Category Archives: #whatif.com

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL RUSSIA INVADING UKRAINE LEAD TO WW3?

16 Sunday Oct 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Human Collective Stupidity., Mr Putin., Our Common Values., Reality., Russia / Ukraine ., RUSSIA/ UKRAINE/ US/ NATO/ EU., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Telling the truth., The cost of war., The state of the World., The Ukraine., The world to day., Truth, Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, War, We can leave a legacy worthwhile., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL RUSSIA INVADING UKRAINE LEAD TO WW3?

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

No one knows and no one wants to find out.

Let’s cut right to the chase here:

The only certainty about the war over Ukraine is that all existing certainties have been shattered.

If one listens to main media it would be fair to say that it is in a warp way encouraging Mr Putin to use nuclear weapons, ( not that he needs encouragement )

So how worried should you be?   How does this end?

It is difficult to see how Putin “wins.” But he cannot accept defeat.

As long as there is no direct conflict between Russia and NATO then there is no reason for this crisis, bad as it is, to descend into a full-scale world war.

Is this true?

It’s always hard to predict what Mr. Putin is going to do, and anyone who says they know him really well … would not be telling you the complete truth.”

The hard facts are that this has now developed into a NATO backed war.

So what are the likely outcomes?

The spectrum of possible outcomes ranges from a volatile new cold or hot war involving the United States, Russia, and China; to a frozen conflict in Ukraine; to a post-Putin settlement in which Russia becomes part of a revised European security architecture.

That is as honest an assessment as anyone who isn’t Vladimir Putin can give you.

But the wild card here is the state of Putin’s mind.

The whole idea after the Second World War was we’re going to try to set up a system whereby we live in a world in which big countries cannot just decide we’re going to send in our military and take this territory that belongs to this other country has never worked.

There is almost zero mutual trust remaining between Russia and the West.

While the conflict is tragic for the Ukrainian people, it’s unlikely to lead to World War III because, at the moment, it appears that no world leaders want it to escalate to that degree, and efforts are being made to make sure fighting stays within Ukraine’s borders.

There are three major factors that make Europe today different from in the 1930s and ’40s and could prevent World War III.

The first is the NATO alliance.

The second factor is the presence of nuclear weapons.

The third is that the Ukraine is not a NATO member, so there is no formal obligation to come to its defence.

Where is this war going to go is however the big question keeping the world on edge:

It is fair to say that China or the USA would not allow their countries to be surrounded by nuclear missiles.

So be in now doubt that intellectual laziness, historical amnesia and dishonesty will take lives in the years to come.

History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.” – Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) or to quote the late Norman Mailer, “Whatever else it is, history is a bitch.”

There is a saying that nothing unites a country better than being invaded by an enemy but Putin’s actions have far-reaching implications for global politics and democracy.

This is a dangerous backdrop against which to have a blazing public row over who is to blame for the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

Europeans need to ask themselves hard questions. Are they willing to confront Russia? Is Russia going to challenge the borders of NATO? And how should Europe respond?

The immediate question is how to diminish Russia’s ability to threaten its neighbours.

The West’s political, economic, and military posture toward Russia is obviously in a state of flux at the moment. As a result unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is no longer a global competitor to the United States and there is no strong ideological component that unifies and divides the international community with regard to Russia.

Rather, what we see is a revisionist Russia (with somewhat limited capabilities to project force beyond its borders) that is challenging core principles of the international community.

So we have a long and potentially very unsettled period ahead of us that no radiation will cure.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OUR FINITE EARTH CANNOT FULFILL THE RESOURCES – PROFIGATE DREAMS OF SO MANY PEOPLE.

17 Saturday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Inflation.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OUR FINITE EARTH CANNOT FULFILL THE RESOURCES – PROFIGATE DREAMS OF SO MANY PEOPLE.

Tags

, , , , ,

Ten minute read.

THE MAIN QUESTION IS WHERE WILL THE CURVE OF EARTHS TEMPERATURE INFLATIONS TAKE US FROM HERE?

Right now the scientific consensus is that the population of the world will reach a peak some time later this century. The world population is projected to reach 10.4 billion people sometime in the 2080s and remain there until 2100, according to the United Nations Population Division.A 3D illustration of a woman watching a climate change simulation of Earth.

How many people can the earth support?  What is it carrying capacity?

When it comes to carrying capacity, it’s a matter of mode of production, mode of consumption, who has access to what and how.

Not all human activities have to be environmentally costly but the future of the world population is driven by a mixture of survival and reproduction. As a result more and more countries, once they reach a certain stage of socioeconomic cultural development, tend to converge towards about two children [per couple] or fewer.

In 1679, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, a scientist and inventor of the microscope, predicted that Earth could support 13.4 billion people.

From 1930 to 1974, the Earth‘s population doubled again, in just 44 years.

Everybody knows that environmental changes, such as pollution or disease, and climate change can increase or decrease a habitat’s carrying capacity but there is little consensus in how many Homo sapiens our planet can support.

But is the human population expected to continue growing at this rate?

Is there an upper limit to how many humans our planet can support?

Before the twentieth century no one ever lived through a doubling of the entire human population and the enormity of this and our predicament is now prevenient in climate change.

For instance, natural constraints include food scarcity and inhospitable environments.

If the Earth System gets into the region of chaotic behaviour, we will lose all hope of somehow fixing the problem. The result will be the inflationary economic paradigm itself will be the long term disaster.

If we want to affect how many people planet Earth can support, we will need to decide how many people want Jaguars with four wheels and how many want jaguars with four legs.

————————-

Here is a broad sketch of what is in store and where we’re heading. if we don’t curtail climate change and our unchecked use of fossil fuels.

Where is Earth’s climate headed?

That depends significantly on exactly what our activity is over the next few decades.

For example, the human population can only grow so large and can only have so many carbon-emitting activities; and pollution will eventually degrade the environment. At some point in the future, carbon output will reach a maximum limit.

In the worst cases, the researchers found that Earth’s climate leads to chaos. True, mathematical chaos. In a chaotic system, there is no equilibrium and no repeatable patterns. A chaotic climate would have seasons that change wildly from decade to decade (or even year to year). Above a certain critical threshold temperature for Earth’s atmosphere, a feedback cycle can kick in where a chaotic result would become unavoidable. There are some signs that we may have already passed that tipping point, but it’s not too late to avert climate disaster.

We are now entering a new phase, one driven by human activity. As humans pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we are creating a new Anthropocene era, a period of human-influenced climate systems, something our planet has never experienced before.

We will see mass migration, with one war after another for resources.

Animals can keep giving birth, increasing their numbers, but they reach a limit when they consume all the food in their environment (or their predators get too hungry and consume them). Put another way, climate change impacts might not directly cause humans to go extinct, but it could lead to events that seriously endanger hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives.

