THE BEADY EYE ASKS : Why those the universe exists rather than nothing.

06 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS : Why those the universe exists rather than nothing.

I am sure like me you have at some time looked up an wondered where does space stop.

My unscientific language does not seem to lend itself well to this topic nor my understanding of the Universe or God.

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves is and will be a mystery long after I have departed this world.

Some how for me the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed.

It seems impossible even if proven chromatically that all the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. Into to a tiny fireball that then exploded and gave rise to our early universe.

Lets say that again.

“All matter in the universe was once in a single point — the Big Bang singularity.”

But that’s not quite true because in Einstein’s formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached.

So what was there before the bang?

This is cosmology’s most fundamental question:

How did the universe begin?

The universe as we know it almost certainly started some 14 billion years ago. But was that the absolute beginning, or was there something before it?  This question seems like the kind of question that can never be truly answered because every time someone proposes a solution, someone else can keep asking the annoying question: What happened before that- God?

“If God existed in time, once time existed and time had a first moment, then God would have a first moment of existence.”

There would be a moment before which He did not exist, because there was no ‘before’ that moment . . . . Yet even if He . . . had a first moment of existence, one could still call God’s existence unlimited were it understood that He would have existed even if time did not.

I suppose it might be easier to get you head around  the Psalmist’s description of God: ” From everlasting to everlasting”

No.

I must admit it difficult to see how can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence but Religion’s central beliefs is that mankind needs a savior.

However, that belief becomes hard to sustain convincingly if we posit that a god created the universe and then let things make themselves via purely physical processes, because then sin and death aren’t the fault of man, but merely natural byproducts of the god-makes-things-make-themselves process. Sin and death, on that scheme, are no longer man’s fault, but God’s choice, for he must have known that these things would emerge via the stated process.

Still confused.  Don’t worry so am I.

When we look up we see a universe filled with grand cosmic structures — galaxies, clusters of galaxies, clusters of clusters called superclusters, and clusters of superclusters called galaxy filaments — some of the latter stretching a billion or more light-years across.

It therefore does not make sense to me that the universe has a non-existent state (or nothing) and so must be eternal in the sense of being persistent rather than necessarily temporally eternal (presumably the universe does not require the quality of time to exist).

So, strict nothing cannot logically or physically exist.

It’s simply hilarious that the Big Bang is asserted as having started with a form of physics that is completely unknown, and to validate it we have to use “dark energy” that is equally unobservable and unmeasurable.

These days we see big ideas like this do change, and it’ll be fun to see if this one does!

Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.”

But what if we did not need a singularity to have a Big Bang?  Or could our universe’s Big Bang be an implosion of a previous universe?

What if our universe has no beginning or end? It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang.

What if the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. This would eliminate the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. ( to be more precise)

The Big Bang model of the universe suggests that our entire universe came from a single point, what scientists call a

However the  big bang has been a fact of most of our lives since we were born. Presented as some sort of explosion that caused expansion that is to this day still expanding and will continue to do so for entirety.

Where does that leave us.

According to present day scientists when we look up we are looking into the past not the future.

However consider the following.

  1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.

2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.

3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, since the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

4. The universe began to exist.

From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.

From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.

From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, since the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked is what everybody means by God.

Now, in atomic processes, the notions of space and time are no more than statistical notions ; they fade out when applied to individual phenomena involving but a small number of quanta.

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta.

If the future development of quantum theory happens to turn in that direction, we could conceive the beginning of the universe in the form of a unique atom, the atomic weight of which is the total mass of the universe. The whole story of the world need not have been written down in the first quantum like a song on the disc of a phonograph. The whole matter of the world must have been present at the beginning.

So did the big bang happened everywhere.

Some are claiming that the cosmos as a whole—the so-called “multiverse”—is eternal, but that it contains infinitely many individual universes (a consequence of modern inflation theory). This eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened.

Einstein described the universe as static, rather than expanding, but he later abandoned the concept as his “greatest blunder” after Edwin Hubble’s 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our Local Group are moving away from each other.

Rapid inflation in every direction also explained why the universe we now observe is so homogeneous, and why the temperature of the background radiation left over from that primordial blast is uniform, in every patch of the sky, to one part in 100,000. The process of inflation had to be eternal, meaning that once it started, it never fully stopped.

If the universe were always inflating, and always expanding, would that imply that the universe itself was eternal and had no beginning?

Nothing can be created from nothing.” energy can neither be created nor destroyed, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself.

A universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton.

Come from nothing in the sense of their being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics.

But where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time?

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein’s general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past.

Quantum Mechanics also says that what ever can happen, does happen. That means that we should be seeing Universes popping put of nowhere spontaneously all the time.

Neither QM theories explains what is dark matter.  An invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes. It is made of what?

A part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic “bounce,” where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding.

In the end none of us a supply a creditable explanation.

When we get more powerful telescopes that can see “further back in time” (or farther away in physical space), we’ll start to see a wide array of galaxies, both old and young that would be common in any direction we would choose to look . . . because it’s the same universe everywhere.

Sorry that’s the best I can come up with. There are a few links below to help you make your mind up.

There is no Universe of existence other than now and now never comes into being.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SHOUTS SHAME ON US. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION.

03 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SHOUTS SHAME ON US. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION.

Tags

,

For crying out loud there can be no heart that has not being moved by the latest picture from the Mediterranean Shores.A Turkish border guard carries the body of a migrant child after a number of migrants died and a smaller number were reported missing after boats carrying them to the Greek island of Kos capsized, near the Turkish resort of Bodrum

If there is they don’t represent me. 

