those at the top of the pyramid), and the dependence of our two-party system upon those at the top of the pyramid for funds to cover their election expenses.
Around the world the gains of increased productivity are wasted by this pyramid structure.
For over 40 years I have watched the gradual drift in the minds of the average person from an understanding of our political economic reality and the need for corrective actions.
Those who dominate the means for the production of ideas have served their class well.
This endless cycle of production and consumption for profit is suicide and profit is pretty pointless when we run out of things to burn and things to eat.
I would suggest a world government dedicated to seeing that: (a) everybody was properly fed, clothed, and housed; (b) everyone worked and received a fair return for their work with none receiving too much; (c) intellectual development for all to be encouraged; (d) businesses are the servant to man; (e) the production of war materials end; (f) the ending of all exploitation, including one region by another or one class by another; (g) and the ending of a press which is controlled by those who make up the ruling class.
We is needed is a project based on reason, evidence and testable designs, that cuts with the grain of history and is sustainable by the planet.
Capitalism is not and has never been designed to work in an environment dominated by market controls, regulations, artificial barriers to entry, monetary manipulation and a myriad of other government interventions.
It is Profit at any cost and having taxpayers bail it out when it goes wrong simply means the risk has shifted from corporation to state, or you and me.
Many would say that means a broken model.
Has a new model started. It all depends on what kind of capitalism we are talking about and what force will be applied either at the ballot box or on the barricades or by the Smart Phone or the Gun.
Another question raised about the proposed strategy is whether it actually adds up to the defeat of capitalism.
Do the numerous tactics described above, most of which focus on what not to do, really do the job? How will capitalism actually be defeated? It’s true that many of these recommendations are about what not to do.
this strategy calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image, then, is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning from them until there is nothing left but shells.
To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution or the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy.
Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations.
Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinable, because of the inexorable materialist laws of history.
It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and how we want to live, what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs.
To achieve change we need unlimited finance. Where can we find this? We don’t have to look far.
If a new socialist democratic system is to emerge:
We must place an World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $ 20,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions. This will created a perpetual funded Fund to address the damage Greed and Profit for profit sake has done. ( See Previous Posts)
Who do we achieve this.
Our lives have been shaped by developments which most of us couldn’t have imagined a decade ago.
In effect, they are nine distinct psychological orientations toward the world that structure our perceptions, expectations, and demands whenever and wherever other human beings may be involved. These instincts represent our most basic assumptions about how the social world works, and that includes how the political world works.
With the power of our Smart phones the new political weapon of the future.
In the next decade upwards of 100 billion objects from smartphones to street lamps and our cars will be connected together via a vast ‘internet of everything’. This will impact every aspect of our lives.
The interfaces to all our devices from phones to computers, cars and home appliances will be highly intelligent and adaptive – learning from our behaviours and choices and anticipating our needs.
THE PLANET THAT WE ALL LIVE ON WITH GRAVITY – WITH THE SUN AS ITS MASTER.
But its far more complicated if you sit back and analyze how things are run, or when you examine the question in any depth.
There are however a few thing that are self-evident:
Man has never being in control of himself never mind the Earth.
Since our arrival we have contaminated all that is around us for self Profit, creating borders of different cultures and beliefs for self-protection.
( The US or Russia or China even though their military had the unquestioned capability to take over the world cannot do so because the power on earth is in the hands of a nefarious few and they are not human.)
The Nefarious few are called Stock Exchanges run by Capitalism. Not nuclear weapons system.
Over 100 years ago, people worldwide began burning more coal and oil for homes, factories, and transportation, NOT FORGETTING PROFIT.
Carbon is everywhere, in the oceans, in rocks and soils, in all forms of life and in our atmosphere. Without carbon, life would not exist as we know it. The well-being and functioning of our planet depends on carbon and how it cycles through the Earth’s system. Living things on land, in soils, and in our oceans regulate the carbon cycle.
We are now all in a circle of madness.
While we are busy with our lives we never see the total dominance that a handful of powerful transnational corporations firms may exert control over other firms via a web of direct and indirect ownership relations which extends over many countries. and control they have over our earth and mostly everyone in it.
The global economy is now being dominated by form a giant connected component, possibly with a core-periphery structure that pays lip service to cries for change with Trade Deals.
Indeed, mutual ownership relations among firms within the same sector can, in some cases, jeopardize market competition. Moreover, linkages among financial institutions have been recognized to have ambiguous effects on their financial fragility.
So far, this issue has remained unaddressed, notwithstanding its important implications for Global policy making.