There’s no reason to exaggerate the climate threat. The truth is bad enough, and reason enough to take dramatic action because today, we live in a global, interconnected civilization, so there’s is every reason to believe our species will not survive its collapse.

Despite massive landscapes and endless blue, our planet is limited in its resources and capabilities to support its inhabitants. According to the Global Footprint Network, “Humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste.

It now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year.

All over the world we are witnessing the effects of using more resources than the Earth can provide in the form of diminishing forest cover, disappearing coral reefs, collapsing fisheries, biodiversity decline, increasing greenhouse gases, depleting fresh water systems, acidifying oceans, disease, famine, mass migrations, depleting arable land, resource conflicts and wars, just to name some of the more noticeable effects.

So we are left to cope with limited resources or pursue unconventional methods, which can create a disproportionate impact on the poor, and the ones that can are finding that even the furthest and deepest corners of the Earth are being exploited, leaving fewer and fewer resources for future generations.

A sustainable future cannot be achieved without conserving biological diversity – animal and plant species, their habitats and their genes – not only for nature itself, but also for all  people who depend on.

Our moral obligation is to support both ourselves and our planet. it.

Our old solutions – which address only environmental conservation or short-term human gains – are no longer enough.

We need innovative approaches to guide our civilization toward a sustainable future and the only way this can be done  this requires a substantial behavioural modification of the most impactful species on Earth—humans.

I think it is becoming increasingly important for us to be conscious of our consumption. If we can see through products on the shelves, and understand that human labour, sacrifice and resources have gone into anything and everything we consume, we can begin to empathize with and work for the well-being of populations around the world.

Technology is distancing our relationship from global issues, often perceived as too large to concern our own respective lives.

How can we begin this personalization in the midst of a global crisis of endless dimensions and stakeholders?

We can begin by making profit seeking algorithms be transparent. By removing all media advertising that prompts consumption. By focused efforts and productivity within our own communities. By fostering the rights and access to medical care universally.

Finally. Government should enable individuals to see their own capabilities in organizing and protecting the environment, instead of simply reporting on the problems. Media coverage, literature, and written discussion in any capacity should lean towards a definitive—within scientific bounds—attribution of our existing catastrophes to our own actions. We must try to stray from merely stating that a given problem exists, and rather begin our discussions and postulations with the probable causes of that problem.

By getting communities, urban or rural, to visualize and feel the influence of their actions on water, soil, and air would be to enliven a group solely based on protecting and preserving life itself. We must work to re-associate with the resources of the environment that have long been exploited, and communicate across a global spectrum regarding how we have and will succeed in creating a sustainable future existence.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

A photo of a male Neanderthal replicate at the​ Natural​ History​ Museum, London.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WITH THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZIBETH II DEATH IS IN THE AIR FOR ALL OF US .THE LONG SHORT AND THE TALL.

15 Thursday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, Death, Denial of Death.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WITH THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZIBETH II DEATH IS IN THE AIR FOR ALL OF US .THE LONG SHORT AND THE TALL.

Tags

,

( Seven minute read)

The mystery of death is so profound that, despite the millennia of religious doctrine, mythology, scientific research, and the many theories and explanations that exist on the subject, people today are more confused than ever about it.

On the other hand, death is also a topic that few of us like to talk about. We may, on a subconscious level, understand that we are mortal. But, we continue to live our lives as if we will be here forever.

Saying that dying matters, seems so obvious that it’s not worth mentioning. After all, what could be more important than our mortality? We are here on this amazing planet for such a short period of time. Death is the ultimate destination that, in many ways, gives our lives meaning.

We have medicalized every aspect of the dying process. Is it a disease that will be cured in the future?

  • No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Steve Jobs
  • Once quantum computers become mainstream, the cost to sequence an individual genome could be cheaper than flushing the toilet! This could lead to mass customized medicines, further decreasing human mortality rate. The introduction of CRISPr allows scientists to cut out and replace living DNA; effectively eradicating almost all diseases and rewriting the genetic code that governs life expectancy.
  • AI to determine genetic diffusions, R&D into reversing aging, 3D printing organs, or human augmentation to the point of ‘the singularity’.

In fact, one of the reasons there are so many opinions about death is the diverse array of religious doctrines on the subject. So how do we know which text, if any, will guide our search correctly?

The concept of death is a key to humans understanding the phenomenon of all life its nearly as old as life itself.  An irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. From Wikipedia.

Death is inevitable to whatever is born. Wherever there is birth there is death.

What is God’s vision about death? Why did God permit Satan to live when the rest of us must die.

In God’s vision, no one ever dies. If God were to give you this vision, some day, then no number of deaths would affect you in this world. This is because of this right vision (Gnan)

Throughout history, different mythologies and theologies have explained the nature of death in countless ways, ranging from total annihilation to immediate life after death in the presence of God … or in torment.

Regardless of a person’s particular belief system, however, the fact remains that death is the end of life … or at least life as we know it. Human beings are totally powerless to prevent or overcome death.

Any study of the nature of death begs an important foundational question:

Why must things die in the first place?

To |make way for others. Like the Cambrian explosion which made way for major changes in the dominant sorts of living creatures, like us to flourish. But death is an unnatural part of life on a cellular level, because it does not automatically include a self-destruct mechanism for death.

So the question of the nature of death also brings profound implications about the nature of God.

Maybe, some reason, God is not as powerful as He says, since the problem of death remains.

Those who do not believe in reincarnation, Moslems, Christians believe that it does not return.

The rest of Indians, the Hindus, it does return. This is the result of the grace of your God that you believe in reincarnation. The moment you die, the Soul immediately enters another womb.

In reality, there is only one collection of texts in existence that makes the bold claim to contain direct communications from God: the collection we call the Bible. Over and over again, it records God speaking directly to mankind;

In my opinion, becoming an organ donor is one of the best decisions that you can ever make. Most people aren’t against being an organ donor.

Some people seemed to find the right moment to die,  to hold off dying until some particular event of importance to them had come to pass. Links between mind and body are little understood.

What if Queen Elizabeth 11 was an organ donor.  Don’t worry the chances of inheriting the crown is at the moment around 8 billion to one and in 31 years from now 2050 is estimated is expected to rise to 37.9 billion to one.

Since time immemorial, humans have tried to find out ways to achieve immortality.

As the search continues to date but how far are we willing to go to achieve it.

Bezos has invested in a company called Altos Labs which is trying to find a way to make humans immortal. The company aims to do this through ‘cellular reprogramming’ which means reprogramming human cells to make them new again. A human body is made up of 724 trillion cells.The Immortalists - can science defeat death? © Getty Images

This dream of making humans immortal is not just based on cell reprogramming.

A certain kind of nanorobots will be invented which can be released in the human body along with the bloodstream. These nanorobots would be able to eliminate viruses, bacteria, clean the blood, prevent clotting, and even kill tumours in the body, and repair your cells if needed.