Europe for god sake of all places in the world has seen enough death in its history.

There is no point to a European Union if it can not united to help people fleeing War.

While Europe is squabbling, people are dying.

It time to stop the political diarrhea.

Some countries, like Sweden and Germany, are being generous with their acceptance of refugees, but warn that they cannot be this generous forever. Other countries, like Britain, are strictly applying regulations to dissuade migrants and asylum seekers, while opposing a European Commission proposal in June for mandatory quotas for settlement, to help share the burden.

There is no European Union standard for asylum; no common list of countries regarded as in conflict, and thus more likely to produce refugees; and no collective centers where asylum seekers can be met, housed, fed and screened.

On the Greek crisis, “we had one meeting after another at the highest level,”  these are people not money perhaps that is the difference.

For crying out loud get your fingers out of your self loving arse holes. 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE HIPPOCRATIC NATIONS SELLING ARMS.

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Arms Trade.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE HIPPOCRATIC NATIONS SELLING ARMS.

Tags

, , , , , ,

There is no doubt that the gun has had more influence in changing the course of history than any other competitor – money/Capitalism, Credit, or the Internet and the good news is that the international arms trade is still booming to this day. story-thumb-nail-image

In September this year the Docklands in East London will play host to DSEI 2015, a biennial government-sponsored arms fair that is among the biggest in the world.

DSEI, which will be unimpeded by the Arms Trade Treaty, will bring hundreds of major arms companies and arms dealers together with some of the worst dictators and warmongering regimes.

At the same time 300,000 are fleeing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, while ISIS flattens world heritage, destabilizes, beheads with American arms all that come in its path, while Israel grabs Palestinian land and Americans have the right to arms to kill each other,

This deadly carnival of the grotesque could not take place without the practical and political support of government ministers and their departments.

The promotions don’t stop at hosting arms fairs and trade missions.

Britain even has a government department dedicated to the promotion of arms sales: the UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organization (UKTI DSO). Despite its obscure name and low profile, UKTI DSO is right at the heart of the government’s support for the arms trade, employing 128 civil servants for the sole purpose of boosting international arms sales.

Arms sales, which fuel insecurity and abuse around the world, only account for 1.4 per cent of British exports and just 0.2 per cent of the jobs.

On top of that, the industry receives an annual public subsidy, which one study estimates to be around $1 billion. The mindset that puts helping companies secure lucrative (for them, not the taxpayer) deals before all else.

The simple fact is that Britain, and other countries, could stop arming tyrants right now.

Britain has consistently pulled out all stops to try to maximize them.

Every year the government publishes its Human Rights and Democracy Report; the most recent report listed 28 ‘countries of concern’ and yet in the last 12 months it has licensed weapons to at least 18 of them.

That doesn’t need an Arms Trade Treaty. It needs the political will.

Soldiers patrolling Monrovia, Liberia, 2003

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.”

The boundaries between the formal arms trade and “the shadow world” are extremely fuzzy.

The arms industry is unlike any other. The industry is hardwired for corruption. It is responsible for 40% of all corruption in world trade. It operates without regulation. It makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.

Armed conflict was responsible for 231m deaths last century.

Respect for human rights is often overlooked as arms are sold to known human rights violators.

These weapons land up in places you don’t want or expect them to.

You might say that the arms trade may not always be a root cause, because there are often various geopolitical interests etc. However, the sale of arms can be a significant contributor to problems because of the enormous impact of the weapons involved. Furthermore, some oppressive regimes are only too willing purchase more arms under the pretext of their own war against terrorism.

This rush to globalize arms production and sales ignores the grave humanitarian and strategic consequences of global weapons proliferation.

Industrialized countries negotiate free trade and investment agreements with other countries, but exempt military spending from the liberalizing demands of the agreement. Since only the wealthy countries can afford to devote billions on military spending, they will always be able to give their corporations hidden subsidies through defence contracts, and maintain a technologically advanced industrial capacity.

And so, in every international trade and investment agreement one will find a clause which exempts government programs and policies deemed vital for national security. Here is the loophole that allows the maintenance of corporate subsidies through virtually unlimited military spending.

So who profits most from this murderous trade?

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, together with Germany and Italy  are responsible for eighty-eight per cent of the arms sold between 2004 and 2011.

Each year, around $45-60 billion worth of arms sales are agreed.  That is $235 for every person on the planet.

Most of these sales (something like 75%) are to developing countries.

World military spending has now reached one trillion dollars, close to Cold War levels. Recent data shows global spending at over $1.7 trillion. 2012 saw the first dip in spending — only slightly —since 1998, in an otherwise rising trend.

The highest military spender is the US accounting for almost two-fifths of the world’s spending, more than the rest of the G7 (most economically advanced countries) combined, and more than all its potential enemies, combined.

While international attention is focused on the need to control weapons of mass destruction, the trade in conventional weapons continues to operate in a legal and moral vacuum.

  • More and more countries are starting to produce small arms, many with little ability or will to regulate their use.
  • Permanent UN Security Council members—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China—dominate the world trade in arms.
  • Most national arms controls are riddled with loopholes or barely enforced.
  • Key weaknesses are lax controls on the brokering, licensed production, and ‘end use’ of arms.
  • Arms get into the wrong hands through weak controls on firearm ownership, weapons management, and misuse by authorised users of weapons.

