I have written on this subject before but of course you are all to preoccupied to comment.
With the major powers refusing to give up their prerogatives and hogging most of the world’s resources, a new organisation of the global community must be invented soon.
The main challenge would be to define and defend mankind’s common resources.
The spread of conventional and nuclear weapons, and terrorism and genocide through such rudimentary means as the machete, are violence that goes beyond state borders.
We need to examine the reasons for this violence. Hunger, indecent development gaps, inequality in the face of natural disasters (particularly climatic ones), the major powers’ encouragement of arms sales and other trafficking, ideologies that breed racism and discrimination (neo-Nazi factions in European and Russian countries, “Ivoirité” in the Ivory Coast, discriminatory Zionism against Arabs in Israel, with implications for the failure of the peace process, radical Islam).
Human beings will always be confronted by their own violence.
Globalisation is leaving many more poor by the wayside, provoking new forms of violence and widespread terrorism. The UN has done nothing about the protection and equitable sharing of such vital resources as water, energy, knowledge and medication.
It’s a worthless gossip shop given that international law, which remains the framework for any reform, leaves sovereign states totally free in their commitments.
The complexity of a global society is totally ignored.
If we want to imagine another worldwide institutional system, we must examine the world we live in and ask ourselves what our goals should be.
Peacekeeping has become a belated, often useless, stopgap.
The UN manages inter-state relations, albeit feebly. The intense relations established directly between populations outside state control are developing into a power struggle to the detriment of the human rights they pretend to observe – ISIS. The peace dividend promised at the end of the cold war was an illusion.
Arms sales are soaring because the major powers chose to militarise their economies. While the UN is still dominated by the victors of the second world war. It has not lived up to its mandate and will not be now or in the future be able to do so.
Its composition bears no relation to the declared intention of equality between members. The status of the permanent members and their veto remains intact as unjustified positions of power. This permanence of power remains unchallenged even though it is ephemeral by nature and the legitimacy of the five second world war victors has been eroded years ago.
President George Bush’s unilateral decision to invade Iraq removed a dictatorship only to plunge that country into chaos and violence, further confirming the helplessness of the UN.
Not mention current wars between states, civil violence, poverty, infectious diseases, environmental degradation, terrorism, organised crime, nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons.
There is no hope of the UN reforming itself any amendment must receive two-thirds of the vote in the General Assembly. To be enforced, it must then be ratified by two-thirds of the member states, including the five permanent members, and we all know what they will do.
Any proposal to democratise the council is a sham.
The history of democracy has been a constant struggle against the usurpation of power by the richest and strongest.
Where does this leave us?
The universal spread of extreme free-market values is calling for a universal political community, not to replace national communities but to complement them and cater for the complexity of a society that combines inter-state and inter-individual relations.
Technology is driving the world apart not together. Them and US.
The geopolitical shifts in Asia and in Asia’s relations with the rest of the world could lead to a redistribution of power and patterns of participation, with or without formal, structural reform.
The UN is already unable to adapt to global dynamics. Peacekeeping missions have developed exponentially, often leading to fiascos.
Is there is no one in power that can see that we need to look impartially at international trends that are challenge the world?
The need for democracy (by the elimination of all prerogatives that benefit only a few states), for law ( A world Court of Human Rights.The establishment of an international court of human rights, which would enforce the rights laid down in international treaties and hear individual appeals in special circumstances.) and justice (by the mandatory nature of international law).
These cannot be ignored for much longer. The world needs a new Organisation, not called Google.
Of course any New Organisation will need financing.
This can only be achieved by Independent funding. Any other form of funding is useless. Globalization and technology stop at no borders and capitalism continues to privatize the planet our collective destiny.
( See previous posts: A 0.05% aid commission on all High Frequency trading, on all Foreign Exchange transaction over $20,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisition. This will create a perpetual fund of billions)
I for one am fed up of seeing people dying while our world leaders have another conference.
In fact, it still is — at least in nations blessed with plentiful clean tap water but that doesn’t stop the world from spending over $100 billion on bottled water a year.
I have posted on the subject of Fresh water as recently as the 31st of March this year. ( Fresh Water, Essential for human survival or a commodity for profit)
We all know that our Earth has and will continue to face many problems, some caused by nature itself and others caused by us its most intelligent inhabitants.
The problems caused by us are mostly related to excess of self-indulgence to the detriment of what effect it has on everything around us.
We seem incapable of acting for the common good, and when we try to do so our attempts are retrograded to profit. ( For example; Carbon Credits, Fishing Quotas, Arms Trade, Governments, Religions, you name it and its governed by money.)
We ourselves are now becoming commodity to be exploited and it will not be long before we will have no rights to clean Air never mind water.
Water is more than a chemical substance containing one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms it has become a reason for conflicts and a controversial commodity, and yet, it is inevitable for every human being and animal on the planet.
The global inequalities in access to clean water is only going to increase due to its Privatization. It is literally being turned into a commodity to produce profit.
So what do we see when it comes to Fresh Water.
It is purified and then sold to us at thousandfold increase in price:
As still water, carbonated water, functional water, and flavored water, as absolute water” and “harmony water” as mineral water, pure water, the ecological water, soda water, alkaline water, coconut water, deep-sea water, mint water, tonic water, sparkling waters, naturally sparkling, still waters,natural water, distilled water, wild water, absolute water, preserved water, controlled water, etc;
The category of “wild water” includes products like Pepsi-owned Enchant’s marketed so as to convey through its label, strength, vitality, and human’s fusion with nature.
Absolute water is in a league of its own, and uses neither nature-themed nor industry-themed signs. The designs of the bottles are revolutionary and futuristic. Their beyond-nature and beyond-human appearance suggest that this water is extremely pure and transcendent.
Then we have preserved water, marketed as nature to contemplate, a source of peace and quietness, a preserved nature, untouched.
And last but not least controlled waters which are totally safe and clean called still water. It sales makes up 64.9% of the overall market.
Oops I nearly forgot tamed water. It is adapted for consumer benefit. Nestlé’s Pure Life, for instance, uses more dynamic shapes and human figures to demonstrate its tamed water’s message of happiness, liveliness, and cooperation.
In terms of revenue, Asia-Pacific dominated the global market in 2013, accounting for a market share of 33%. Europe surfaced as the second largest contributor in the global market for bottled water, accounting for a market share of 28.8%.
The bottled water world industry is a market dominated by European water brands.
Shifting patterns of consumer preference in favor of flavored and vitamin-rich functional water and innovation in terms of portability and packaging of hygienic water has propelled the demand for bottled water in the global market to highs where the producers are buying up resources at an alarming rate.
You might be surprised to learn that 25% of bottled water comes from municipal supply.
While the world’s population continues to grow at an alarming rate, water is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity. 80% of the world’s population are exposed to some risk of insecure freshwater resources.
The global water market is dominated by major players like Groupe Danone, Coca- Cola Company, Icelandic Water Holdings ehf., Mountain Valley Spring Company, The PepsiCo Inc., Nestle Waters, Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co. Ltd., and LLC.
Nestlé currently controls more than 70 of the world’s bottled water brands, among them Perrier, San Pellegrino and Vittel.
Nestlé’s annual sales of bottled water alone total some CHF 10 billion. And yet the company prefers not to discuss its water business.
To be able to sell and make money from water, you first have to own it.
Every year the company pumps out millions of cubic metres of water, for transportation in road tankers to huge bottling factories.
In the small towns of Fryeburg, Newfield and Shapleigh, journalist Res Gehriger witnessed how Nestlé tries to stifle and suppress local opposition to its operations with an army of powerful PR consultants, lawyers and lobbyists.
The company sells mainly spring water with a designation of origin. In developing countries, however, the corporation pursues another concept – namely Nestlé Pure Life. This product is purified groundwater, enriched with a Nestlé mixture of minerals. Nestlé Pure Life is a clever business concept. And particularly so in the developing world.
In countries such as Pakistan where the public water supply has failed or is close to collapse, the company proudly presents its bottled water as a safe health-enhancing alternative. But for the overwhelming majority of consumers, it is an expensive out-of-reach alternative.