The fact that control is highly concentrated in the hands of few top holders does not determine if and how they are interconnected. It is only by combining topology with control ranking that we obtain a full characterization of the structure of control of the world.
Shareholder control flows upstream from many firms and can result in some shareholders becoming very powerful. Powerful actors tend to belong to the core.
The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations.
Recent works have shown that when a financial network is very densely connected it is prone to systemic risk. Indeed, while in good times the network is seemingly robust, in bad times firms go into distress simultaneously.
The recent Banking collapse for example.
Rich-get-richer” mechanisms are at work.
The second issue for me concerns the control that financial institutions effectively exert.
According to some theoretical arguments, in general, financial institutions do not invest in equity shares in order to exert control. This is a total fallacy when you look at our capitalist culture and the business practices that operate within it.
Capitalism as we know it today—an amoral culture of short-term self-interest, profit maximization, emphasis on shareholder value, isolationist thinking, and profligate disregard of long-term consequences—is an unsustainable system, a monster set to destroy itself.
You might think that’s it, but nothing is solid, everything is Energy and our thought hold together this ever-changing energy field into objects that we see.
All our interpretations are solely based on an internal map of reality that we all have and not real truth. Our map is a result of our personal life’s collective experiences.
Your thought literally shift the universe on a particle-particle basis to create your physical life. Look around you.
Everything you see in our physical world started as an idea. You literally become what think about most.
Your life becomes what you have imagined and believed the most.
Another words the world is your mirror, enabling you to experience in the physical plane what you hold as your truth …. until you change it.
What we think is true is really an illusion.
Fortunately we have begun to uncover the illusion. If you looked at yourself under a powerful electron microscope you see that you are made up of clusters of ever – changing energy in the form of electrons, neutrons, photons and so on.
So is everything else around you.
Now this is getting more than confusing.
Quantum physics tells us that it is the act of observing an object that causes it to be there and how we observe it.
Another words the object does not exist independently of its observer! So its your observation your attention to something, and your intention, literally creates that thing.
We have three senses: Sight, Sound and Smell.
Humankind has elevated the role of these senses, and even created technological extensions of them, in order to find order and true knowledge of this Universe in which we exist.
Eventually, however, we must assemble a complete working knowledge of all genes and all of their functions and interactions. We will combine our knowledge of molecular biology with our knowledge of cell biology. Over this synthesis, we will layer our understanding of neuroscience and cognitive psychology.
Who knows what the future may hold or what constraints will be placed on our knowledge, whether through considered intellect and experience or through societal and cultural pressures?
The question is:
Will the underlying structures and functions of all microscopic and macroscopic aspects of the human brain allow us to predict and explain the emergence of consciousness? Only time and science may tell.
What controls us? I have got the foggiest. So I will leave you with:
Who am I? What is the self?
Are you the sum of all your parts, biochemistry, memories, senses, experiences, feelings, and the emergent properties themselves.
How long will it be before a computer or robot passes the Turing test (a conversation in which the human cannot tell whether he or she is talking to a human or a machine)?
Could we theoretically “download” a human consciousness into another brain or into a computer?
There are an estimated 60 trillion (that’s 60 million million) synaptic connections in the brain. Hopefully, we will soon understand exactly how information of our perceived reality is stored in these connections.
We will be able to compare the specific DNA codes of all life on Earth (or as much as we want) to calculate the ultimate Tree of Life on Earth.
Can we engineer our own evolution?
We are already at the point where embryos can be screened for genetic defects, such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome), before being implanted into a woman’s uterus. We will eventually construct a tree of evolution that comes close to outlining the entire history of natural selection on Earth. We may one day be able to direct the course of our own evolution.
How does a single cell turn itself into a thinking, breathing organism?
How does a fertilized egg regulate its own genes and control the timing and three-dimensional growth of cells to form tissues and organs?
Can we Extent Life?
It remains to be seen how long we can extend the human life. Even if we can extend it further, we will have to address issues of quality of life as well.
Can we save our planet?
How much power can we wield over mother earth? Will we learn to alter climate? Will we learn to utilize renewable energy? Can we cure hunger? To me, it seems that we may always remain as ants when compared to the larger forces of this planet.
Is interstellar travel possible?
Our current technology cannot even hit 0.004% the speed of light, so we will not be going anywhere soon.
Are we alone in the Universe?
Our own galaxy contains roughly 100 billion (yes — 100 thousand million) stars. In addition, there are about 100 billion galaxies in our observable Universe. That’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (assuming our galaxy is average). If I were a betting man I say we are not alone.