Arms sales (agreements) by the Leading Recipient Developing Nations, 2004-2011 (in billions of current U.S. dollars)

Ranked Country               Amount spent               Percent of total

1 Saudi Arabia                       75.7                            21%
2 India                                  46.6                             13%
3 UAE                                    20.3                               6%
4 Egypt                                 14.3                               4%
5 Pakistan                             13.2                               4%
6 Venezuela                          13.1                               4%
7 Brazil                                  10.9                                3%
8 Algeria                                10.3                               3%
9 Israel                                  9.5                                 3%
10 South Korea                      9.2                                 2%
11 All other developing countries 145.168                  39%

Arms sales (agreements), by Supplier, 2004-2011 (in billions of constant 2011 U.S. dollars)

Supplier                     Total Sales in US Dollars(billions)                    Percent                                                                                                            of Total                                                                                                              Sales

United States Sales to Developing countries: $151.644bn (69%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $68.964bn (31%)220.608 44%
Russia Sales to Developing countries: $79.078bn (95%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $4.245bn (5%)83.323 17%
France Sales to Developing countries: $27.491bn (66%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $14.469bn (34%)41.96 8%
United Kingdom Sales to Developing countries: $25.869bn (96%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $1.168bn (4%)27.037 5%
China Sales to Developing countries: $17.601bn (99%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $0.207bn (1%)17.808 4%
Germany Sales to Developing countries: $11.046bn (51%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $11.022bn (49%)22.068 4%
Italy Sales to Developing countries: $8.652bn (61%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $5.626bn (39%)14.278 3%
Other European Sales to Developing countries: $26.999bn (56%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $21.26bn (44%)48.259 10%
Others Sales to Developing countries: $19.887bn (74%)Sales to Industrialized countries: $7.222bn (26%)27.109 5%

Perhaps at the forthcoming Climate Change Summit in Paris we should arm all the delegates. As we all seem bent on self-destruction why wait for climate change to start off the wars that are inevitably on the horizon.

To stop Wars,  ” We must take the profit out of war by taking the profit out of arms deals.”

If you are interested here is what is happening to your Planet.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE WRITES AN OTHER OPEN LETTER TO THE PARIS SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

31 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, European Union., Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE WRITES AN OTHER OPEN LETTER TO THE PARIS SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

31st August 2015.

Dear Delegate,

When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.

There is no point in spending a lovely week in Paris talking about what should be done about Climate change and coming up with an agreement to cut emissions by placing A Price Tag on carbon.

The true financial costs of climate change is away beyond any price tag or unenforceable agreement.

What value do we place on the ocean’s coral reefs and the myriad animals they support, and how do we weigh their loss against other values? What price tag do you put on a species of bird or fish or mammal which, once gone, will never return?

How does humanity weigh moral accountability if our own carbon emissions contributed to that destruction?

Isn’t it about a sustainable planet? A sustainable and biologically diverse planet?

Most likely our descendants will be left to adapt to a warmer world where greater climatic uncertainties, depleted resources and human migrations, amongst other, will be the norm.

If climate change affects not only a country’s economic output but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon than any price tag agreed.

The economic damage caused by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions – often referred to as the “social cost” of carbon – will actually be far higher than any of us can imagine.

There is no solution to an event that is all ready taking place.

There can only be a change to the event or a confinement to the end result.

If there is no solution to how the world is going to finance this change your and you fellow delegates might as well go home and bask in the sunshine of an agreement that is as porous as the paper it is written on.

In his fascinating book “Catastrophe: Risk and Response”, published in 2004, Richard Posner argues that we do not do enough to hedge against catastrophic risks such as climate change, asteroid impacts or bioterrorism.

In light of the “competition” of existential risks, how much should humanity invest in the mitigation of climate change?

The answer is:  Human extinction is a risk we all share—and it would be an unprecedented event that can happen only once.

Growth at all costs is the mantra of the technological world we live. Climate policies that require public sacrifice and limiting economic growth are doomed to failure.

Believe in the current pledge-and-review mechanism is a farce.

From current projections we know that climate change will pose a serious challenge by 2040 for many organisations. Putting a true economic cost on these risks can act as a catalyst to taking action today in order to help organisations better prepare for the future.

There is only one way to achieve this and that is the creation of a World Aid Commission or tax on profit   for profit sake.

Would you rather have a one percent tax increase on everyone in the country or kill one percent of the population?  This will not work as the cost of collection and administration, or culling, would out weigh any benefits.

The solution is a Universal 0.05% commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions (over $20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions and on all Drilling Wells.  

This will create a perpetual Fund to tackle the world problems.  

 

The expected loss to society because of catastrophic climate change is so large that it cannot be reliably estimated.

Climate policies should flow with the current of public opinion rather than against it, and efforts to sell the public on policies that will create short-term economic discomfort. People are willing to bear costs to reduce emissions, but they are only willing to go so far.

The Dangerous Underestimation of Climate

Change’s Cost and the

financing of any agreement is self-evident.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE TAKES A LOOK AT WHAT HUMANITY HAS ACHIEVED TO DATE.

28 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by in Environment, Humanity., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE TAKES A LOOK AT WHAT HUMANITY HAS ACHIEVED TO DATE.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The most accurate simulation of the human brain ever has been carried out, but a single second’s worth of activity took one of the world’s largest supercomputers 40 minutes to calculate.Men’s and women's brains are wired differently

SO LET’S HAVE A LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED SINCE WE CAME DOWN OUT OF THE TREES AND STOOD UPRIGHT.

( I am sure there will be many gaps in what I write here so you will have plenty of ammunition to comment. Those of you who are shadow people lead by the like button feel free to press it. )

Right: On your marks we off.

At first we were of no significance till we discovered that we could walk up right, discovered fire, tools, and language. We became foragers/ hunters with no hierarchy spreading all over the world providing there was a land bridge developing new weapons and new clothing due to climate change and perhaps unfriendly rivals.