The scenario of a city in which everyone has to pay for life-giving water, is already a sad reality in Lagos. Families eking out an existence in the slums spend half their meagre budget on canisters of water. The upper class? They purchase Nestlé Pure Life.
Nestlé is a company intent on amassing resource rights worldwide. With the aim of dominating the global water market of the future.
The global bottled water market was valued at US$157.27 billion in 2013 and is expected to reach US$279.65 billion by the end of 2020, registering an impressive growth at a CAGR of 8.7% from 2013 to 2020.
In terms of volume the market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8.3% and reach a market size of 465.12 billion liters by 2020. Over half of all Americans 54% drink bottled water. There are over 700 brands. America is now drinking more bottled water than milk or beer.
According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation (BMC), in 2014 the total volume of bottled water consumed in the United States was 11 billion gallons, a 7.4% increase from 2013. That translates into an average of 34 gallons per person. While that may sound like a lot, it actually puts the U.S. in 10th place when it comes to global per-capita consumption
Bottled water is the second largest commercial beverage category by volume in the United States. However, bottled water consumption is about half that of carbonated soft drinks and only slightly ahead of milk and beer.
60% of the global bottled water market is dominated by the national and regional players.
The commercialization of water, which on a global scale finds its manifestation in the bottled water industry:
Global consumption of bottled water goes up 10 percent each year.
China is now the second largest consumer market for bottled water in the world. China drank roughly eight billion liters in 2000, and just under 21 billion liters in 2009. It is now drinking around two billion liter less than U.S. 2014.
China Water (1.5 liter bottle)
Cost 3.66 ¥
us$ 0.56
France-based Evian is the most popular bottled water brand in the world. Pepsi-owned Aquafina is the best-selling bottled water brand in United States. Both have mountains on their packages, signifying the pursuit of something greater.
You don’t have to be a genius to see where all this is leading.
Water insecurity is a global phenomenon, and in most of the populated places on earth water resources are under some form of stress that poses a potential risk.
“The biggest enemy is tap water ” said a Pepsi VP in 2000. “When we’re done, tap water will be relegated to irrigation and washing dishes,” said Susan D. Wellington of Quaker Oats, the maker of Gatorade.
But its more than just words: Coca-Cola has been in the business of discouraging restaurants from serving tap water and pushing bottle water for years.
Fear of tap water is part of the reason for the bottled water surge.
The production of water bottles uses 17 million barrels of oil a year, and it takes three times the water to make the bottle as it does to fill it.
For a product that claims to be environmentally responsible the bottled water industry does more than its fair share of planet trashing.
The amount of oil used to make a year’s worth of bottles could fill one million cars for a year. It takes about 72 billion gallons of water a year just to make the empty bottles. Another words it takes about two liters of water to make every liter you see on shelves of supermarkets and the like.
What do we get in return:
Out of all the plastic bottles that pollute our seas, our oceans, that are tossed out the windows of our cars, left to roll up on to our beaches fewer than 20% are recycled to a second life. To put this in perspective the California Department of Conservation estimated that roughly three million water bottles are trashed every day. The bottle that takes three minutes to drink takes up to a thousand years to biodegrade.
Pepsi Co claims to have diverted 196 million beverage containers to recycling using its own resources since it made its initial commitment in 2010, yet this represents only about one-third of one day’s sales of beverages in the United States.
More than 40 countries worldwide, including most European Union nations, have adopted some form of EPR (extended producer responsibility) mandate that shifts some or all financial responsibility for packaging recycling from taxpayers to producer brands.
Brands that place packaging into commerce need to take more responsibility for its life cycle impact.
Recycling produces so many benefits to society that it should be a priority for corporate sustainability programs.
The biggest threat to increasing recyclability in the beverage sector is the growing use of flexible packaging….Using nonrecyclable packaging when recyclable alternatives are available wastes enormous amounts of resources, in contrast to aluminum and PET, which can be recycled many times over.
According to Doug James, a professor of computer science and computer graphics at Cornell University and a recycling advocate, we are left with 25 billion bottles world-wide that are dumped in landfills, littered or incinerated.
Essentially, there is no way for bottled water to be as environmentally responsible as tap water.
Many regions of the world lack access to clean drinking water, and bottled water is the only safe alternative. Companies know this and have been cleaning up in countries like China, Pakistan and India in recent years.
The 2011 global forecast for bottled water called for over $86 billion in profits. This includes sparkling flavored water, sparkling unflavored water, still flavored water and still unflavored water. A very impressive number considering a similar product comes basically free from the kitchen sink.
The global water market could be worth $800 billion by 2035, with Asia making up half that value as rapid economic growth and a rising population boosts demand, the president and chief executive of Finnish chemicals firm Kemira said.
“Water is the fastest growing market at the moment, with a size of $500 billion globally,” Harri Kerminen said in an interview in London.
Some experts foresee the water market hitting $1 trillion by as early as 2020.
So don’t be a Wally get your self a reusable stainless steel canteen.
It will pay for its self, stop you picking up some horrendous disease, and save on large dental bill if you leave the fluoride in. (Put it uncovered in the fridge for 24 hours and any chlorine will dissipate.)
The alternative is to carry on drinking bottled water which I am sure is subject to the same safety regulations as Tap water which covers all washing machine tablets, all washing up liqet, all shampoos, all industrial run off, all farming fertilizers run off, all lead piping, all landfill toxins, toilet cleaners, all fracking ( 7.5 trillion gallons of water mixed with dangerous chemicals a year in the US) all brown water shower/bath. We know that pollution is a human problem because it is a relatively recent development in the planet’s history:
According to the environmental campaign organization WWF: “Pollution from toxic chemicals threatens life on this planet. Every ocean and every continent, from the tropics to the once-pristine polar regions, is contaminated.”
There is no easy way to solve water pollution; if there were, it wouldn’t be so much of a problem. There are three different things that can help to tackle the problem- education, laws, and economics.
Why am I bothered or for that matter why should any of us be bothered that water is being turned into profit.
Perhaps we are focused too much on reducing carbon emissions and have failed to take a sufficiently broad view including end-of-life fate and impact.
Materials that are “designed for the dump” reinforce a message to consumers that it’s okay to continue to throw away materials that could have been made to be recycled.
The very least we can do is work to protect and preserve earth. It’s not all about making massive profit.
The time for global action” to protect the integrity of our planetary home is now to develop a new set of guiding global goals. We must embrace a culture of shared responsibility, one of all actors–governments, international institutions, private sector actors, and organizations of civil societies, and in all countries, to the people themselves.
We must remove this responsibility from the United Nations and create a new world Organisation.
What kind of new worldwide organisation could be established that would truly defend humankind’s common resources and limit the major powers?
The UN’s imperfections were manifest from its creation. It was built upon some obvious contradictions.
The UN was premised on the idea that the gravest threat to mankind was cross-border aggression, the main cause of the second world war: history later showed that the gravest threats came from states abusing citizens within their borders, or from terrorists who disregarded borders. Instead of strengthening collective structures to perform essential humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks, rich countries have decided to go it alone or stay home. The strings that member states attach to payment of their UN dues are even more demoralising.
If we want a healthy earth we need an organisation that represents Earth irrelevant of religion or power. That is Self financing, that rewards good practice and applies penalties for not. That is not governed by the might of Capitalism. ( See Previous Posts)
Mark my words if we don’t soon start seen our world as we there will be no Freshwater worth drinking.
Nobody is winning right now on this thing. We’re not moving the needle.
Life is ultimately about choices—and so is pollution.
This is one of the many problems in the world that we as humans should be ashamed of. We turn a blind eye to it because it reminds us what kind of inhumane treatment we are capable of as human beings.
The 6th Dec this year marked the 150 years since the ratification of the 13th Amendment formally abolishing slavery in the US.
But almost 150 years after the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude, there are still men, women and children enslaved into labor and commercial sexual exploitation in the U.S.
There are more people in slavery today than at any time in history.
It is now the third – largest and fastest – growing crime worldwide. The average cost of a modern-day slave is a mere $90. This is a fraction of the average cost of a slave in 1850, which was $40,000( in current dollar value)
Each and every one are a living, breathing reminders that the war against slavery remains unfinished.