Some scientists want to upload the feelings and thoughts present in the human brain to a computer so that even after the death of the person, their feelings and thoughts can be kept alive.

The Israeli writer, Yuval Noah Harari, wrote in his famous book Homo Deus that for religious people, death may be a decision made by God. But for scientists, death is merely a technical glitch in the body. He says that scientists can correct this technical glitch in labs and death can be avoided.

At this point, it is hard to predict if and when science will conquer death. But if one really wants to be immortal, they can make their life so memorable that even after they are gone, the things and memories related to them will endure.

Demographers estimate that before our generation roughly 100 billion people lived and died, and not one of them has returned to confirm the existence of an afterlife, at least not to the high evidentiary standards of science.

I’m sceptical that death will ever be conquered or understood as it is abstract a conceptual metaphor in the term of something else that determines the expansiveness of our reality.

As humanity confronts the present global challenges this reality is that we have evolved into a killing species, detached from the very thing that gives us life the Earth.  Our limits are self-imposed – ignorance, inertia –  greed – fear – fanaticism and fatalism.

Up to now the natural world has always been humanity’s main source of metaphors, but with science our natural world now includes the nuclear bomb, the black hole of profit seeking learning algorithms.

If we not wiped out by climate change we have ever change of being wiped out by an Asteroid – a burst of Gama rays or a Nuclear explosion, a Pandemic, if not, we have 6 odd billion years to go before the sun fry us all.

Advances in technology will definitely drive the upward age of longevity toward the 200 mark. However, there are a number of considerations – both moral and social – that we have not begun to think about, as a species. Ultimately, the question is no longer if death (like taxes) is inevitable, but rather: even if we can conquer death – should we?

Even if I could live thousands of years, I would want a better world than this one. So, is there any hope?

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HOW DOES BRITIAN EXPLAIN THE MESS IT IS IN TO ITSELF?

13 Tuesday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HOW DOES BRITIAN EXPLAIN THE MESS IT IS IN TO ITSELF?

Tags

( Six minute read)

Of course as with any country there is a clatter of explanations.

The tragedy truth lies in England’s history.  Vanity and greed are, as ever, the roots of self-deceit, that become hubris, which meets nemesis, that has now developed into a class system that for all intended purposes owns the country.

The British title and its order of precedence is the most baffling, yet simple concept on the planet.

Children of nobility and those who wished to become a part of it had the following concepts drilled into their heads from birth , with the death of Queen Elizabeth II people are not only just paying their respect to her life of duty but acknowledging the fact that the system is still in power with Charles the III becoming King.

A system  of Knights, Lords, Viscounts, Dukes, Marquess, Earls, Duchess, Barons, (Life Peerages created by the Queen) dates back to the 11th Century and the Anglo-Saxons.

Of course the following nine days of symbolism, pomp and media verbal (in a modern world) could be look at as the height of Hippocratic power.

Anyone who is neither a peer nor the monarch is a commoner serf.

The office of King’s Champion.  The Dymoke family of Scrivelsby, Lincolnshire have continued to hold the office up to the present day. But I doubt that we will see him excising his duty of riding into Westminster, on a white charger, fully clad in armour, into Westminster Hall during the first coronation banquet.

The bitter, brutal reality of England is Brexit.  It’s making Britain a third world country.

The problem is that Brexit is made of lies, and everyone, more or less, backed them.

By the way, as someone from one, I use the words “third world country” mildly ironically.

Nobody likes to be called a “third world country,” of course the difference is, those poor nations didn’t do it to themselves.

Brexit is now being memory-holed:

” These aren’t the consequences of Brexit, it’s a good thing, a windfall which will surely land in our pockets any day now, and make us all rich.”

Brexit did something amazing, spectacular, remarkable — something we have genuinely not seen as a world since the days of the Weimar Republic. It pushed a society into sudden, rapid, endemic poverty. What is it called when every household in a society can’t get essentials and basics?  Poverty.

Economists marvel at Brexit because there are almost no other examples of such rapid, sudden social collapses that exist at all.

It’s all playing out exactly like it was always going to, like anyone sane predicted.

Now with the demise of the Queen Elizabeth II there’s almost no discussion on the truth of the matter.

It is totally forbidden in modern-day Britain to connect the following dots:

Britain broke up unilaterally with its largest trading partner and oldest and biggest friend, it did so in a hard way, choosing a path that would lead to sure ruin, in order to spite Europe, not out of any degree of wisdom, and the consequences of all that — nationalism, spite, selfishness — would be absolutely and utterly ruinous.

So why do Brits believe this lie?

Let’s back up a step. Why are they even being told this lie?

The problem as I have said is that Brexit is made of lies, and everyone, more or less, backed them. And now those in power — papers, pundits, even erstwhile “opposition” figures — have no real choice but to go on repeating the lies. Into oblivion. It’s either that, or eat crow.

Brexit, an idea so colossally stupid it ranks up there with climate change denial.

A society is now engaging in doublespeak, which most of the whole world finds ridiculous:

Imperial granger representing an empire that has long gone.

As Orwell warned us, this is a perfect way to control a society, to lull it into submission.

And that is what is happening in Britain.

The biggest lie of Brexit was the one underlying all these.  The Conserve Boris lie. 

That Brexit was going to “level up” Britain. To what, some asked? To where? There was never any answer given. It was just some spin, PR, hype, a lie. “Levelling up” just meant being number one, on top, supreme — it carried echoes of empire. Britannia Uber Alles.

You would have thought that the World Wars should have taught Britain that we really are all better off together, than as nations red in tooth and claw, set against one another.

Because the truth is too hard to face.

The truth that all this was a stupid, stupid mistake. Who can own up to that? Who can face it? Nobody. And so the only road left is down, down, into the abyss — even as it’s painted as a glorious ascent up into the sunlight.

That’s exactly — exactly — what Brexit is now.

It is the ritualised telling of a lie, even as Britain becomes a literal third world country.

Tomorrow, it’s going to be energy, medicine, the heating going off in winter, hospitals and factories shut down. The day after that, it’s going to be an epic depression, which will last, well, forever, because that is what getting permanently poorer means.

Brexit did this to us.

It made us a third world country. Look at us. We haven’t “levelled up.” We’ve levelled down. Way, way down. To third world country levels. Where people can’t get basics. We couldn’t ever have levelled up, really — because we were already at the top. How foolish not to see it. How greedy and selfish.

—————————-

There is however also a second reason why people to day cant see the long-term consequences and it is this reason that lies a the foot of all our troubles. 

Humans in the cosmology of the universe have no particular significance.

This reinforces our collective irresponsibility, because if we are of no significance, how much of a problem can our actions really be?

Some of us embrace time- myopia for religious reasons, because they think ” the end” is coming soon. Some do it for financial reasons, because the bottom line is their standard. Some do it in pursuit of power, because nothing matter beyond the next election.