All that changed when we began to devote our efforts to manipulating the lives of animals and plants. The Farmer had arrived. More babies to be fed, so we burnt down forests and planted wheat thus becoming wheat slaves living in settled artificial enclaves dedicated to growing wheat.

Because of this we discovered writing and numbers, money and religion.

This lead to placing a material value not just on possession but on ourselves resulting in a conscious effort to create laws, customs, procedures, to run societies.

By this time with the human brain going into hibernation due to all the information that needed to be stored we are well on the way to creating religious gods, empires, armies, taxes, etc  Thus the arrival of bureaucracy, rulers, social division, ruling classes, slaver, gun power, the wheel and sea worthy ships.

Of course building, pollution, masculine dominance and exploration were now in full swing and it’s not long before the world is dividing into Empires of different cultures, different languages, different belief, most still using their legs and horses with the odd set of wheels to get around.

The Roman empire broke up, the Mongol empire went to pieces, the Chines empire built a wall, America and Europe did not know each other existed. Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world.

90% of humans lived in a single mega world ; the world of Afro- Asia the rest lived in America, central America, the Andean world, the Australian world, islands of the Pacific.

They were all swallowed up by the Afro-Asian world.

Resources were plentiful. Till along came How Much is it.  Money the foundation of Greed and cooperation between strangers drastically reducing diversity. The first step to we becoming US against the Rest.

The European Industrial Imperial steamroller gradually obliterated our uniqueness.

The Spanish quashed the Inca, Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigate the globe, Marco Polo gave the Vatican a Chines map of America, they sending Columbus off to discover it, while Queen Vic with the help of Darwin, Livingstone, Nelson, expanded the British Empire with ball and chain, cannon.

At this stage there is no evidence that history is working for the benefit of humans. Science, engineering, flight, medical advances, power, religious rightness, profit, wealth, corruption, greed and reckless plundering of the earths resources, ignorance, and credit now come into play.

Empirical observations are being put together with the help of mathematical tools.

All of this cost money and it did much more than just charting the universe, mapping the planet and cataloging the animals than did Galileo, Columbus and Darwin. If there had being no funds or these geniuses and they had not being born we would be still waiting on some others to do so.

Of course none of the above is in strict chronological order and I have left out, Michelangelo Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, William Shakespeare, Bach, Confucius, Aristotle, Newton, to mention a few but I hope you get the gist.

I grow sick and tired of all the same old lies
I might be a little young, so what’s wrong?
You don’t have to be old to be wise

— Judas Priest

Anyway it is suffice to say that European imperialism was entirely unlike all other imperial projects.

So here we are. WE CREATED THE WORLD THAT YOU SEE AROUND YOU.
After numerous wars and two million years of being marginal creatures, thirteen odd billion years after the big bang we have arrived at the Capitalist creed OF THE FREE MARKET and a belief that Science which is about 500 years old can solve all our problems.
The question is how many people want to live in a world that you see around you.
We need to ignite a second cognitive revolution. It is unclear whether bio engineering could really resurrect Neanderthals. Tinkering with our genes won’t necessarily kill us. But we might fiddle to such an extent that we would no longer be Homo sapiens.
ayn rand apollo 11 human achievement day
In a previous post I asked what do we want to become. A human who stood on the moon and saw a dying world that could be so beautiful if we learned to share.
                                               Paradise Lost or Found.
Unlike other animals, we humans need to create the means for our physical survival as well as our spiritual well-being. We need to figure out how to acquire food, build shelters, cure illnesses, build cities, travel to the Moon, and create everything that deserves the label “civilization.”
Take a moment to look around you. Reflect on your own achievements and take pride in them. Reflect on the virtues that have allowed you to achieve the things you value.
The potential for human achievement is endless, but only if we truly value achievement and appreciate that the achievements we create in our modern world are manifestations of the moral virtues we each create in our character. Not Twitter, not Face book, not the internet, or the web of everything, not Google, not Apple.
If there’s one thing that many science and reality-minded people tend to do quite a bit, it’s over analyze every little detail.
The answer is right in front of your eyes . Open them.
We must tap Greed by creating a World Aid Fund by placing 0.05% commission on all High Frequency Stock Exchange Transactions, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $20.000. on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all new Drilling wells. ( See previous Posts)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHO IS A REFUGEE?

25 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in European Union., Humanity., Politics., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHO IS A REFUGEE?

Tags

, , , ,

Understanding the problems confronting refugees—and those striving to protect them—depends on grasping precise legal definitions.

The core definition of a “refugee” is contained in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, which define a refugee as an individual who: “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

With biggest driving force for change still to manifest itself: It seem to me that the definition is long over due a revamp.

Climate Change will like the Internet have a profound effect on the world.

The Internet alone has assisted the creation of wars, by highlighting the inequalities that exist between the have and have not’s. It is exposing Capitalism and the free Market for what it real is. It is unveiling corruption, challenging the mass media and assisting mass immigration by generating sizeable networks to deal with the any obstacles set in their paths.

Climate change will change any definition of undocumented aliens asylum seekers. It will displace millions, impacting on the economy, by having a positive affecting on some groups and negatively others.

Trade agreements like the TTPI will weaken the case of those who would venture a rigid and single-factor comparison between “political” immigration and “economic” immigration.

We can expect the migratory issue to become increasingly political. A more rational approach would be to consider who the illegal immigrants are, before making immigration laws.

Much of Europe’s brewing migration debate carries a polarized tone of certainty, and migrants themselves are often slotted into neat “political” and “economic” categories.

You can see this at the moment as the EU struggles to establish who are political refugees and illegal immigration, on the role of economic versus non-economic factors. The definition Refugee has and is being ignored.