Unfortunately, for many of the world’s workers, exploitation is a reality that must be factored into the path towards a better life.
Its roots are in the three greatest problems facing a shared world : Inequality of opportunity, Exploitation for excessive profits, and Sustainability.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates profits (PDF) from this forced labor are $150 billion a year.
The presence of forced labour in the supply chains of major manufacturers has been repeatedly documented. Human exploitation has built our world and continues to drive global economic growth.
Cheap labour, cheap sex and cheap goods are woven into the fabric of our individual lives.
It is easy to be horrified about slavery while absolving ourselves of direct responsibility.
“[Human trafficking] ought to concern every person because it is a debasement of our common humanity. It ought to concern every community because it tears at our social fabric. It ought to concern every business because it distorts markets. It ought to concern every nation because it endangers public health and fuels violence and organized crime.” —President Barack Obama.
Here are some hard facts:
Hopefully they might make you think twice.
Some 35.8 million people are currently trapped in modern-day slavery, forced to pick cotton, grow cannabis and prostitute themselves among other things. 167 countries, said modern slavery contributed to the production of at least 122 goods from 58 countries.
India comes top, with more than 14.29 m people reckoned to be equivalent to slaves, followed by China, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Russia.
Uzbekistan is the second offender on the list because every autumn, the government forces over one million people, including children, to harvest cotton.
Mauritania has anti-slavery legislation but it is rarely enforced and a special tribunal set up in March has yet to prosecute any cases. Mauritania abolished slavery in 1981, though without passing legislation to punish slave-owners. To day there are around 150,000 people out of Mauritania’s total population of 3.8m who are still enslaved.
Countries like Qatar in the Middle East were a major destination for men and women from Africa and Asia who are lured with promises of well-paid jobs only to find themselves exploited as domestic workers or in the construction industry.
Africa faces some of the biggest challenges, with armed forces and rebel groups from Somalia to the Central African Republic using child soldiers to mineral-rich Zambia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo forcing children and adults to “labor in dangerous mines.” Estimated to be one million.
Ivory Coast, 60% of chocolate is produced by an estimated 500,000 child labour.
South Africa, where private hospitals harvest the organs of deceived Brazilians for commercial transplant operations. 70,000 kidneys come annually from the black market.
West Africa the practice of forced servitude called Trokosi.
Australian sex industry.
Afghanistan Young boys sold through a practice call Bacha Bazi.
Senegal. 50,000 homeless children forced to beg.
Brothels of Bali.
Indoor Cannabis Farm in the UK.
Camel Jockeys Persian Gulf.
Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, domestic workers in private homes.
Cocoa farms of Ivory Coast, made profitable through the almost-zero cost labour of child workers from Mali.
Fishing boats throughout Asia and the Pacific. Demand for cheap seafood drives modern-day slavery.
Houston is a major labor and sex trafficking hub in the United States.
In the houses and apartments of wealthy Americans, where Guatemalan maids sleep on the floor and are not paid or allowed outside.
Florida is one of the top three states for human trafficking in the U.S.
It is estimated that there are around 60,000 people in modern-day slavery in the USA
There were at least 5,000 trafficking victims in the UK last year 2014.
Although every government in the world has declared slavery an illegal enterprise, it flourishes. Every year Globally some 60,000 to 80,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year.
The bitter truth is that despite growing awareness of the issue there are still more than 36 million slaves in the world today, trapped in forced labor, sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, military service, and child labor.
Trafficking in persons is modern-day slavery and it exists in virtually every country in the world.
Now we all know no matter what we do there will always be people exploited by others.
People are forced into working and poverty at the same time by government legislation, or the lack thereof.
But is it not time to give Immigrants proper legal citizenship’s if earned.
Even if victims identify themselves as such and are aware of their rights, they still might hesitate to report their victimization out of fear of reprisal from the trafficker, lack of trust in law enforcement or fear of deportation.
Is it not time for western rich countries to open proper border crossings for Refugees, and for each to give temporary humanitarian shelter to people fleeing war stricken parts of the world. Let,s say five years temporary residential visa with realistic quotes for each and every country.
Is it not time that we should be abolishing Domestic workers visa.
Is it not time that Slavery and human trafficking should carry a world-wide life sentence for those who are apprehended dealing in human suffering.
(The very nature of human trafficking helps keep modern-day slavery a crime hidden.)
Are governments helping corporations break collective bargaining agreements to lower wages and increase profits?
If the result of working leads to the continued poverty you are trying to get out of, why work at all.
What we see is negative stereotypes about the people commonly found to be victims of human trafficking, especially those involved with prostitution and those with drug addictions.
The under reporting of sex trafficking victims who are minors
The role that gangs play in sex trafficking
Effective counter-trafficking legislation, law enforcement processes and demand-reduction strategies
Strategies to stabilize and integrate adult survivors of human trafficking.
Human trafficking is believed to be a growing crime, fueled by low risk and the potential for high monetary gain.
Today’s slaves are held through debt bondage, indentured servitude or other forms of control. The exploitation of human beings for profit is everyone’s business. We might not be able to end it, but now we know what’s going on, feeling bad is just not good enough.
Technology has changed the way it’s done.
So why not use technology to attack every link in the exploitation network.
Of course there is no realistic solution while we are all slaves of Consumerism. But we do have a weapon to hurt those that use exploitation. It is in your pocket called spending power.
The world chocolate market is expected to reach $98.3 billion in 2016. A World day of only buying fair trade chocolate would hurt those that use exploited cheap labor.
It is sobering to wonder just how big our individual “slavery footprint” might be. Also it is both foolish and patronising to treat the people caught up in this trade as naive and helpless victims.
Most of today’s decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss.
Most of the young voters of today will still be alive.
The consumer cultures will have to be re-engineered into cultures of sustainability, so that living sustainable feels as natural as living as a consumer does today.
Two-thirds of the world’s energy is used to-day is for the production of commodities.
This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized – and managed.
Sustainability cannot be achieved by simply switching technologies.
We need to see instead the possibility for a new era of economic growth, one that must be based on policies that sustain and expand the environmental resource base.
We all know that industries most heavily reliant on environmental resources and most heavily polluting are growing most rapidly in the developing world, where there is both more urgency for growth and less capacity to minimize damaging side effects.
Humanity’s inability to fit its activities into a less must have now orientation for the sake of short-term pleasure and profit – from I am alright Jack attitude to recognizing our true values can not come soon enough.
Our Common Future, cannot be a prediction of ever-increasing environmental decay, poverty, and hardship in an ever more polluted world among ever decreasing resources. Which is changing planetary systems, fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening hazards.
We need a new description of the possibilities ahead of us.
We have been for centuries and still are borrowing environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. It may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses.
The onus for change lies with no one group of nations.
Every day, we are presented with a range of “sustainable” products and activities—from “green” cleaning supplies to carbon offsets.
Is it time to abandon the concept altogether, or can we find an accurate way to measure sustainability? If so, how can we achieve it? And if not, how can we best prepare for the coming ecological decline?
Given that consumerism and the consumption patterns are not compatible with the flourishing of a living planetary system, either we find ways to wrestle our cultural patterns out of the grip of those with a vested interest in maintaining consumerism or Earth’s ecosystems decline will bring down the consumer culture for the vast majority of humanity in a much crueller way.
A change has to be started to put us on the path to prosperity without diminishing the well-being of future generations.
It will and is being resisted by myriad interests that have a huge stake in sustaining the global consumer culture— from the fossil fuel industry and big agribusiness to food processors, car manufacturers, advertisers, and so on.
Consumerism is not a viable cultural paradigm on a planet whose systems are deeply stressed and that is currently home to 7 billion people, let alone on a planet of 8–10.6 billion people, the population the United Nations projects for 2050.
So what can be done?
We all know what has to be done but every few of us are willing to do anything.
In a majority of societies today, consumerism feels so natural that it is hard to even imagine a different cultural model.
Consumerism—now propped up by more than trillions in annual advertising expenditures, by hundreds of billions in government subsidies and tax breaks, billions more in lobbying and public relations spending, and the momentum of generations of living the consumer dream—will undoubtedly be the most difficult part of the transition to a sustainable society.