If there is no “true randomness”, then every event in existence was determined by those before it, thus eliminating the possibility of free will. However, if there is randomness, this at least leaves open the possibility of true free will.
What is the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth? Will we enact global population control measures?
Given current birth rates and ever-expanding life spans, it seems inevitable that we will be forced to enact population controls on a world scale. It is science that will have to tell us exactly what our resources can handle. No doubt, technology can increase our carrying capacity, if utilized properly.
What is dark energy and dark matter, anyway?
Something seems to be out there, swirling within galaxies, holding them together, and pulling groups of galaxies into clusters and superclusters. We have inferred its existence from its effect on other mass.
What is the true nature of existence? Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, strings?
If science ever comes to grips with the nature of our physical reality and devises the Grand Unified Theory of everything, I sure hope the math can be translated into more conceptual terms.
If it turns out that we live in only one (or four) of 13 dimensions or some other such craziness, we prove it, and I still cannot understand it, it will be a sad and anticlimactic day.
The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image.
Essentially everything we know — or think we know — about events outside of our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television our Smart Phones or I Pads.
It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV ‘docudramas’ that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.
Almost all media comes from the same six sources.
Telecommunication advances now make instantaneous worldwide satellite transmissions an everyday occurrence. The development of these incredibly advanced technologies, the desire for a one-world government, the building of a one-world church, plus the events in Israel and the Middle East are more than convincing that the end of the age is nigh.
At this point, your reeling mind is probably protesting.
If you are sitting on the fence get off it. Make a stand today whom you will serve. Our lives on earth are going to be changing :WITH TEMPERATURES RISING, SEA LEVELS RISING, IMMIGRATION INCREASING,
With the lure of advanced technology, Capitalism is deceived our governments, our world organisations.
What real controls is Inequality of Opportunity and it will continue to do so unless we tap into Greed by creating a World Aid Fund. ( see previous posts)
We all understand how all the myths and misinformation the public has been exposed to for centuries need to change. This change can only be achieved by spreading the wealth of us all with a perpetual funded effort.
We have to see the world through issues and action.
It does not belong to me or you or any Generation, to any Religion, any Terrorist, any Government, any algorithms, any Holograms, any World Monopoly whether its called Google, Face Book or Twitter, or any Sovereign Wealth Fund ( see previous Posts)
It belongs to Wall Street.
Who was running Wall Street? Humans or machines?
If you thought “humans”, you were woefully out of date.“
Humans just found a new way of being greedy.”
But that not the subject of this post.
There’s a strange relationship between the city and the city dweller. We love it and still recognize that it’s a monster. All that emotion, all the combined suffering and indifference, glory and greatness, bypass the brain and go straight into the heart.
The city cuts straight to the core. Look into some people’s eyes, and their sadness, their pain, is almost palpable.
The city inspires us to see glory beneath the grime and wonder within the wasteland.
But the truth is, the world cannot be organized. To let the world in, you have to let in a world where nobody has the answers.
I think there’s a fundamentalism about technology. Technology itself isn’t going to save us. Technology is wonderful, but it’s a tool.
The world is complex and we all know what is wrong.
What is wrong comes in many forms, shapes, sizes, and it is effecting all of us.
There are a million things going on that are all signs that the people who are the most educated and capable of enlightened action are stunningly unengaged.
Its called Inequality. Created by us which is destroying the world we live in.
It is the root of most of the problems facing the world.
You might have read recently that Finland’s government is drawing up plans to give every one of its citizens a basic income of 800 euros (£576) a month and scrap benefits altogether, which according to Bloomberg, would cost the government 52.2 billion euros a year.
During the Banking Crisis I advocated that it would have been cheaper for Ireland to have given every voting citizen a Million. It could have been placed in a Government controlled account. Made available to the citizen over a period of 30 years to avoid inflation. Irish Citizens would have been required to cleared all his or hers debts, look after their own health, education, while scrapping all benefits.
It would have stimulated the economy in a controlled manner rather than bailing out worthless banks.
The National Audit Office in the UK said that the Uk spent £850 billion on the bank crises in 2009. That would equate to a £26,562 and fifty pence spend by every taxpayer in the UK.
THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK will begin its €1.1 trillion quantitative easing programme today, the last big weapon in its armoury to get the euro zone going and fend off deflation. None of the newly invented cash will actually be headed to the pockets of EU citizens.
The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:
Quantitative Easing for the People’ is one of the cornerstones of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership platform in the UK.