Is it possible to distinguish between the poverty of “condition” and the poverty of “position”?

Poverty, while a commonly cited factor “pushing” migration, is difficult to define.

In the former situation, the two main factors are a lack of employment and steady income, which prompt a feeling of having “nothing to lose.”Their biggest concern and expectation is to improve their physical well-being, something they regard as impossible at home.

This element has also got a growing home-grown element of poverty due to unemployment, no hours contracts, and exploration of the vulnerable within the EU.

Poverty of position, in contrast, involves migrants who use emigration as a way of more rapidly climbing the social ladder. These migrants feel that their income and position in their home country will never match their social capital (for example, their level of formal education or training). They move to places where they believe they can realize their aspirations.

Theses generic terms therefore covers a wide range of facts but Violence and Conflict are the leading causes of the current wave of migration [to Europe]

It is rooted in the crazy [U.S.] idea to launch an intervention in Iraq, which allegedly had weapons of mass destruction, but nothing was found.” A disaster that destabilized the Middle East giving rise of terrorism that we now see to-day.

However some of the blame for many asylum seekers is not wars.

For example, persecution is not necessarily imposed by the government or other official institutions in their country of origin. Some may face violence at the hands of mafia networks, armed groups, or a dominant majority group in connection with factors that are not directly political, such as ethnicity.

Others may be threatened for having a lifestyle that involves a socially unacceptable choice of spouse, sexual orientation, etc. As a result, some people are threatened and persecuted without fully meeting the demands of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

The long the short and tall of it is that Northern Africa today can no longer defend Europe from the immense masses of people on the move.

As Europe turns its back, these are refugees, not migrants, are arriving in their thousands on Greek shores .

The number thought to be in the UK could be as high as 863,000 – larger than the population of Leeds. By comparison, Italy was thought to have up to 461,000, Germany had 457,000, France’s top estimate was 400,000 and Spain had 354,000. Greece, it is estimated that about 100.000-150.000 undocumented refugees and migrants enter Greece each year, among them maybe around 10.000 unaccompanied minors.

Refugees and other vulnerable people deserve the protection and assistance to which they are entitled under international law. Rather then the inhumane treatment seen in the below:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/streams-refugees-flow-macedonia-greece-150823072040825.html

In a wide range of countries, attitudes toward immigrants appear to be related to labor-market concerns, security and cultural considerations, as well as individual feelings toward political refugees and illegal immigration.

Are attitudes toward foreigners influenced by economic considerations or are they driven exclusively by non-economic issues?

At what point do we as citizens of the EU conclude that these people have already suffered enough and deserve to be aided in their flight to safety?

Without legal alternative routes for refugees to enter other European countries, people fleeing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere have taken matters into their own hands

The future of Europe, will be determined by its ability to confront the issue of immigration. Whatever the attitude of the government, population pressure will be immense on Europe and there is no chance to prevent such migration.

On the one hand, the Fortress Europe concept essentially focuses on the role of external border controls and neglects the entry and settlement of clandestine immigrants and undocumented aliens. At the same time, border controls, deportations, mass arrests, and internment of migrants in closed centers and prisons invalidate the thesis of Europe as a sieve.

Europe, which is neighbor to many war zones takes in more than 1.5 million legal migrants.

Overall, forced displacement numbers in Europe totalled 6.7 million at the end of the year, compared to 4.4 million at the end of 2013, and with the largest proportion of this being Syrians in Turkey and Ukrainians in the Russian Federation. Syria’s ongoing war, with 7.6 million people displaced internally, and 3.88 million people displaced into the surrounding region and beyond as refugees, has alone made the Middle East the world’s largest producer and host of forced displacement. Adding to the high totals from Syria was a new displacement of least 2.6 million people in Iraq and 309,000 newly displaced in Libya.

Today, Libya, between 500,000 and one million people aspire to come to Europe.

With population growth of 7% or 8% in Africa, against just over 1% here, migratory pressure is mechanical.

It is not possible or desirable that Europe opens its doors to every tom dick and harry. On the other hand it not possible to address the situation with 4-meter (13-foot) high fence on its borders like Hungary, or We need to build a wall, we need to keep illegals out,” Donald Trump said at last Thursday’s GOP debate.

I for one do not want to be represented by Israeli or Berlin wall.

It needs policies that better serve the interests of both nations and immigrants.

It is beyond me that we cannot move FRONTEX (It coordinates EU States’ actions in the implementation of EU border management measures.) from Warsaw (Poland) to some where useful.  So far this year, more than 180,000 migrants have reached Greece and Italy by sea (others come from Turkey via the land border with Bulgaria).

In the first four months of this year, more than a quarter of a million people claimed asylum in a European Union member state.

Where is the big deal in setting up humanitarian corridors for asylum seekers. To putting up initial reception center. To agreeing to a binding quota system for distributing refugees among all European countries.

I am sure if an appeal was made to all European Citizens the majority of the 509 million would not begrudge 10 Euros a month.

Let us hope that Europe can respond intelligently by rejecting generalisations and simplistic discourse by being true to its values, notably in terms of asylum and yet be more effective.

I leave you with the words of  Ahmed Satuf, another refugee from Idlib in Syria, told Al Jazeera he didn’t want anything from Macedonia, except for being allowed to cross its borders.

“I’m not a terrorist. We are humans. Where’s the humanity? Where’s the world? Everyone here, they are families,” he said.

“We don’t need anything. We don’t need money. Let us cross. I want to go to Germany.”

Europe above all places in the world born of integrationist ideals yet undermined by participants’ unwillingness to share costs as well as benefits, has a chance to shine.