But most people simply don’t know yet how to think any other way.

We try as cultures to ground ourselves in each other, rather than in the earth and the Universe.

We might as well try to stand still in a riptide.

We need to ground ourselves in something real that is greater than we are.

If we want to survive we must factor such truths into our politics, plans, and actions.

We know that Charles III has taken oaths that as king not to upset the apple tart, but the reality of Climate change and the direction of the world requires his and every voice to be heard now not tomorrow.

So if he wants not to be silent he has at his disposal one item that is presently in dry dock – HMS Brittana.

It’s resurrection as a sea worthy vessel would allow a modern King (that believes in the earth, its beauty, its lifegiving resources, its fragility ecosystem , its place in the universe)  like Charles III

spread the word of his concerns and action, much better and at a far lower cost than Mrs Trust. 

It could be as it was in his mother time a platform of peace and trade.

Britannia rules the waves. 

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com  

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONCE AGAIN WITH THREE PROCLEMATIONS ENGLAND REMAINS IN THE SHADOWS OF THE PAST.

11 Sunday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

I suppose the first thing to understand about these proclamations is that if you want to be King, whether you believe or not in what you are swearing, by otter their words the government is in a fact placing a gagging orders on any personal political or controversial views being expressed during a reign.

Since mediaeval times, the terms of the coronation oaths have reflected the conflict for ascendancy between sovereign and subjects.

Taking the authorised form of the oaths is a condition on which the crown is held by any individual.

The starting point here is to note that taking the oath is neither a prerequisite to the accession to the Crown nor to provision of the royal assent. They lack statutory authority. Given the unlawfulness of the oath taken, there is a political and constitutional imperative in establishing that deficiencies in the oath do not fatally taint the reign which follows.

The monarch kisses the Bible having declared ‘The things which I have here before promised I will perform and Keepe Soe help me God.’

The significance of this lies in the king’s consent to be bound by new laws as well as the established laws and customs of the realm and, further, his acknowledgment that he must share the law-making power with the assembly of the people. An oath that does not comply with the 1688 form, as amended, not only violates primary statute law but fails to give due precedence to this central principle.

The fact that they have no direct constitutional effect is manifested in the absence of any penalty if they are not sworn. The weight of the oaths lies overwhelmingly in their symbolic significance and,
moreover, in making that symbolism intelligible, acceptable and inspiring to a modern
population.Image

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II it is unusual having a coronation, which is soaked in  past history  now involves Charles II taking a accession oaths that date originally from 1688-1707, when Catholic Europe was seen as an existential threat.

These oaths are.

The Scottish oath, to uphold the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

The Accession Declaration oath, to be a true and faithful Protestant.

The Coronation oath, which includes promising to uphold the rights and privileges of the Church of England.

They could be described as declarations that are both personal and political statements, but in a more secular and pluralist society, the oaths need to be revised and updated; or dropped altogether.

So let’s ask two questions.

Do they have any value?

How might they best be understood in modern times?

Why?

Because to my mind the obligations of these days are understood as a limited, rather than a maximal duty on the sovereign personally.

It follows that the meaning of the 1688 language has down the centuries become reversed and is now in needs of further revision to reflected real responsibility. If not they are silently interpreted as an acknowledgment that the sovereign has in fact no personal political power, though obliged to speak on behalf of the real executive power – his government – as if he has.

This is because they do not create law but declare it.

The Scottish oath discharges a treaty obligation in the then new state of Great Britain to recognise previous Scottish ecclesiastical legislation.

The Accession Declaration oath confirms requirements laid down elsewhere that the sovereign must be a Protestant.

The Coronation oath does not make the heir into the sovereign: that is achieved automatically under the common law. Rather, the oath requires the sovereign to declare and identify with the effect of the law at a public moment of great solemnity and prepares the way for the conferment of divine blessing on the new sovereign.

So we are left with the three statutory oaths date from a narrow period of British history during 1688-1707.

To understand these out of date oaths lets look at each in turn in the light of constitutional and legal status of accession.

The first two arose from the turmoil at the end of the reign of James II who had sought to
expand the authority of the crown and favour Roman Catholics.

In 1688, the latter formulae the Accession could be understood as requiring the monarch – still then head of the executive – actively to use real existing powers to achieve the desired ends.

Although the formula’s constituent parts are traditional, the language is not prescribed and there
is no statutory restraint on what the new sovereign should say at what is a most solemn public
moment. In both the Accession Declaration Act oath and the coronation oath, the sovereign’s
obligation to uphold the force of the oath is expressed in the former by the formula ‘to the best
of my powers according to law’ and in the latter by the formulae ‘to the utmost of your power’
and ‘to your power’.

Although the constituent parts are traditional – regret at a death, request for the nation’s support in office, affirmation of support for the constitution – the texts are varied to reflect the individual sovereign’s concerns:

If there is not the political will to legislate, the government should consider preparing a
statement to give to Parliament on accession explaining the historical reasons for the oaths, and
how they are to be understood in modern times; with accompanying briefing for the media.

In a radical reformulation, the Scottish oath could become an oath about the Union; the Accession Declaration, traditionally made before Parliament, could become an oath to uphold the constitution and laws; and the coronation oath, in a ceremony watched by millions, could be an oath made to the people not the Government. 

Regal activism of this kind could only be expected of modern constitutional monarchs, not a king in the straight jacket of history long passed.

If not, the only way to keep the Royal Family relevant is to consigned it to cultural history, replacing it with a written constitution.

What if anything can King Charles III do?

Prince Charles

He will be known as King Charles III – the first Charles to sit on the throne since 1685 has a mind of his own.

His opinions which carried weight on the Climate/ Agricultural/ Conservation etc are now consigned to silence because these oaths are enshrined in statute.  It would require amending legislation to revise and update them. It is obvious that this may not be easy, to reach consensus, with the churches, other faith groups and all sections of society; ultimately the government has to decide.

He will now have his opinions expressed by his Son William.

———————

The declaration made at the inaugural Privy Council clearly has a different status from
the three statutory oaths . In essence, it comprises all the elements and more of what is actually
required of other European sovereigns by their constitutions.

Unlike any other European monarchy, the UK monarchy is an international monarchy
because the sovereign is head of state also in fifteen other independent Commonwealth
countries. All Commonwealth countries will be sensitive to how the general relationship with the UK crown is expressed.

Charles III has now has a more than difficult act to follow ass it will not take long for the run of forthcoming referendums on staying part or attached to the UK (that will pose new subtle threats to parliamentary sovereignty of England in those countries now part of the Commonwealth) to start.

In 871 AD Alfred the only king of England to be called great defeated the Vikings.

Forty years ago man stood on the Moon.

Thirty years from now Charles III will most likely not be with us, nor will most of us, if we don’t tackle Climate change.