The basic idea is simple: A hypothetical Corbyn government would instruct the Bank of England to create new electronic money (the modern equivalent of printing it) to fund public investment projects. The vehicle for doing this would be the ‘National Investment Bank’, which would be charged with funding public investment. The NIB would issue bonds that the BoE would be commanded to buy.
Compared this to the living wage an informal benchmark, set at £9.15 an hour in London and £7.85 an hour in the rest of the UK. It is not a legally enforceable minimum level of pay, like the national minimum wage. ( 48 hours a week on average = 439 euros.)
An ‘inner voice’ tells me that this idea is a step in the right direction to spread the wealth of a nation. Perhaps he should call it regional quantitative easing, but it wont address the bigger world problems.
Realistically we must think of some imaginative ways to create liquidity in the world economy other than secret Trade Deals.
Sometimes it takes just one human being to tip the scales and change the course of history.
In this series of posts we will look into its heart beat of Inequality.
My aim is to stimulate serious academic interest and to inform the developing world. My ambition is to stimulate serious academic interest and to inform public debate on the essential issues. We can’t just wait for the tipping point to be reached so we see clarity as we stare into the abyss.
In no particular order let,s start our Journey to a better world.
The year 2016 I hope will mark a turning point in human history: Helped by climate change because Capitalism will start to be forces to pay for raping the world.
So let’s start Not with Climate Change but WHERE WE LIVE.
IT MATTERS:
The scale of environmental impact of meta cities and mega cities on their hinterlands is significant and is likely to be a cause for concern in coming decades.
The emerging human settlements of the 21st century are Slums also known as shantytowns, squatter cities, and informal settlements.
These places can teach us about where, for better or worse, urban life appears to be headed. “Squatters are the world’s dominant builders,”
They are the Emblems of profound inequality.
When one appreciates this fact one is forced to ponder whether these slums were designed to supplant, integrate or ignore human rights concerns of the world’s poor.
Are they maintained solely as a source of cheap labor or just transitory phenomenon characteristic of fast growing economies — it is impossible to mitigate the expansion of slums in the developing world.
Even if urban poverty is preferable to rural poverty life in the slum constitute a form of poverty trap for a majority of their residents.
In 2005, there were 998 million slum dwellers in the world. If current trends continue, the slum population will reach 1.4 billion by 2020.
It will for the first time equal the world’s rural population.
Although it is difficult to predict on which day or month this radical transformation will occur, what is certain is that this milestone will herald the advent of a new urban millennium: a time when one out of every two people on the planet will be a “city-zen”
At the moment more than 53 per cent of the world’s urban population lives in cities of fewer than 500,000 inhabitants. One out every three city dwellers – nearly one billion people – lives in a slum. Slums are emerging as a dominant and distinct type of settlement in cities of the developing world.
By 2020, all but 4 of the world’s largest cities will be in developing regions, 12 of them in Asia alone. While still few in number, these metacities point to new forms of urban planning and management, leading to the growth of city regions and “metropolitanization”.
Inequality has a direct bearing on patterns of urbanization.
The rich in most countries live a world apart from the poor, with homes in protected urban enclaves and access to the latest technology, the best services and the most comfort. The rest, especially slum dwellers, live in the most deprived neighborhoods, struggling to gain access to adequate shelter and basic services, such as water and sanitation. Many slum dwellers also live under the constant threat of eviction.
Such stark differences and divisions can be found among regions and countries, but also within countries and cities. Especially in the developing world, urban zones of poverty and despair commonly skirt modern cosmopolitan zones of plenty.
If current trends are not reversed, cities will become more and more spatially divided, with high and middle-income residents living in the better-serviced parts of the city
Cities are, and will continue to be, sites of extreme inequality.
China’s recent gains in economic growth and industrialization have in many cases exacerbated environmental problems in its cities. Economic growth has increased consumer purchasing power, with the result that Chinese cities, such as Beijing – once the bicycle capital of the world – are now teeming with motor vehicles, a leading cause of air pollution. There are 1.3 million private cars in Beijing alone, an increase of 140 per cent since 1997.
Since the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, cities of the developed world have become increasingly concerned about their vulnerability to acts of terrorism but this is not the reasons that cities are going to have to change.
Various dimensions of urban poverty is the main treat.
Inadequate and often unstable income, which impacts people’s ability to pay for non-food items, such as transport, housing and school fees. Poor quality, hazardous, overcrowded, and often insecure housing Inadequate provision of basic services (piped water, sanitation, drainage, roads, footpaths, etc.) which increases the health burden and often the work burden.
Inadequate, unstable or risky asset base (non-material and material) including lack of assets that can help low-income groups cope with fluctuating prices or incomes, such as lack of access to land or credit facilities. Inadequate public infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals.