“For us, today Europe is at stake” 

said Orban Viktor the president of Hungary,  “The survival, disappearance or, more precisely, the transformation beyond recognition of the European citizen’s lifestyle, European values and the European nations.”

He knows where he can stick that finger of his.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE REAL QUESTION TO BE ASKED AT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT.

20 Thursday Aug 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE REAL QUESTION TO BE ASKED AT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT.

At the last major climate summit, in Copenhagen in 2009, the developing world were promised financial flows of at least $100bn (£65bn) a year by 2020.  Another words rich nations promised at Copenhagen that, by 2020, investments of at least $100bn a year would be channelled to the developing world, to help cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

Some developing countries want all of the $100bn a year to come from the public purse of developed nations.  But rich governments were strongly resistant, insisting instead that private sector finance should form the lion’s share of the total.

What happened?

So far only about half of that target has been met.

“The question of financing is, in fact, decisive for reaching an agreement in Paris.”To have an agreement [in Paris] we need some sort of financial package.” We’ve now reached that point once again:

For many countries it is the condition of reaching any agreement.

Now we all know what happens when you ask for money. You only have to look at pledges of Aid when a natural disaster wipes out a people.

At the UN climate conference in Paris this December, world governments are expected to forge a new global deal on climate change, including commitments from both developed and developing countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions, to take effect from 2020 when current commitments run out.

In case you are not aware this is whats at stake.

The warming of the planet is already affecting yields of crucial crops. Food production will need to increase by at least 60 per cent over the next 35 years to provide food security for the 9 billion people expected to be living on the planet by 2050.

Moreover, approximately one-quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions come from land-use, making sustainable practices in agriculture critical. Climate change increases the risk and stress to water, sewer, drainage and transportation systems as well as infrastructure, as these systems are more exposed to the impact of increasingly powerful hurricanes, typhoons and other natural disasters.

About 80 per cent of the world’s energy is supplied through the combustion of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. At the same time, energy demand is growing along with expanding global wealth, a world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, and efforts to provide electricity to the 1.3 billion people now living without it. Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase under a ‘business as usual’ scenario by nearly 50 per cent by 2030 and more than 80 per cent by 2050, compared with year-end 2009.

Shifting the global economy onto a low-carbon and climate resilient development pathway requires an investment of tens of billions of dollars. To achieve this, both Governments and key financial actors must commit to massively scaling up public and private financing to meet the growing challenge of climate change.

There is no chance of this happening.

Just look at reaction of the EU to Greece and the refugee fleeing the conflicts in Syria and else where. The world as we know it is incapable of unilateral action whether its to do with Inequality of opportunity or eradicating a threat to its value.

While many efforts to slow or halt deforestation have been successful, approximately 13 million hectares of forests continue to be lost each year, contributing up to 20 per cent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.

Industries are essential to control global temperature increases — especially industries engaged in the production of energy, waste management, refrigerants and the global transport of freight.

⌈For more information open: The Beady eye say’s it time for Capitalism to Pay. > The Beady eye writes an open letter to the United Nations.> The Beady eye looks at what is wrong with the world.⌋

Mobilizing finance for climate action is a priority.

The status of pledges on financial contributions from rich to poor countries is less clear and what should be counted as “climate finance” under the Copenhagen agreement is a joke.

You only have to look at the history of the world to realize that the chances of over a hundred countries not to mention the millions of us agreeing on anything is a long way off. You might think that the Internet is connecting us all with its like button and online lobbyists/ campaigns/ petitions to change Industrial practices and Governments. You be wrong. In fact it is fragmenting society into ignored shadow people with little or no driven conviction except vanity.

So there is only one solution that will stick.

The Introduction world-wide of: A world Aid commission of 0.05%. ( see previous posts)

Why?

Because it can be put in place quickly, its cost-effective, and captures the very thing that caused the problem to rectify it:  Capitalism.  

If you don’t believe me. Here what they god wobbled about during the last Summit.

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803306104001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803025862001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803107814001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3802937261001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803270960001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3802931112001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1722935254001/?bctid=3803233966001&autoStart=false&secureConnections=true&width=480&height=270

If you have nothing to say or no comments press the like button which I like to call the bog off button.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S IT TIME FOR CAPITALISM TO PAY.

18 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S IT TIME FOR CAPITALISM TO PAY.

Tags

, , ,

If you are one of those people who I call shadow people don’t bother reading this post in order to press the like button. However if you’re a real person all suggestions or comments will be appreciated.

We all know that there is the governments of more than 190 nations gathering in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change.  The aim is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the threat of dangerous climate change.

The crunch Paris climate conference is from 30 November to 11 December.

Will it achieve anything worth while other than the usual media hype.

I think not.  Why?  Because the very thing that caused the problem is not there and it will in the long run ignore any agreement.

 

With global population rapidly marching toward 11 billion and with it the demand for food, health services, energy and security, we need to reexamine the models that have gotten us to this point.

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. Beyond this point, we will only see the outcome of these challenges become more severe and an increased potential of no return.

“Global climate change is not a man-made. “It is a capital-made problem.”.

Over the last 40 years, global wealth has become a more concentrated problem.

During this time, we saw a massive expansion in our planet’s destruction and disruption; global carbon emissions grew by 75 percent; deforestation rates climbed to 17 percent in the past 50 years.

Clearly, the neoliberal economic growth model being promoted as a road to economic development is not distributing our gains in wealth to the majority, but to an elite minority at the expense of the planet’s future habitability.

Global emission have also grown 70% since 1970.