The only question is whether we greet it with a series of alternative ways of orienting our lives and our cultures to maintain a good life, even as we consume much less.
You must ask yourself if there is any chance for us to come through the trials of climate destabilization in a nuclear-armed world with 10 billion people by 2100.
How can we soon reckon with the thorny issues of politics, political theory, and start governing with wisdom, boldness, and creativity.
We can all see our present danger, and we can also see our future potential: a stable human population of some 7–9 billion, living cleanly and well on a healthy biosphere, sharing Earth with the rest of the creatures who rely on it.
Or
Has humanity already overshot the carrying capacity of Earth so badly that we are doomed to a horrible crash after oil, or freshwater, or topsoil, or fish, or the ozone layer, or many other things—after one or all of them run out? So that no matter what we do in the meantime, it’s a foregone conclusion that we’re in for a fall?
I don’t believe so.
Provided we locked the global economy and global ecology together in new ways there is a way out for our beautiful home planet. There is no point reaching for the stars if we are bring with us Greed and Profit.
This is not just a dream but a responsibility, a project. The things we can do now, to start on this project are all around us, waiting to be taken up and lived.
Our problem stems from decades of engineering of a set of cultural norms, values, traditions, symbols, and stories that make it feel natural to consume ever larger amounts—of food, of energy, of stuff.
Policymakers changed laws, marketers and the media cultivated desire, businesses created and aggressively pushed new products, and over time “consumers” deeply internalized this new way of living.
For example, the United States, now suffers from an obesity epidemic in which two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. This obesity epidemic—which has spread around the world.
McDonald’s did not just create a cheap and tasty food, it effectively targeted children to get them to eat at McDonald’s early on—shaping their palate for both the company’s food and the high-sugar, high-salt, high-fat consumer diet.
Or
People spend more than $58 billion on pet food each year around the world. ( There are 133 million dogs and 162 million cats in just the top five dog and cat owning countries in the world),
Or
Globally, military expenditures total about $1 trillion a year and continue to grow.
Nothing will change unless our cognition’s change.
Even Professional sport promotes consumerism.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that “we must rapidly begin to shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.” By living “deliberately”—as Henry David Thoreau understood—we spend less, work less and enjoy life more.
Through collective action inspired by creativity we can build a vibrant environmental justice movement and reform the institutions that are driving “climate collapse”: the military and unchecked consumer capitalism.
Imagine if we had lists of “Ten Things to Save the Planet”
The problem would be that we have nowhere to hang the list. Even if we did we there is no way of making anything on the list to stick.
So there is only one solution. We will have to use the most basic weakness of mankind – his own self-interest to effect change.
Rewards/Payment that are felt in his pocket.
Where do we get the funds to make these payments.
By Placing a world Aid Commission of 0.05% on all Foreign Exchange Transactions ( Over 20,000$) on all High Frequency stock exchange transactions and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions.
With this Perpetual Fund by greed we could then redesign Consumerism into Savvy consumers and Sucker consumers. Create a new consumer culture which would be truly a step in the right direction.
We could start to address Climate Change by granting home solar panels.
We could pay to protect to safeguard our, fresh water, our forests, our seas, our environment and give fundamental rights to the planet itself.
The faster we use our talents and energies to promote a culture of sustainability, the better off all of humanity will be.
This is what we have achieved so far. Have a look.
We need to create a new centralization of power that specifically looks after our planet > not a United Nations gossips shop that can do nothing because of its veto corset.
But an Earth Court that must be heeded or suffer the consequences, or no rewards or grants.
The other day I came across the term Fourth Generation Warfare. A term used by military thinkers to describe conflict at the end of the 20th century.
Now I am no General but my first reaction to the term was ” Fourth Generation – Kill everyone up to and including Great Grand Dad.”
The problem is that our traditional definition of “war” is outdated, and so is our imagination of what war means.
How many wars have you witnessed since World war Two.
So how many the easy answer might just be: too many.
I was lucky like most of us these days as I was not around for either of the World Wars.
Some time ago I wrote a post ” We watch as a civilization thousands of years old goes to rack and ruin Nov 2014.
With 20 million soldiers worldwide and every conceivable weapon it’s no wonder we have a world that is incapable of living in respect of each other.
Right now in 2015, it’s hard not to get desensitized to death and violence.
The Syrian war is now in its fifth year.
Anyway back to the term Fourth Generation Warfare.
This term is used to describe the current growing inferno that is currently wreaking havoc in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen which will engulf the whole region and beyond and has the potential to push it over the threshold into a third world war.
What is needed is a concept which explains to blinkered military and political leaders why *they cannot win* unless they change what they are doing in *truly radical* ways. Why? Because what has changed is the near instantaneous nature of the cognitive and moral aspects of war, empowered through information technology.
What we are really seeing is that the increased “dispersion and democratization of technology, information, and finance” brought about by globalization has given terrorist groups greater mobility and access worldwide.
Isis ,Hamas and Hezbollah ( If you consider the latter two terrorist organisations) ,especially, have established themselves as organizations capable of addressing the everyday problems of their constituencies. They are integrating themselves into the social and political fabric of Muslim societies worldwide.
While we watch they are turning their constituencies into effective weapons by creating strong social, political, and religious ties with them; in short, they have become communal activists for their constituencies, which have, in turn, facilitated the construction and maintenance of substantial financial and logistical networks and safe houses. This support then aids in the regeneration of the terrorist groups.
We see that even in the so-called information age, the use of brute force remains an effective tactic in many parts of the world.
Terrorists, guerrillas, and similar actors generally aimed at eroding an opponent’s will to fight rather than destroying his means.
“Maybe those gangs of Islamist terrorists and Jihadists are doing a hell of a job destabilizing and fragmenting the Arab world. And surely the US/EU will continue to look from on high and make-believe they see no terrorism and hear no terrorism until the whole region is set for a greater Israel scenario.” To Quote (Hillary Clinton.) The next President more than likely of the USA.
No boots and uniforms on the ground has turn ISIS, contrary to Al Qaeda hoax, into the most dangerous international terrorist organization the world has ever come to witness.
If ISIS is allowed to grow bigger in the hope of fragmenting the Arab world and giving more space and influence for the Zionist entity then this whole thing will turn into an imminent world menace.
Unfortunately or perhaps fortuitously there is no stomach in the west to tackle ISIS head on. That option has long gone.
The main target behind ISIS is to ignite a Shiite/Sunni inferno that is drag Saudi Arabia and Iran into a dreadful conflict that will destabilize and weaken both states.
ISIS is already issuing passports and promotional publications for the new Caliphate and is now presenting itself as an ideologically a superior alternative to al-Qaida.
All three groups – Jabhat al-Nusra and Zawahiri’s al-Qaida on the one hand, and Isis on the other – share the same goals: the creation of an Islamic state in Syria (and Iraq.) Iraq is already a country of two distinct halves.
Everybody now seems to have some kind of involvement in this fight, which may have killed more than 200,000 people, and no one has a realistic idea of how to end it or for that matter to navigate the chaotic seeming tempest of our modern world.
One way other the other history never begins with a sudden event.
No matter what terminology we use ISIS definitely has its origins in the USA invasion of Iraq after 9/11. It is now shaped by the nature of conflict which is taking on an increasingly sectarian characteristic. As a Jihadist organization claiming to represent the true Islamic Khilafat, its project( for the lack of a better word) will not stop at the current borders and it will continue seeking to expand its territory. Building its own state and consolidating its power in the areas it manages to control.
So where do we stand to-day?
As the attention of the world focused on Ukraine and Gaza, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) captured a third of Syria in addition to the quarter of Iraq it had seized in June.
The frontiers of the new Caliphate declared by Isis on 29 June are expanding by the day and now cover an area larger than Great Britain and inhabited by at least six million people, a population larger than that of Denmark, Finland or Ireland.
It is believed to have some 30,000 fighters in its ranks, with about 10% of them from the West. ( 3,000 Westerners)
In a few weeks of fighting in Syria Isis established itself as the dominant force in the Syrian opposition, routing the official al-Qaida affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, in the oil-rich province of Deir Ezzor and executing its local commander as he tried to flee.