So long live Charles III who understand this. Long may his Voice be heard.

To achieve this here is my advice.        Buy back the HMS Britannia.

Edimburgo: il fascino discreto e misterioso della Scozia

——————–

Amidst the cluster-crisis now engulfing the lives of millions of British people, The UK has a new prime minister. Selected by a small group of right-wing ideologues, known as the Conservative Party, Liz Truss will govern without either a democratic or popular mandate until she sees fit to call an election, no later than January 2025

It should be expected in a country in thrall to the wildest and most deluded of fantasies about its national identity that the new cosplaying prime minister should continue to promote the fable of trickle-down economics. Her predecessor used Brexit as a means to hide the failure of that project beneath a xenophobic, populist rhetoric that evoked another myth: the envisioning a future built on former, imperial greatness.

All the pomp, pageantry, oaths taking,  will not hide the UK desperate need for a written constitution.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHO OWNS ENGLAND AND IS IT GOING DOWN THE PAN?

04 Sunday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., British Culture., Climate Change., England in five years., England's future., England., English General Election., European Union., EU_UK relations for the foreseeable future., How to do it., Human values., Life., Modern day life., Modern day Slavery, Money in Politics., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Politics., Privatization, Profiteering., Robot citizenship., Russia / Ukraine ., Stimulus package., The common good., The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The UK Class system., Universal values., We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHO OWNS ENGLAND AND IS IT GOING DOWN THE PAN?

Tags

, , , ,

( Ten minute read)

This is a country that sold is nations assets to private enterprises – energy, water, rail, etc, (In the ideology of Maggie Thatcher, shop till you drop), believing that the free market would give its citizens the best deal.

The massive privatisations of public assets undertaken by Mrs Thatcher and subsequent Tory governments since the 1980s now with the help of multilabel other world problems have come home to roost.

Below are a few examples of this.

[ARM Holdings, one the key British companies for research and innovation in electronics, was sold off in 2017 for £24bn to the Japanese company Softbank.

Amazon, a US corporation, now dominates retail in the UK.

Apple has shifted its tax liability in the UK to Ireland.

The key national airports in the UK – Heathrow and Gatwick – are both in foreign ownership.

Liverpool, Glasgow and Great Yarmouth ports are owned by Deutsche Bank. Felixstowe, is owned by one of Asia’s richest men and incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

Even Associated British Ports, which manages many UK ports, is owned by the Singapore foreign reserve fund and Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund and registered offshore in Jersey.

Waterstones, the only surviving national book chain in UK, is also Russian owned.

Facebook and Twitter are now the main source of news for most British people despite its biases and its inadequate constraints on the dissemination of fake news. Both of these companies are effectively unregulated despite their critical social media roles, and both make enormous sums of money from advertising that goes untaxed.

The NHS, which is thought of as the great British innovation, is also increasingly being infiltrated by American health providers. Social care Southern Cross purchased by Blackstone, a US company.

Boots, which has 2,500 shops in the UK acquired by private equity in 2007, asset stripped and saw its HQ moved to Switzerland to avoid UK taxes. It is now wholly owned by the giant US pharmacy chain Walgreens.]

What are the common elements in the above?

With London becoming the global centre of such transactions because of weak regulatory systems, especially in respect of privatised utilities, it has been price gouging at the expense of consumers in the UK.

It is now clear that some at least of the purchasers of domestic assets have used the opportunity to launder illegally acquired money.  Russian millionaires had a field day.

We are now looking at a country that recently spent nearly $8 billion building two new large, conventionally-fuelled aircraft carriers, spending between £72.1bn and £80.4bn, on a high-speed rail HS2 to save thirty minutes traveling time, while its people can’t afford their energy bills, to feed themselves, to house themselves, or afford the cost of a rail ticket.

A country that turned its back on the biggest market on its door step the EU with £25bn left to pay by 2057.

A country that in the first year of the pandemic, from April 2020 to 2021,  borrowed £299bn, the highest figure since records began in 1946, to save it economy more than its people with, the cost of Government measures announced so far range from about £310 to £410 billion.

Most of this extra money was spent on public services (such as the NHS), and support for businesses.

In the space of 15 months, from March 2020, the three main Covid loan schemes – bounce back, CBILS and a scheme for larger loans, CLBILS – handed out nearly £80bn to businesses with fraud losses estimated at £4.9bn at the end of March, money the government is unlikely to ever recover.

The UK government wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on poor quality and unusable personal protective equipment (PPE) while leaving frontline workers insufficiently protected from covid-19. The decision to prioritise hospitals meant that social care providers were left exposed by the lack of PPE contributing significantly to deaths in care homes in the first wave.

Among the government deals was a contract with a jeweller worth £70.5m (€80.5m; $97.6m) to buy sterile gowns. It also signed contracts for millions of face masks, which were not usable in the NHS because they had the wrong type of fixing.

The question of whether greater investments in health care in non-crisis times may have reduced the level of emergency funding needed to respond effectively to the pandemic warrants important reflection.


Money

Now with more money going out and less coming in, the English government has only one option – to borrow.

When a government spends more than it collects, it runs an annual budget deficit. The level of the national debt in the UK equates to 108% of national output (GDP) and the average amount of debt owed per person in the UK to day is ten thousand pounds.

This is a country that sold it soul to consumerism,  which is still spending millions on football with millions of lotto funds spent to win medals, with a homicide rate was 11.7 per million population, while small businesses and charities are going bust.

Like most of Europe it is in a downward spiral economically, with inflation and energy cost mounting ( due in part to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine,) and will have to borrow another £200bn by the end of the year.

 Its’ no wonders it is going down the Pan.

————————

 In the back ground there are other reason for its troubles–  its class system, its colonial history, its antiquated education system, its benefits system, its first past the post election system, to mention a few.

Its colonial past making it a very ethnically diverse nation,( People born outside of the UK account for 10% of the UK’s population.)

It has lost its once dominance as an empirical power in the world.

Once a rich country the crimes of your past are catching-up with you.

Britain was the world’s largest market for transportation of human lives, bowing to the new citadel whose tentacles reached out into great swathes of colonial wealth – and steadily drank it dry until the slave trade was finally banned by an act of parliament.  The arrogance and greed of your masters could not go unnoticed – could not pass-by unatoned for.  Nor could the pacifistic stance taken by the greater populous when confronted with such frequent acts of national and international vandalism.

Like most of us it has now become enslaved to the smart phone.

Now a country of digitalized citizens, with short term ambitions, in desperate need of a written constitution.

Why?

Despite considerable social change, and strong policy intervention, it still have some way to go to address equality of opportunity and racism.

—————————-

In the next few days the Conservative party will elect a new leader to take control of the country, without a general election.