Economic Research estimates that for every 1 degree Celsius in additional warming, violent crimes such as assault, murder and rape will increase by 2.4 percent, while larger conflicts such as riots, ethnic violence, political instability and gang activity will increase by 11.4 percent.

Economically, 5 percent of the global market economy is at risk currently due to climate change. This is not accounting for damages due to increased intensity of weather events, of which 80 percent will be felt by poorer Southern Hemisphere countries.

Put in plain and simple language: Limitless production and consumption is not possible on a finite planet.

We have the chance to change this paradigm through new technologies, new business models and new financial structures which redevelop the role business plays in society.

In this challenge, we need to account for not just the natural limits of our planets, but also for the injustice and inequality generated by our current economic paradigm by responding with a collaborative spirit.

We need: A new economy.

As investors, we need to review the business and financial models that we promote.

Just building a clean tech innovation economy is not enough.

Complete change will not happen overnight.

It will not 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 have to work together toward.

What explains our collective failure on climate change?

Why is it that instead of dealing with the problem, all we seem to do is make it worse?

The answer is simple

ITS THE CAPITALISM GOD OF PROFIT.

WHICH IS NOT compatible with the actions needed to combat climate change.

Capitalism isn’t helping. In fact, it can’t help the cause, but it can pay to rectify it. .

“You might be able to argue that the economic costs of taking action are greater than allowing climate change to play out for a few more decades …

“But most people don’t actually like it when their children’s lives are ‘discounted’ in someone else’s Excel sheet, and they tend to have a moral aversion to the idea of allowing countries to disappear because saving them would be too expensive.” Naomi Klein.

She prompts an ideological solution.  We all stop being greed bad boys.

Free market cannot accomplish what needs to be done.

We need to think differently, radically differently” for changes to be even remotely possible.

Can, as Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1967, a “radical revolution of values” shift our society from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society?

We need to take our smartphones to the streets in massive demonstrations demanding action.

We’re too selfish, we’re too greedy — is that this idea of the “we” of who we are that has to changed.  Which of course is impossible. 

There is only one solution.

Pledges, New Global Agreements, Discussions, Hand Shakes, you name it are useless.

Capitalism must be made to pay by placing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all Stock Exchange transactions over $20,000, on all High Frequency Transaction, on all Foreign Exchange Transaction over $20,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions.

This will crate a perpetual World Aid Fund.

No other solution will work as no one wants to Pay the Bill.

If you have any suggestions (if you think that the contents of this post are worthy) as to how we can bring the suggestion to the attention of the delegates in Paris I am all ears.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS INTO THE COMING DIGITAL BLACK HOLE OF HISTORY.

17 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in Education, Google Knowledge., History., Privatization, Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The Internet.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS INTO THE COMING DIGITAL BLACK HOLE OF HISTORY.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Time spent looking at a cellphone is time spent oblivious to the world.

Humanity’s first steps into the digital world could be lost to future historians.

We faced a “forgotten generation, or even a forgotten century.” through “bit rot,” when old computer files become useless junk.

There is a sense of powerlessness and fatalism about TECHNOLOGY.

If consciousness or HISTORICAL intelligence are lost, it might mean that value itself becomes absent from the universe.

We are nonchalantly throwing all of our data into what could become an information black hole without realising it.

Ancient civilizations suffered no such problems, because histories written in cuneiform on baked clay tablets, or rolled papyrus scrolls, needed only eyes to read them.

To day “intelligence” is related to statistical and economic notions of rationality – colloquially, the ability to make good decisions, plans, or inferences.  To study today’s culture, future scholars will be faced with PDFs, Word documents, and hundreds of other file types that can only be interpreted with dedicated software and sometimes hardware too.

 From This to This      

Most of the images we take today are uploaded straight from a digital camera or a phone, with the picture never actually existing as a physical artifact.

The significance of documents and correspondence is often not fully appreciated until hundreds of years later.

We’ve learned from objects that have been preserved purely by happenstance that give us insights into an earlier civilisation,”

We need history to embrace new values and institutions in pursuit of a just, fulfilling, and sustainable civilization not a “digital black hole”.

In fact, due to the intricate disconnectedness of production and economies around the world today, our technological civilization is perhaps more prone to a sudden collapse than other societies through history.

When you think about the quantity of documentation from our daily lives that is captured in digital form, like our interactions by email, people’s tweets, and all of the world-wide web the more important it is that we create legal permissions to copy and store software before it dies.

So digital objects we create today can still be rendered far into the future.

Deciding on the best format to preserve them for the next hundred years relies on anticipating what technology is likely to still be available in the future.

Computer hard disks can hold vast amounts of digitised information, but everything is lost if it fails or is wiped.

How do we preserve our interaction on Facebook, Twitter, comment threads and citizen journalism across the web?

In fact, due to the intricate disconnectedness of production and economies around the world today, our technological civilization is perhaps more prone to a sudden collapse than other societies through history. Plenty of once-great civilisations have collapsed, and our current industrialised society is by no means invulnerable –

Who will decide what worth keeping and where will we preserve a core kernel of human knowledge.

The significance of documents and correspondence is often not fully appreciated until hundreds of years later.

Even though Wikipedia represents a vast repository of information, it is not structured in a way that would guide a post-catastrophe society through stages of recovery.

Google certainly is not.

It has already changed the world by altering the way we interact with technology and there can be no questions its long-term ambitions.

Its mission is to collect information which you will have to buy with a google wallet.

“We envision a marketplace for payment instruments, commerce and loyalty services”

It’s not hard to envision a fully intact ecosystem of Google offerings with location-based mobile ads driving tracked incremental revenue via etail integrated mobile commerce, or via sales that are picked up in-store, via mobile payment.