In northern Syria some five thousand Isis fighters are using tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army in Mosul to besiege half a million Kurds in their enclave at Kobani on the Turkish border.
In central Syria, near Palmyra, Isis fought the Syrian army as it overran the al-Shaer gas field, one of the largest in the country, in a surprise assault that left an estimated three hundred soldiers and civilians dead. Repeated government counter-attacks finally retook the gas field but Isis still controls most of Syria’s oil and gas production.
Branches of ISIS have sprung up in Egypt and Libya, and in March 2015, the Nigerian-based Islamist sect Boko Haram pledged allegiance to ISIS.
ISIS is definitely not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda distanced itself from ISIS as it grew increasingly violent and intolerant, even of Muslims.
It has no boundaries in regard to its savagery.
This inferno will not be controllable, and nobody will be immune from it, most of all the Jewish state of Israel (maybe only then the US/EU will regain some of their lost senses and start to see and hear the evil of their own doing.)
Our reluctance to act promptly and decisively with the present and imminent danger of ISIS might seems contradictory to their holy Gospel of war on terrorism, but a closer look will reveal the perfect harmony of the western passive stand with their newly adopted trend of 4th generation asymmetrical warfare.
What is the beauty of this new 4th generation warfare?
In brief, the theory holds that warfare has evolved through four generations:
1) The use of massed manpower, 2) firepower, 3) maneuver, and now 4) An evolved form of insurgency that employs all available networks—political, economic, social, military—to convince an opponent’s decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly.
This is laughable : The Caliphate may be poor and isolated but its oil wells and control of crucial roads provide a steady income in addition to the plunder of war.
When it comes to ISIS is a different story; it’s an obviously more organized, highly militarily trained to use US sophisticated weaponry and attracting evermore young recruits from the west. Who by the way through the Media are its biggest propaganda arm with on average 25 articles per day.
The group uses social media outlets such as Twitter, Whats App, and Facebook to promise new recruits material rewards, such as free housing and a steady salary.
Egypt
The most virulent militant organization in Egypt, pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Libya
At least three militant groups, one in each of Libya’s three regions, pledged allegiance to ISIS.
The group has also reportedly received funding from wealthy individuals in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and Qatar and then used the money to buy arms on the black market. These nations support ISIS because both consider Iran and Syria a threat, share anti-Shiite sentiment, and want to protect fellow Sunnis from violence sanctioned by Assad and Maliki.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar have passed legislation banning such aid, but the governments have done little to enforce the laws.
As we are unwilling to cut the head of the serpent we can only hope that ISIS might have its own internal disagreements about the future. (A slow burn, rather than complete eradication, may be the best possible outcome).
First, a dispute with local populations and the more indigenous groups that have their distinct concerns and priorities other than the strict interpretation of Sharia law, and this dispute is already in place in Syria and some parts of Iraq.
The second. A conflict within the organization between its Iraqi wing that might prioritize the “sectarian conflict” with Shias and issues related to communal identity, and the global wing that adopts the ideology of jihad and looks beyond Iraq.
So we are left with: Why do it yourself when your own enemies (infiltrated by covert operatives) could do it, even better, and change their own sovereign country into a failed state ready to be controlled and subjugated.
The price we might pay in a future conflict could be high indeed.
Life is not a solo act. It’s a huge collaboration.
So where does 4th Generation War come into the picture. War is war no matter what term you give.
It is a loose collection of ideas that does not hold up to close scrutiny.
4GW has reinvented itself several times, taking advantage of the latest developments in technology or tactics, and whatever ideas or theories happened to be in vogue is not working.
Victory in 4GW warfare is won in the moral sphere. The aim of 4GW is to destroy the moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist — cohesion.
There does not seem to be anything Moral about ISIS or Drones.
Through the haze of horror and grief we all witness this war is becoming internationalized and we are running out of time to do anything about it.
Mr Bush wanted to leave Iraq divided up into three separate states along sectarian lines, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish. He got his wish.
The Historical implications of the present conflict you can look up and indeed it is necessary to do so to come to any understanding.
Rooted in centuries of Social, Religious, and Political anguish.
It is sufficient for the purposes of this post to say the latest injury to one side becomes the next injury to the other.
There is no denying that a Jewish State was created in Palestine despite the fact that for over 1300 years it was overwhelmingly inhabited by Arabs.
Why it was formed is based on the biblical account in which God promised the land to the Jews who subsequently conquered and rule the land until along came the Romans 2000 years ago.
Putting aside recent history herein lies the issue as it stands today.
The Region holds historical and Religious significance to both groups. Both groups insist that the land belongs to them. Neither group has anywhere else to go. Both groups claim it is impossible to coexist.
They both have incompatible Goals insofar as one groups sense of identity seem to deny the reality or legitimacy of the other groups identity.
So what does the Iran nuclear deal mean?
Is the US opening a door to a new policy era in the Middle East with potentially far-reaching implications. Should it come to pass. Is it a way to really make changes in the political landscape?
There is one thing for sure: If it does come to pass suddenly US support of Israel is no longer Unconditional.
It is time for Israelis to face the reality.
For Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even dismantling Iran’s civilian programme entirely does not satisfy the Netanyahu’s appetite; it is the Iranian ‘policies’, ‘behavior’ and ‘state’ that he wants eliminated.
How will Israel and Arab nations in the region respond?
Can the US balance newly competing interests in a region already torn by Sunni-Shia conflicts in Syria and Iraq. What about Yemen? All three conflicts have Iranian proxies in the fight.
Will the US have a much greater incentive to force Israel to solve its conflict with the Palestinians, something it resolutely opposed till now.
All of these questions are beyond my and many to answer.
It seems to me that Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice.
Every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less. ( See previous Postings)
Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly would be broken.
So are we in the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored.
In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent a challenge to its nuclear monopoly. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran.
You would think through all the tears of Jewish horror Israel would extend the hand of friendship by offering a One state solution.
Sadly the likely of this happening will take another biblical story. History rarely sleeps securely.
Welcome to a world where the bottom line trumps the common good and government takes a back seat to big business.
I have addressed this subject before. We all have our opinions on Capitalism and Democracy or Capitalism V Democracy.
Capitalism’s role is to increase the economic pie, nothing more.
While Democracy, at its best, enables citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided and to determine which rules apply to private goods and which to public goods.
If we are to restructure the relationship we could not start at a better place than by Putting Ownership Back into Democracy.
Our Governments are paying the penalty for the years they allowed corporations and elites buoyed by runaway economic success to undermine the government’s capacity to respond to citizens’ concerns which has lead to: A sense of political powerlessness which is on the rise among citizens in Europe and the USA.
Today, the tasks of re balancing is increasingly being left to the market.
Companies have shed their loyalties to communities with CEOs who take home exorbitant paychecks from industries that often wreak havoc on the environment. They have morph into global supply chains of great power plundering the world for Profit.
Much of labor inequality comes because high earners getting paid through stock options and capital ownership.
Relative poverty, what we are now calling inequality cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger economy. We must take disparities in the way the benefits of growth and productivity are distributed into account. We haven’t really begun to tackle this problem.
The result is an arms race for political influence that is drowning out the voices of average citizens.
If the Labor Party in the UK were to adopted Putting Ownership Back into Democracy such a policy which would return it to its core values would win them the forthcoming election.
While corporations are increasingly writing their own rules, they are also being entrusted with a kind of social responsibility or morality which of course does not exist as Corporate executives are not authorized by anyone — least of all by their investors — to balance profits against the public good.
Shareholders do not invest in firms expecting the money to be used for charitable purposes. They invest to earn high returns.
Now it the time to create Tax breaks for any privately owned company that offer participating of employees in a share of their profits or losses through stock options. Such a course of action should be encouraged – so that workers can supplement their wages with significant capital ownership stakes and meaningful capital income and profit shares.”
In other words, let’s turn everyone into a capitalist.
The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals.
But democracy cannot fulfill this role when companies use politics to advance or maintain their competitive standing, or when they appear to take on social responsibilities that they have no real capacity or authority to fulfill.