He or she is facing social, unrest, as the UK economy is now too weak for sharp spending cuts due to the recent financial crisis, and Covid  pandemic, it is now currently facing serious issues in terms of cutting its unemployment rate and reducing its national debt.

Not to mention other current issues such as immigration, internal ethnic relationship, internal security, economic recovery, and Britain’s relationship with the EU all acting as major blocks to the progress of the British society.

Whatever the next British government may be, these are the issues that party has to address and solve. 

Modern British society has to find ways to deal with these crucial issues in order to move towards a brighter future.

So who owns the country?

Private no right of way sign

Behind this simple question lies England’s oldest and best-kept secret. It’s a secret that goes back to the Domesday Book – and an issue that goes to the heart of many of the biggest problems the country face to day.

Central government owns more than 16 million square metres of property and land across the UK – six times the area of the City of London. There are over 97,000 properties owned by foreign firms in England and Wales.

Collectively, the Royal family owns 180,550 acres of land, or roughly 282 square miles with an elite of less than 1% of the population owning half of England with a few thousand dukes, baronets and City bankers now owning far more land than all of Middle England put together.

As Mark Twain once said, “buy land: they’re not making it anymore” – and in England, its scarcity has made it so sought-after that land values have increased fivefold since 1995.

Just over 400 hectares (1,000 acres) of central London’s super-prime real estate belongs to the Crown, the Church, and four wealthy aristocratic estates.

Over 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) of the English uplands are tied up in huge grouse-moor estates owned by around 150 people. The Duke of Northumberland, whose family lineage stretches back to Domesday, owns 40,468 hectares (100,000 acres) – a tenth of his home county.

Corporations own around 18% of England and Wales.

The Crown Estate owns London’s Regent Street, including the freehold for Apple’s flagship UK store, from which the Crown collects more rent than from all its agricultural land.

The National Trust owns around a fifth of the Lake District National Park in Cumbria.

The Duchy of Cornwall owns London’s Oval Cricket Ground, Maiden Castle in Dorset (above) and Ham Hill in Somerset.

Paternoster Square in the City of London, home of the London Stock Exchange, is owned by the Church Commissioners.

The Crown still owns the freehold OF the Houses of Parliament.

The housing crisis hasn’t been caused by a sudden rise in the price of bricks and mortar, but rather in the value of the land on which homes are built.

The vast gap in living standards between the precariat and the executive class are all to some extent the result of increased foreign ownership of almost everything that continue to call ‘British’.

There is hope, however to be fair few countries will escape the fever that’s upon this world – Climate change.

A fever for which the only cure is the unconditional metamorphosis of man himself, washed through and through, cleansed of that reckless hubris which has brought us to this tipping point of all of us having to live without the all gentle arts that nature had so diligently taught us.

The tide is turning upon mankind. Now it is our turn to be on the receiving end.

In the coming years Climate Change will make the cost of living we see to day ingenuous, compared to what is in store.

No man or woman can turn his or hers back for long upon her simmering powers.

When it comes to climate no man can lay claim to having pacified and sold her soul – because passivity was not on her agenda, and her soul was never for sale. And those who sought to profit from her bounty will soon leave empty handed; for that time, prophesied of old, has finally come. And yes, nature it is that once again rises up in defiance of all attempts to bring her under the control of those who would use and abuse her for their private wealth and make of her a platform for staging their profit driven foreign wars.

Not even the vicious technologically engineered destruction of our climate can suppress the rising winds of change that are upon this scarred and battered jewel called Earth. It can only increase their velocity.

The result is only too obvious with unstable work, often poorly paid, and increasingly inadequate to support a family. It is unsurprising therefore that there has been a sharp increase in poverty much of it in families in full-time work.

Prepare yourselves for the deluge – a great cleansing is upon the island; a cleansing that will jolt befuddled minds into memories of great stories of other eras, when lands were not swallowed by mighty acts of nature.

You were so proud to turn away from nature and forge your industrial steel into the wheels of the brave new world of mass consumerism  you new face a heavy price for its blinkered, stubborn occupants, who for so long turned a blind eye on deeper truths and refused to look upon the blood encrusted pages of your colonial history.

Oh England, my England, so where is your soul today?

————————

At this point you may well be asking what if anything can be done?

The master Conservative plan is levelling up. The big idea for post – Brexit Britain.

It identifies six capitals: physical capital (i.e. infrastructure and housing), human capital (skills and health), intangible capital (ideas and innovations), financial capital (business finance), social capital (community and public trust), and institutional capital  (local leadership).

The plan comes at a defining moment but it will fail to devolve enough power and money.

Why?

Because the places that have an abundance are now in a virtuous circle, where the different capitals reinforce one another.

Because is not matched by the scale of investment or the proposed solutions. Missing are a clear set of mechanisms that break the vicious cycles in places that are lacking in the six capitals.

Because this work has to be done at the local level because places face different challenges and have different growth potential.

Because if there is going to any levelling up is going to happen centrally from Whitehall.

Because the existing system for distributing money is highly complex  inequality will be aggravated and come to the forefront in the next general election.

Levelling up is a scatter gun approach for votes and it is on this feeling that the Government’s future electoral hopes hang.

IN THE END HERE IS THE BEADY EYE’S ADVICE TO WHO EVER GETS INTO POWER.

APART FROM A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION,  MAKE EDUCATION FREE AND BRING BACK A YEAR OF NATIONAL SERVICE TO TEACH THE VALUES THAT ARE NECESSARY AND FUNDEMENTAL TO THE FONDATIONS OF ANY NATION.  PUT THE PEOPLE FIRST NOT THE GDP.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HAVE WE ALL GONE BONKERS WHEN IT COMES TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

30 Tuesday Aug 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Climate Change., Disaster Capitalism., Environment, Human Collective Stupidity., Life., Natural World Disasters, Reality., State of the world, Telling the truth., The essence of our humanity., THE NEW NORM., The Obvious., The state of the World., Truth, Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, What is shaping our world., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HAVE WE ALL GONE BONKERS WHEN IT COMES TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

Tags

, , ,

Four minute listen.

( Five minute read)

The message is clear Climate Change is here and is already having a significant impact.

It is inconceivable that we still have people refusing to accept the facts that surround them,  even if they saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent they and unfortunately many of our present world leaders are blind to what is happing and what is to come.

How much more evidence do they and us need ?

MAKE YOUR MINDS UP!

The Evidence for Rapid Climate Change Is Compelling:

I’ve not noticed any changes in the weather outside of the norm or I don’t give a Fuck what is happing. I’d rather live on another planet, than on one where every aspect of your life is subject to rigorous scientific control is not possible.

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.Rivers and reservoirs have shrunk dramatically in the past 20 years

Right now there’s nothing like enough understanding.

Observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

Human activity is the principal cause. It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system.

However if there was meeting tomorrow of world leaders they would as before, argue that its not their responsibility, making promises that cannot be kept.