“Now toss in Google Offers, NFC and QR codes for trigger point marketing, and the fact that Google already has the accounts open and the pot gets even richer.”

Personally I have little time for Banks but I would rather have a bank to provide a of mobile wallet products, not technology companies that can disappear into the cloud.

If Google was to make a move into supporting bank-branded wallets we would all become Googlefyed.

Google has far more on its plate than just financial services.

It’s a major player in telecommunications with its Android smart phone platform. It’s made forays into thermostats, home security and satellite imaging.

So it’s not just words and images that we risk losing for ever it’s the “grey literature” of official reports, briefings and policy statements that are only published online also risk being lost to the future?

Redstone Computer Tertiary Memory.PNG

Bit rot, a digital dark age is on the horizon unless we store information in DNA.

“It is very possible that … one machine would suffice to solve all the problems … of the whole [world]” – Sir Charles Darwin, 1946.

“Technology gives us the facilities that lessen the barriers of time and distance – the telegraph and cable, the telephone, radio, and the rest.” – Emily Greene Balch.

Perhaps The ETHEREUM IS THE ANSWER.

Importantly, because there is not a company or indeed any entity in charge of or controlling Ethereum, the cost of running the infrastructure doesn’t have to include any profit margin.

It might allow us to push the boundary on what the digital realm can cover.

But this is a what if for the history books.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DEATH

14 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by in Humanity., Technology, The Future

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DEATH

Tags

, , ,

Of all mankind’s ostensible insoluble problems, one has remain the most vexing, interesting and important, the problem of death itself.

The denial of death is one of humanity’s deepest motivations.

In the decades to come we may see, one universe, one humankind, one religion, that unites us all but in the end we all share the same destiny – that just as surely as we are alive, so we die.

Death reminds us of our human vulnerability in spite of all our technological advances.

It is an integral part of our lives that gives meaning to human existence.

All that you are, and all that you’ve done and been is culminated in your death.

But now it is turning into a technical problem?

In recent years, medical technology has advanced rapidly. It has been suggested that methods such as nanotechnology, cell rejuvenation, and gene therapy might result in a significant increase in the human lifespan.

In theory, with the help of medical technology, it could be possible to keep living for hundreds or thousands of years, even eternally.

The whole brain definition of death is an unwieldy, historical compromise which will unravel as 21st century technologies permit the repair, replacement and manipulation of body, and especially brain, tissue.

We would basically be left with suicide, illnesses, accidents, famine, and homicides. Another words the like hood of dying from some disease or virus will be highly unlikely.

Even if it seems a distant goal the quest of immortality is very much on the cards.

The (current) essence of being human is to be mortal, immortals would necessarily be a different type of being and therefore have a different identity.

To control human destiny, with the dream of conquering death would raise profound questions.

You are not obliged to entertain all thought experiments, no matter how implausible, but if technology will make our current ethical views inadequate within some finite, foreseeable period of time, we should adjust our thinking, and law, to a more solid footing.

Our current concepts of death don’t very well address the status of a person who might eventually be brought back to life.

When and if these remediative technologies come available, there will be tremendous material interests at stake. These technologies will develop just as the industrialized world shifts to increasing proportion of elderly.

Nanotechnology is developing a bionic immune system, and by the year 2050 we could reach a mortal state.

Research is also being conducted on the creation of computer chip matrices into which nerves can grow, and which could permit two-way communication between neurons and computers.

Such computer-brain interfaces raise the possibility that computer technology may also be developed to remediate neural capacities.

Already advances are being made in electronic prosthetics for sight and hearing, from cochlear implants to optic nerve interfaces.

Computer engineers are also developing biological computing and storage media3, and software that learns, suggesting a future convergence between organic computing, neural network software and neural-computer interfaces.

Personhood in a cybernetic medium is a common, but minority, position in the field of artificial intelligence and cognitive science.

Most cognitive scientists accept the materialist assertion that mind is an emergent phenomenon from complex matter, and that cybernetics may one day provide the same requisite level of complexity as a brain.

Of course, those who embrace the possibility of self-aware machine minds do not necessarily want to see them be developed, or grant them “human rights” once they do develop.

Another technology that may eventually challenge our death concepts is cryonic suspension, the freezing of heads, or whole bodies, for eventual reanimation.

Barring the end of civilization as we know it, technology will eventually develop the capacity to remediate severe brain injuries, and perhaps even translate human thought into alternative media.

So you are can begin to see that we will be forced to acknowledge that the destruction of the “integrative” functions of the body is an inadequate definition of death, since the social person will remain intact.

When we get to the point where neurological functions can be controlled, designed and turned on and off, the illusory sense of continuous self-identity will become more obvious.

Once we cast off this fundamental predicate of Enlightenment ethics, the existence of an autonomous individual, we are beyond the ethical frameworks of contemporary bioethics.

It might be necessary that old people had a duty to die.

We soon have to answer the question: Is there can only be one death.

There are ethical worldviews that do not have the autonomous individual at their core, from the Democracy to Communism.

By the time we have developed adequate frameworks based on our cherished liberal democratic values it will be too late.

After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist. Luckily if we wished to cure death, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that we might be able to do that even in the distant future.

But don’t be fooled. Have a look,

//youtu.be/u_Vpy3xs0cE

The only modern ideology that still awards death a central role is nationalism.                          “The Glorious Dead.”  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "we shall remember them"

Warfare has been the crucial defining element for Britain and its empire in the 20th century. There have been only two years since 1945 that a serving member of the armed forces has not been killed.

The Cenotaph (literally “empty tomb” in Greek)  May they rest in Peace. 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