That leaves societies unable to address the trade offs between economic growth and social problems such as job insecurity, widening inequality, and climate change. As a result, consumer and investor interests almost invariably trump common concerns
It is worth contemplating for a moment Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.
Indeed if any Political party were to recognizes that the worsening inequality is an inevitable outcome of free market capitalism it would be large a step in the right direction.
Entrepreneurs are become increasingly dominant over those who own only their own labor. For instance Zero Hour Contracts or for a better word Modern day slavery.
Politicians are surrendered more and more power to trade, to global markets and to what I call supranational bodies like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the world trade organisation, the EU.
The question is, what is the point in electing any one when globalization is changing national politics and our states are activity selling your countries resources to privatization for short-term profit.
Fresh Water, Clean Air, Power, Rail Transport, Medical Care and Education should be state-owned. Run by the Nation for the Nation not for the GDP.
We are on a path toward a degree of inequality that will reach levels likely to cause severe social disruption. I don’t have to tell you where to look.
Politicians forget about the constant small changes which make up the whole economic picture and spend their time fighting between the past and future, between inherited entitlements and future investment. They put too much emphasis on elections and too little the other essential features of democracy.
It’s no wonder that politicians have to lie all the time.
There was a time that people elected representatives who pulled the levers of national power for a fixed period.
You don’t have to have a crystal ball when looking at the world to realize that economic growth worldwide is very likely to be stuck at 1 to 1.5 percent through the rest of this century.
And that the digital revolution it turning democracy’s institutions into out of date institutions that are handing more powers to special interests turning politics into the struggle of who gets what, when, how.
Technological changes and discontinuities (or globalization) have created a surge in inequality, where online hyper democracy rules and will continue to do so.
The Internet makes it easier to organise and agitate, in a world where people are voting daily in reality TV or supporting a petition with the click of a mouse. They only vote for Government every five years.
Political power changing is also a major contributor to the rise in inequality in advanced economies.
If we are honest with ourselves today, we will acknowledge that the ideal of Democracy has never failed, but that we haven’t carried it out, and in our lack of faith we have debased the human being who must have a chance to live if Democracy is to be successful.
The Moral Basis of Democracy (1940)
When the Clean Air Act was passed in the United States, the joke in Tokyo and Osaka was that while Ford and General Motors called in their lawyers, Toyota and Nissan called in their engineers.
Here is what going wrong.
If political power exactly followed economic power there is little hope for Democracy.
We all know that it is not possible to please all the people all of the time.
The problem is that democracy and capitalism are not bed partners.
Traditional liberal government policies on spending, taxation and regulation will fail to diminish inequality. The higher” the rate of return on capital is in comparison to the rate of growth of the economy. The higher this ratio is, the greater inequality is.
It all starting roughly with the onset of World War I.
The owners of capital – those at the top of the pyramid of wealth and income – absorbed a series of devastating blows. These included the loss of credibility and authority as markets crashed; physical destruction of capital throughout Europe in both World War I and World War II; the raising of tax rates, especially on high incomes, to finance the wars; high rates of inflation that eroded the assets of creditors; the nationalization of major industries in both England and France; and the appropriation of industries and property in post-colonial countries.
In Eisenhower’s words, “Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear from that party again in our political history.”
Leaving us with a belief that the economy is the be all and the end all to keep the masses happy.
However personal income distribution is getting more unequal — which indeed is what we have witnessed in the past 30 years. Zero Hour Contracts, no security, higher and higher Vat.
There is no point in creating millions of modern-day slavery jobs. They are worthless in galvanizing a nation’s wealth. Pride of ownership is what produces productivity and happiness. It’s not rocket science.
On a world scale to halt inequality there are a few options:
Create a World Aid Fund which feeds of Profit by placing a world aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions ( over $20,000) on all Foreign Wealth Funds Acquisitions. (see previous Posts)
Or
Impose a global progressive tax on wealth – global in order to prevent (among other things) the transfer of assets to countries without such levies. A global tax, in this scheme, would restrict the concentration of wealth and limit the income flowing to capital.
Or
Impose an annual graduated tax on stocks and bonds, property and other assets that are customarily not taxed until they are sold.
The very infeasibility of establishing a global wealth tax serves to reinforce the argument concerning the inevitability of increasing inequality.
The International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations, reported recently that the number of unemployed grew by 5 million from 2012 to 2013, reaching nearly 202 million by the end of last year. It is projected to grow to 215 million by 2018.
No country can deal with Climate Change, and the forthcoming shortage of fresh water, never mind tax evasion.
The political economy is such that the political power to enact those taxes also requires a mobilized citizenry and institutional power, such as a robust labor movement. When in fact all that people want is equal opportunity.
I am no Karl Marx but the capitalist economic system is in its present state undermining the democratic system by compromising the very values that democracy was founded upon.
It is imperative to remember that we are also citizens who have it in our power to reduce social costs, making the true price of the goods and services we purchase as low as possible for all.
Conclusion:
Since capitalism means the rule of a small elite in the economy, and democracy means the rule of all people, the option of capitalism as the base for democracy is questionable regardless of the wishes of the workers or the community.
Are there any authentic democratic institutions left. No.
Lets hope Capitalism as we know it is obsolete well before machines do everything.
The contradictions between democracy and capitalism will be on full display in the UK elections if you are interested over the coming weeks.
The most valuable commodity in the world today, is not oil, not natural gas, not even some type of renewable energy. It’s water—clean, safe, fresh water and it is being privatized for short-term profit.
A gift of nature, or a valuable commodity? A human right, or a luxury for the privileged few? Will the agricultural sector or industrial sector be the main consumer of this precious resource? Whatever the answers to these and many more questions, one thing is clear:
That water will be one of the defining issues of the coming decade, not the internet, not the current conflicts, not poverty or Inequality, nor climate change, or the far of distant stars.
SAVE THE PLANET, WHEN WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO SAVE OURSELVES.
Some estimates say that 768 million people still have no access to fresh water.
Water isn’t traded on commodity exchanges yet but you would wrong to think that the most valuable commodity more valuable than oil will remain so.
These days we hear that sustainable development is the only way forward. There will be no sustainable development while the water issues remain unsolved.
It is our responsibility that fresh water does not become a commodity to be exploited for short-term profit to pump out billions in profit.
The Oil Industry wastes 2 million gallons each day in California Fracking.
Across the world Nestlé is pushing to privatize and control water resources. In 2000 at the world Water Forum Nestlé successfully lobbied to stop water being declared a universal right. Profits over people and corporate rights over human rights.
There is now a hunting season on local water resources by multinational corporations looking to control them. This means billions in profits with us paying 2000 times more for drinking water because it comes in a plastic bottle.
Safe water will become a privilege only affordable for the wealthy.
What are our Out of Date World Organisations doing to safeguard the human right to water other than more verbal diarrhea. (They are discussing the goals)
The World Water Forum which is described as a mouthpiece for transnational companies and the World Bank are falsely claiming to head the global governance of water. (See Below)
Water is essential for human survival and well-being and important to many sectors of the economy. However, resources are irregularly distributed in space and time, and they are under pressure due to human activity. Today, freshwater is used unsustainable in the majority of the regions of the world.
Everyone is demanding more of everything, more houses, more cars and more water. And we are talking of a world where temperatures are forecasted to rise by two to three degrees Celsius, maybe more. The situation is already dire.
China’s energy needs alone will grow by 100 percent by 2050. Since 1990, half the rivers in China have disappeared.
Globally, water pollution is increasing. Around 60 percent of the worlds nation’s groundwater resources are already polluted. In developing countries, an estimated 90% of waste water is discharged directly into rivers and streams without treatment.
At present, most water policy is still driven by short-term economic and political concerns that do not take into account science and good stewardship. State-of-the-art solutions and more funding, along with more data on water resources, are needed especially in developing nations.
Here are some hard facts.
Fragmentation of river systems due to dams is the single greatest threat to freshwater ecosystems’ health.
There are an estimated 800,000 dams worldwide, including around 45,000 large dams (over 15 metres high)and 1,000 mega-dams over 100 meters high. Over 60% of the world’s 227 largest rivers have been fragmented by dams, diversions and canals. An estimated 60 to 80 million people have been displaced by dams and nearly 500 million people have had their lives and livelihoods negatively affected.