To have any chance of drilling into them the urgency of tackling climate change on a global scale perhaps it would be best to invite them all together in Gautama bay, take their mobile phone, starve them for a week and get them to write their last wills and testaments.

This might fired the starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels.

At this point you might be asking why is it so difficult for the world to take action.

The effort to control climate change impacts virtually every element of a country’s economy “so countries have traditionally been nervous about what they’re going to be asked to do.”

The idea that every five years countries would be asked to come up with more ambitious targets, ramping up their efforts is therefore bull shit.

“We are living in an interconnected global village with a common stake,” says Xi.

Hybrid wind-solar plant at Zaozhuang, China“All countries are closely connected and we share a common future. No country can gain from others’ difficulties or maintain stability by taking advantage of others’ troubles.”

“We should embrace the vision of a community with a shared future in which everyone is bound together,” he continues.  He is right!  Heart-stirring stuff, eh?

A cynic might think his reassuring words were partly a ploy to reingratiate China with the climate-conscious Europeans, and isolate a climate-sceptic US President MR DUMP. 

But there is a much more important broader context for his announcement:

Let’s be clear what it means:

China, the most polluting nation on earth – responsible for around 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions – is saying it is going cut that back to virtually zero within 40 years. The commitment is of significant because China has never promised anything near as bold as this on climate before. President Xi’s 2060 pledge was notably unconditional – China will move ahead whether or not other countries chose to follow.

Why?

Because the cost of renewables follows the logic of all manufacturing – the more you produce, the cheaper it gets. Why invest in new oil wells or coal power stations that will become obsolete before they can repay themselves over their 20-30-year life?

Why carry carbon risk in their portfolios at all?

It looks like Xi has judged that the economics of clean energy mean that decarbonising is now the most sensible choice for the Chinese economy as well as for the world’s climate.

So can we stop worrying about climate change?

Sadly we cannot.

It is going to take eye-popping investment in wind, solar and nuclear power.

Even as the economics tilts in favour of renewables the task of decarbonisation is still enormous. However once half the world is on-board with the project of decarbonisation it is hard to see how the rest could hold out.

Evidence of environmental damage and climate change everywhere. It’s the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. Tackling it means changing how we do virtually everything.

We are right to be anxious and afraid at the prospect.  Remember that by  2050 urban centres will hold 75% of the world population and 40% of them have no resilience plans in place, and have no plans to develop one in the hear future.  

Currently accounting for 70% of the worlds population and 70% of global GDP and 70% of CO2 emissions.

Don’t get me started on the food crisis.

You’ll be even more apprehensive if I was venture down that online rabbit hole.

Consider this conundrum:

When you talk to climate scientists you quickly discover they are far more worried about the dangers of global warming than most of us. Some tell you privately that they have had counselling to cope with the psychological effects of knowing the world is facing an impending disaster and not enough is being done.

Yes at this moment in history were in a mess.  Wars, Natural disasters, Energy, Rampant Inequality etc. On the right, I am alright Jack on the left just of a scream that will before defang in the next few years.

Leadership is action not position.

As Henry Miller said  ” No man is great enough or wise enough for any of us to surrender our destiny to. The only way in which anyone can lead us is to restore to us the belief in our own guidance. “

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

Contact: bobdillon33gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. I TOLD YOU SO IN NUMERIOUS POST WE STILL IGNORING CLIMATE CHANGE.

27 Saturday Aug 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. I TOLD YOU SO IN NUMERIOUS POST WE STILL IGNORING CLIMATE CHANGE.

Tags

, ,

( Three minute read)

Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound.

“People [who stand to be] most harmed by climate change aren’t even born yet.

Reducing emissions is no longer enough to insure against a catastrophic climate change outcome we need to invest now in adaptation.

It’s a tough pill to swallow, but modern conveniences like electricity, transportation, and air conditioning contribute to climate change, and remedies potentially involve significant sacrifice and lifestyle change.

There is no free lunch when it comes to overcoming climate change.

Without a definitive culprit, it’s easier for sceptics to ignore or explain away climate change effects.

However most of the world agrees it’s a danger, but how do we conquer it?

What’s holding us back?

The damage caused by most climate change pollutants will happen in the future.

Which means most of us won’t truly be affected by climate change — it’s a hypothetical scenario conveyed in charts and graphs. While we’d like politicians and voters to be moved by altruism, this isn’t always the case. In general, policymakers have little incentive to act until it comes home to roost on their back door.

Global climate is projected to continue warming over this century and beyond.

The degree of climate change and severity of impacts ultimately depend on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted by humans and how sensitive Earth’s climate is to those emissions.

Global climate change is not a future problem.

Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment and we all know what that means with more change are now occurring on a daily basis, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, with longer more intense heat waves, droughts, and flooding.

(Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed and some of these changes are irreversible.)

Recent satellite observations have detected that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice.

Even a partial loss of these ice sheets would cause a 1-meter (3-foot) rise. If lost completely, both ice sheets contain enough water to raise sea level by 66 meters (217 feet).

______________________

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities.

Climate change discussions typically focus on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But are emission-reduction scenarios realistic, and can they prevent substantial warming? Moreover, what happens if temperatures and sea levels climb despite these efforts?

Even if the United States and Europe — which currently account for 30% of global CO2 emissions — were to reduce their emissions next week to zero (an unlikely scenario), that would still leave 70% of emissions unaccounted for.

Counting on a best-case emissions scenario isn’t effective policy.

What if, despite our best efforts, we are simply unable to reduce emissions enough to prevent a temperature increase of 2°C or more? What then? Do we just wave our hands and say “Too bad”?

And if today we think that there is a strong possibility that (despite our best efforts) we are likely to experience a temperature increase greater than 2°C, what should we do?

Two degrees may not seem like a lot. Indeed you probably wouldn’t notice.

We are not talking here about a few weeks of a heat wave but the long term trends.

Have a look.

https://youtu.be/9GjrS8QbHmY 

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

Contact;  bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL WE FIND GOD WITH THE JAMES WEBB TELESCOPE

18 Thursday Aug 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, James Webb Telescope

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WILL WE FIND GOD WITH THE JAMES WEBB TELESCOPE

Tags

 

( Five minute read) 

This isn’t an easy question, because in order to understand where something came from, we have to first know precisely what it is.

Despite all we know, there are some epic unknowns that have no solution at present.

When it comes to the Universe if we want to know how it got to be that way, we have to apply the laws of physics to the Universe, and follow the evolution of the physical systems that we know exist.

To answer any physical question, you must ask the Universe itself.

Newton stands on Einstein who in turn stands on the work of some future theorist. Each offers a closer approximation to a core reality, but not necessarily the “whole truth.”

But no matter when in the past or the future we would’ve asked this question, taking a scientific approach to it would always yield the same cosmic story.

Here’s where we are today.