Limited or no safety nets to ensure basic consumption can be maintained when incomes fall and which can be easily accessed when basic necessities are no longer affordable, such as public housing and free medical services.
Inadequate protection of rights through the operation of the law, including regulations and procedures regarding civil and political rights, occupational health and safety, pollution control, environmental health, protection from violence and forced evictions and, protection from discrimination and exploitation.
Voicelessness and powerlessness within non-responsive political systems and bureaucratic structures, leading to little or no possibility of receiving entitlements to goods and services; of organizing, making demands and getting a fair response; and of receiving support for developing initiatives. Also, no means of ensuring accountability from aid agencies, NGOs, public agencies and private utilities, and of being able to participate in the definition and implementation of urban poverty programmes.
In light of recent evidence, even if governments collectively manage to improve the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020 – as per the Millennium Development Goals and targets – this achievement will be insignificant in relation to creating “cities without slums”, a stated objective of the Millennium Declaration.
Assuming that the leaders who developed the slum target were aiming to address a major development issue, policymakers should adjust the benchmark to reflect the reality of slums of today and tomorrow.
Viewed through a human rights prism, All fair-minded people, of course, would hope for improving the lives of slum dwellers. Unfortunately, looking closely as far as housing rights are concerned, any improvements far out-number their benefits.
These are a few things we can no longer afford to ignore.
Which practices and policies will steer us in the right direction?
How do we effect change within and beyond the halls of government?
Both formal and informal systems of property rights may be necessary to curb the rapid growth and informal systems of property rights may be necessary to curb the rapid growth of slum areas worldwide.
Slum dwellers should be given title deeds for their plots, in order to liberate the “dead capital” they are sitting on – to enable them to get loans from banks.
Overall, there has been very little theoretical and empirical economic research about how the public policy challenges posed by slums in low-income economies should be addressed.
It appears the United Nations Goals’ are flaws.
The question is how to address them.
Three shortcomings stand out as particularly.
The organisation is out of date, skint, and totally infiltrated by Capitalist values.
The United Nations have strong incentives to maintain the status quo. Unless radically brought up to date and reformed it has no alternative but to maintain the status quo.
Without changes to the United Nations or any other World Institutions the reversal of the lack of governance to represent the people of the world, it is unlikely that any attempts at any form of big push or coordinated investment will have the desired effects.
This is a hidden threats to sustainability.
All changes need financing.
Whether it be Climate Change or giving dignity of a respectful if not equitably life to all, there is little hope of addressing the world problems when so many look at so few. Inequality is incurable.
The only way to lessen its effects is to tap into Greed itself. (See previous Posts)
I believe in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and ultimately, the world.
You can’t settle for drops in the bucket. It won’t do to wrap up your garbage, it won’t do to send the contribution. Those are all fine, but it’s not going to make a huge change. It’s just not. It’s going to take all you’ve got too really understand that the stakes are very high.
If you don’t believe me the Sunday Time this week in letters and e mails reported that an organised party of about 60 from the Uk visited the European Parliament in Strasbourg. At the end of the tour each visitor was handed an envelope containing 200 Euros. Apparently each EU MEP is allowed 110 visitors a year, which equates to 22,000 Euros per MEP. With 73 UK MEP,s that in turn adds up to 1.6 million euros.
More than 11m homes lie empty across Europe – enough to house all of the continent’s homeless twice over – hundreds of thousands of half-built homes have been bulldozed in an attempt to shore up the prices of existing properties. There are 4.1 million homeless across Europe, according to the European Union.
Its no wonder that millions turn to daft fantasy – turning the Star Wars films into digitally enchanted Manichaean belief systems. There is a sleazy materialistic, shallowness about it all. We hear much more from them all in 2016.
Let’s address the elephant in the room first.
Profit for the sake of profit has to pay whether its climate change, inequality of opportunity or terrorism.
Education plays a uniquely critical role in addressing the challenges we face.
What we’ve really lost sight of is an education system that teaches how to ethically, effectively and intelligently engage with the world which we will address in the next post.
Each of us, it seems, believe that we are above average. People want to believe the present is different than the past. But while we humans passionately believe that our own current circumstances are somehow unique, not much has really changed since the inarguably brilliant Isaac Newton lost a fortune in the South Sea Trading Company bubble of 1720.
“What ails the truth is that it is mainly uncomfortable, and often dull. The human mind seeks something more amusing, and more caressing.” ~H. L. Mencken
Because history suggests that we are going down for the count.
bobdillon33blog 