Some 20 percent of the world’s aquifers are facing over-exploitation, and degradation of wetlands is affecting the capacity of ecosystems to purify water supplies.
People use 54% of the planet’s “blue water” (water that flows through rivers, lakes, and groundwater). Estimates suggest that this may increase to 70% by 2025.
2.3 billion people live in river basins which are under water stress, where less than 1,700 cubic meters of water is available for each person per year. If current consumption patterns continue, at least 3.5 billion people will live in water-stressed river basins in 2025 – half the world’s projected population.
Our Freshwater Living Planet Index (which tracks changes in populations of 714 species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians found in temperate and tropical lakes, rivers and wetlands) showed populations of freshwater species fell by 35% between 1970 and 2007 – a larger decline than in marine and land ecosystems. In tropical regions the decline was almost 70%.
Around 10,000 of the world’s 25,000 known fish species live in fresh water. An average of 300 new freshwater fish species are discovered every year.
Wetlands around the world provide goods and services to people worth an estimated US$70 billion a year.
Climate change is predicted to have a whole range of impacts on water resources. Variation in temperature and rainfall may affect water availability, increase the frequency and severity of floods and droughts, and disrupt ecosystems that maintain water quality.
Over the last 50 years, the frequency of severe flooding and the damage it causes have increased, in part due to the degradation of freshwater ecosystems.
In parts of the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, over half of wetlands were destroyed in the 20th century, and many more were degraded across the rest of the world.
Freshwater is a highly valuable resource for a large number of competing demands, including drinking water, irrigation, hydroelectricity, waste disposal, industrial processes, transport and recreation, as well as ecosystem functions and services.
There is only one direction for water prices at the moment, and that’s up.
The United Nations estimates that by 2050 more than two billion people in 48 countries will lack sufficient water.
Approximately 97 percent to 98 percent of the water on planet Earth is saltwater (the estimates vary slightly depending on the source). Much of the remaining freshwater is frozen in glaciers or the polar ice caps. Lakes, rivers and groundwater account for about 1 percent of the world’s potentially usable freshwater.
95 percent of the world’s cities continue to dump raw sewage into rivers and other freshwater supplies, making them unsafe for human consumption.
Agriculture is responsible for 87 % of the total water used globally. Fresh water is crucial to human society – not just for drinking, but also for farming, washing and many other activities. It is expected to become increasingly scarce in the future, and this is partly due to climate change. Approximately 98% of our water is salty and only 2% is fresh. Of that 2%, almost 70% is snow and ice, 30% is groundwater, less than 0.5% is surface water (lakes, rivers, etc) and less than 0.05% is in the atmosphere.
Climate change will have several effects on these proportions on a global scale. The main one is that warming causes polar ice to melt into the sea, which turns fresh water into sea water, although this has little direct effect on water supply.
The direct impact of climate change is not the only reason.
The increasing global population means more demand for agriculture, greater use of water for irrigation and more water pollution. Rising affluence in some countries means a larger number of people living water-intensive lifestyles, including watering of gardens, cleaning cars and using washing machines and dishwashers.
Rapidly developing economies also result in more industry and in many cases this comes without modern technology for water saving and pollution control. Therefore concerns about climate change must be viewed alongside management of pollution and demand for water.
If we allow poverty related to water to exist in other countries, then we can expect jealousies between nations to rise, and we can expect acts of vengeance from those who are jealous. It is already a source of conflict in some parts of the world such as the Indus River, which runs between India and Pakistan. Another one would be, in fact, in Iraq, where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, rising in Turkey, flow into Syria, then into Iraq. And, in fact, much of Iraq’s water supply is from Turkey.
Fresh Water is why Palestinian must strive for a one nation-state solution with Israel. It is why we must stop oil exploration in the Arctic.
By the middle of the 21st century, 2 billion to 7 billion people will be severely short of water. The WHO estimates that more than 5 million people die each year from diseases caused by unsafe drinking water. By 2030, global demand for water will outstrip supply by 40 percent, a surefire recipe for war.
It takes some 5000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of rice.
General Electric Chairman Jeffrey Immelt said the scarcity of clean water around the world will more than double GE’s revenue from water purification and treatment by 2010—to a total of $5 billion.
Saudi Arabia is expected to invest more than $80 billion in desalinization plants and sewer facilities by 2025 to meet the needs of its growing population.
While China is home to 20 percent of the world’s people, only 7 percent of the planet’s freshwater supply is located there. Asian countries will have severe water problems by the year 2025. (demand is increasing)(supply is decreasing)
In France agricultural production is exempt from the Polluter – pays -principle and that it continues to deteriorate the quality of groundwater with impunity.
The state of the world’s fresh water warns that decreasing water supplies could lead to epidemics and international conflict. Over the next 20 years, the average global supply of water per person is expected to drop by one-third.
What does the future hold?
How can water resources be managed sustainable while meeting an ever-increasing demand?
We always have the same amount of water.
The six billion people of Planet Earth use nearly 30% of the world’s total accessible renewal supply of water. By 2025, that value may reach 70%. Yet billions of people lack basic water services, and millions die each year from water-related diseases.
And you Wonder why we have terrorism.
Water is a basis of international conflict.
Basic human needs for water should be fully acknowledged as a top international priority. Education and research will be essential to providing the knowledge, skills and technology needed to combat fresh water scarcity in the future.
The World Water Forum is a large-scale international conference that is held every three years since 1997 in cooperation with the public, private sectors, academia, and industries.
It was first launched in an effort to facilitate international discussions on global water challenges.
The last Forum attracted more than 35,000 participants in Marseille 2012.
This Council is made up of.
15 heads of State, of governments and European Commissioners.
145 represented countries.
112 Ministers, Vice-Ministers and Secretaries of State.
176 national delegations and international organisations taking part in the Ministerial Declaration.
More than 750 elected officials among which 250 mayors and 250 parliamentarians.
More than 500 sponsored persons.
3,500 NGOs and civil society representatives.
More than 2,600 children and youth.
Like all our Unfunded World Organisations it is an other gossip shop that lacks financial clout to make a differences.
There is only one way we can guard our Fresh Water we must Buy It.
Which can be achieved by Placing a World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange transactions ( over $20,000) and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisition.
We than can create Drought Banks, that give Farmers an allocation of water. He must then decide what is the best return he can get from that amount of water on his property. It might be a big wheat crop or a small cotton crop. It doesn’t matter. The water is the fixed in the equation, not the type of crop.
Foot Note:
Just in case you think that all of this is Hog Wash:
Here are over 80 organizations (community, academic, governmental, funding, and more) working on water and sanitation issues in multiple countries around the world.
Technologies are actually available but most of them are too expensive or far to time consuming to implement simultaneously with ongoing progress and changes.
Even within the European Union an estimated 20 to 30 million people do not have access to safe sanitation, and little action has so far been undertaken to address this problem.
The question is not whether we can afford it but can we afford not to do it?
For example, what is the cost of no action? Water is already under severe pressure and this will only increase with climate change. We cannot afford to lose the services and benefits that a healthy aquatic ecosystem provides. We need clean water in sufficient quantities for our living and for economic activities. In order to keep that, we need a determined action to protect water resources.
The global population is likely to reach 9.1 billion in 2050, if not sooner. While this alone has potentially dire consequences in terms of pressures on natural resources, especially water, Climate change sets its own agenda,
The world is changing faster than ever and becoming more and more complex.
Uncertainties about water availability and demand are increasing, as are the associated risks to development and well-being of people, societies and the environment. Unless we can generate the awareness and political will to react now, the crises we are experiencing now are likely to escalate and the odds of meeting our developmental goals will degenerate. This is why the most recent economic crisis could be seen as an opportunity; it provides an occasion for reflecting on a desired collective future.
For once we might act as one to the benefit of all. The future of the planet and the human race both depend on it.
Water is a common heritage of humanity and of future generations and must be protected as a public trust in law and practice. Water belongs to the Earth and other species. Water might teach us how to live together. How to tread more lightly on the earth — in peace and respect with one another.