We know that our planet, like every other planet in the Universe, is made of atoms.

We know that planets both float freely through the galaxy and also orbit stars.

We know how gravitation works.

We know how electromagnetism works.

We know how the nuclear forces work.

We know hydrogen and helium, when we examine the cosmos, are everywhere. In fact, they’re so abundant that they make up over 99% of the atoms in the Universe; fewer than 1% of the atoms out there, by number, are anything heavier.

We know, based on the observed facts of the Universe, that it must have been born with the seeds of what would become its large-scale structure: an initial spectrum of over dense and under dense regions.

We know it is expanding, cooling, and becoming gravitationally “clumpier” over time, that tells us that, early on, the Universe was smaller, denser, hotter, and more uniform than it is today.

We know how to time-evolve any physical system that we start off with.

Put simply, if you give a physicist a set of initial conditions that describe the system, they can write down equations that govern the evolution of that system, and can tell you — to the limits of the uncertainty and indeterminism inherent to nature — what the outcome (or probabilistic set of outcomes) of that system will be at any point in the future.

Fortunately, when we look out into the Universe, we see the very processes that are required for this to occur in action.

__________________________

What could be more complicated than the universe itself, which contains everything complicated we know, including galaxies, proteins and manuals for assembling robots.

That’s what the Universe is.

But what happens when the answers aren’t around anymore? The farther back we go, we find we run into an inevitable problem:  The Universe cannot provide answers beyond a certain point.

                                           ————————–

Scientific facts are not simply discovered but rather constructed through a social process that depends partly on the status and prestige of the people involved.

Unlike philosophers of the ancient world, cosmologists are not just trying to out-argue one another with their theories. They are measuring, sometimes with breath-taking precision, the concrete physical parameters on which our understanding of the universe is based.

Reality abides by rules of logic and that theories can be improved based on how well their predictions fit with observations.  Something that is independent of human belief systems and political rhetoric.

Scientists, whatever their initial starting points, are converging on a singular truth.

In other words, the evidence we draw from the natural world should ultimately be pointing us toward the same description of reality.

In an era when scientific facts guide our responses to pandemics, climate change and other pressing challenges our understanding of the universe of galaxies, stars, penguins and people is never more important. Our universe is the only piece of reality seemingly capable of producing life, including creatures with the capacity to wonder what reality is all about.

Is life just a chance by-product of nature’s laws or necessary aspect of them?

James Webb Space Telescope

Recent images from the newly commissioned James Webb Space Telescope are revealing something bigger than humans and their social networks.

Light from the cosmic dawn of the universe has always been there, coming down towards us, carrying tales from the edge of time itself.

Now, with the help of the James Weep telescope , we can finally meet the faint luminous glow from the period immediately following the Big Bang.

                                                    —————————-

The James Webb Space Telescope is already discovering new worlds. Filling the gaps in chemical evolution?

It will allow for the detection of chemical signatures from galaxies formed billions of years ago and compare them with newer systems.

I suppose its real goal is explain the natural phenomena of the Universe without resorting to spirits, evil influences, established authority, or God, but rather on the basis of principles or laws of nature. 

Psychologically the Universe was once filled with gods and angels that are now vanishing replaced with emptiness except for matter and forces.

So heaven if it exists is in a separate spiritual realm that does not lie within the physical universe. Neither we or gods are essential to the universe.  Yet Physics claims to define physical reality, treating humans as objects, so we are left wondering whether anything in the Universe recognized us as more than that.

Perhaps we were just a random occurrence on a average planet and uncaring scheme of things.

                                                               ——————

If you want to see what the Webb is looking at the next time you look up at the stars imagine that you have lost you memory and there is only this moment. 

You are not conscious of any moment before this one.

You are alive but how did you get to this spot on which you are standing or lying down.

You have no idea. Who are you?  There is no answer. 

You are like a robot with hormones. You have lost your soul.  You are the latest improved model, believing in the latest programs. This is all you know. 

Instead imagine that you can send your consciousness back at the speed of light.  Down the countless generations to your primate ancestors, thought all the animals that ever existed, into a single cell with the complex chemicals that made it possible, into the elementary particles in the Big Bang. 

This is science of the Webb. 

You are all this. The sum total of all history.  Who much of your own identity do you claim – its up to you but the story of origins continues to belong solely to religion.

The trouble with finding god will be as always which god will it be. 

In the end the James Webb has comparatively simpler problem of understanding the nature of the universe at large.

Anything could happen.

We may not have teleportation yet, but we are going boldly (visually) where no human has ever gone before!  

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

Contact.   bobdillon33@gmail.com

https://anchor.fm/s/54b17390/podcast/rss

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE HAD TWELVE TO SAVE THE PLANET.

03 Wednesday Aug 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE HAD TWELVE TO SAVE THE PLANET.

Tags

, , , , ,

(Four minute read) 

Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Right now, we are losing the fight against climate change AND THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE SOCIETY COULD COLLAPSE AS SOON AS 2050 IF SERIOUS MITIGATION ACTIONS ARENT TAKEN IN THE NEXT DECADE.

Right now we will have to alter our trajectory very quickly if we wish to have a good chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Right now there’s nothing like enough understanding of, or commitment to REDUCING CARBON EMMISSIONS.

Right now the risks the world runs if this limit is ignored is life will survive, but not life as we know it.

Right now we have barely started to think about how to apply sufficient pressure on our governments 

Right now emissions reductions by efficiency improvement — vital though that is, are and will be inadequate.

Right now, we are heading towards 3C of heating by 2100 not 1.5.

Right now current plans are nowhere near strong enough to keep temperatures below the so-called safe limit.

We need to shift the world on to a different investment and green growth path right now.

                         ———————————-

The natural tendencies are either to do nothing, while insisting there is no problem, or to agree there is a problem, while merely pretending to act.

It is not clear which form of obfuscation is worse.

Above all, climate change involves huge distributional issues — between rich countries and poor ones, between countries that caused the problem and those that did not, between countries that matter for the solution and those that do not and, not least, between people today, who make the decisions, and people tomorrow, who suffer the results.

Without question, 2020 is a hard deadline for that leadership to finally manifest itself.

But if there’s ongoing political turmoil around climate change then the government may not have the bandwidth to unpick the multiple global challenges that climate change presents.

The sense that the end of next year is the last chance saloon for climate change is becoming clearer all the time. Decisions taken on climate change in the next year or so will be critical, up to one million species could be lost in coming decades.

Political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

The profound urgency for ambitious climate action is still patchy even though we are now witness to a collective convergence of public mobilisation, worsening climatic impacts and dire scientific warnings that compel decisive climate leadership.

If we don’t see that don’t hold your breath!

Consider what the future could be, picking up the mantle against climate change may not seem so bad after all.

 Its up to us to start using our buy power to force change. ( See previous post) 

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