There is no doubting that the influence of technology will go beyond new equipment and faster communications and that Science and technology are in danger of out running our morality.
The evolution of technology has morphed the relationship between consumer and creator forever. But life exists in individual moments and it is up to us to make sure those moments are vital to technology. Each of us has meaning, and it is us that bring these moments to life not the other way around.
This for me defines the dangers of Technology. There is a danger that we will end up starved for wisdom and individual wonder distorting the values of civilization.
Sharing may well be the mechanism that propels culture forward, but individualism driven by knowledge is what counts. Therefore we should be wary of falling into the trap of futurism. There may be a temptation to follow technological determinism, that is the idea that technology provides a logical sequence of development that pervades society regardless of its effects.
So it is necessary to study the relationship of science, technology, innovation and government. We need to stay attuned to the power dynamics at play.
Ultimately as we continue to develop and our technological capabilities even the stars will be open to our explorations.
Will humanity be prepared for the greatest discoveries of the history of our civilization? No
Will we find other intelligent civilizations far older and incredibly superior than our technological capabilities and collective wisdom? Yes
Our collective destiny could end with speculation on the values, ethics and consciousness of these civilizations and lessons they may hold for the future of humanity.
Recently I have concentrating on the effects of what Technology could do to Society and how we will behave or change as its influence grows.
We are already living in a world few could have imagined 50 years ago. In a new economy—powered by technology, fueled by information, without a sustainable Life-Plan.
As technology continues to spread, questions emerge:
What are we losing as a society? What is the effect on social relations? Work, after all, is more than just a job or paycheck. It is where we meet friends, share ideas, and build a common sense of purpose and a social network.
What happens if we all become Google Slaves. (see previous post) Is it creating an Hip-pro activity world designed by us that will not work. With voice mail, e-mail, and computer networks, how do we preserve the human network and the social interaction that work has helped to facilitate? What takes its place?
As I have said there may well be a strong link between technology adoption by society and its culture. But technology is never purely beneficial. It has negative and positive effects, There is a need to distinguish between desirable sustainable development and economic growth.
While it is not possible to foretell the future, it is useful to examine present trends and determine their possible consequences.
The use of computers and the Internet in workplaces is become more pervasive as work and skills are being redefined and reorganized.
The demands of the future will require increased efforts to include these workers who have been left behind and have not shared in our prosperity.
It will also require successfully integrating millions of immigrants into the workplace.
If we’re not careful, our technological evolution will take us toward not a singularity but a sofalarity.
The problem with technological evolution is that it is under our control and, unfortunately, we don’t always make the best decisions.
Does Technology want what life wants: Increasing efficiency; Increasing opportunity; Increasing emergence; Increasing complexity; Increasing diversity; Increasing specialization; Increasing ubiquity; Increasing freedom; Increasing mutualism; Increasing beauty; Increasing sentience; Increasing structure; Increasing evolvability. I think not.
Technological evolution has a different motive force. It is self-evolution, and it is therefore driven by what we want as opposed to what is adaptive. In a market economy, it is even more complex: for most of us, our technological identities are determined by what companies decide to sell based on what they believe we, as consumers, will pay for.
When it comes to technologies, we mainly want to make things easy. We are at a time of great creativity, of great potential for change for better or worse.
Technology is not the only cause of these changes, but scientists have made clear that it is a driving factor.
It is already dispensing death by algorithms.
Assuming that we really are evolving as we wear or inhabit more technological prosthetics—like ever-smarter phones, helpful glasses, and brainy cars—here’s the big question:
Will that type of evolution take us in desirable directions, as we usually assume biological evolution does?
The technology industry, which does so much to define us, has a duty to cater to our more complete selves rather than just our narrow interests. It has both the opportunity and the means to reach for something higher. And, as consumers, we should remember that our collective demands drive our destiny as a species, and define the post human condition. Both Google and Apple would do well to keep this in mind.
All of these factors have contributed to rising inequality. The development of a hierarchy of knowledge, a prejudiced vision towards a desired future rather than recognition of more plausible realities.
We all want a future defined not by an evolution toward super intelligence but by the absence of discomforts.
In general, humans have a tendency to always choose the easiest option without
stopping to think that maybe, to think another perspective would open other
possibilities.
The power of Google is considerable, and wielded in many different ways.
Few companies have had as large an impact on our daily lives as Google. The company is everywhere, powering our access to information and how we connect to others.
It has grown to set the world’s standard of information and how it’s managed.
Google is not Life: It’s hidden algorithms have the power to make or break reputations and fortunes, to shape public debates, and to change our view of the world.
Google’s immense resources mean that it can wield its power in many more ways than a mere internet monopoly. Lobbying, both open and hidden, is a big deal – the amount of effort put into shaping the reform of the data protection regime so it suits Google better has been colossal.
It has infiltrated our daily routines with its products and services including smartphones, tablets, laptops, and even financial organization solutions. Through these devices and offerings, Google has influenced culture in a way that very few companies throughout history have.
The company can learn even more about people who use G Mail, the social networking site Orkut, or another of Google’s popular personalized services.
Google’s determination to change the way we access and use information is epitomized through their technological innovations.
Most recently, Google Glass, a groundbreaking technology, combines Google’s software services with day-to-day application. This product introduced the world to the possibility of wearable technology, as users are fed a constant stream of digital information via a mini screen that is fixed on a pair of glasses.
How they set their algorithms, how they index the web, what they include and exclude, what they rate highly – and what they rate as insignificant – matters in ways that are often hugely underestimated.
If you think that Google is are a purely neutral organisation, providing a service to the planet it is a very naive assumption. Google has a critical role to play in how technology functions, how businesses function – and in how the media functions.,not how we function.
The question is whether the company is acquiring too much power over our lives – invading our privacy, shaping our preferences, and controlling how we learn about and understand the world around us.
“Searching” is no longer a neutral tool, but has become a social force in itself.
“A log of your search history is as close to a printout of your brain as we’ve ever had.” For this reason we should be wary of its power, before you end up doomed to join Google Slavery and become a genuine SELF E.
Take for example if you wanted to remove a link; a request is made, and then Google can decide to delete or not to delete – deletions being if the information is old or irrelevant – and if they choose not to, the requester can either take legal action or ask the data protection authority to adjudicated.
In previous post I have aired the opinion that Google wants to capture all knowledge and its distribution, thus becoming the power of the market place world-wide.
Google mission statement: “Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
With so much tracking power throughout the web, plus search, plus its toolbar and other services, Google can track ~70% of the Internet population.
It has the potential to vaporize the profits of any industry that traffic in bits and bytes and to shift the economics to the advantage of Google.
It could actually pose a national defense concern at some point simply by virtue of its singularly massive storehouse of data.
It is becoming the crude oil of the Information Economy.
Our lives are being mapped by the internet.
But is it wise to let the likes of Google decide what becomes of our culture’s collective memory? The place into which we appear to be pouring our culture for safekeeping. If we are putting all our eggs in one or two vast online baskets, shouldn’t we, the public, share a grip on the handle?
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world…
Should we allow search engines like Google to controls not only the future but the past…
Google has successfully built a platform that monetizes the content of other people, first though search, and then through a contextual network. It controls 60%+ of all advertisements that flow in contextual networks.
It’s influence over the Internet spans far beyond search. It goes right into the heart of the Internet – content. Google is like a giant spider who has spread its net all across the Internet, and each time you get on that net, you give more power to that spider.
Google knows more and more about us, but right now there’s almost nothing we can do to find out exactly what it does with that information.
The challenge is how to do this without undermining an online application that, even its critics concede, is one of the greatest learning and labor-saving devices of our time.
Google agreed last year to limit the amount of time it keeps personalized user information to 18 months and to cut the life span of its cookies from 30 years to two.
In the past several years, Google has spent billions on companies, research and projects ranging from YouTube to wind power. It has acquired over 170 companies.
It has changed our language. It has changed our brains. It has taken over our cell phones. It has transformed the way we use e-mail. It’s changed how we collaborate. It has allowed us to travel the globe from our desks. It has influenced the news we read. It has turned users into commodities. It’s changed how everyone else sees YOU.
Google’s Android operating system is also the most widely used smart phone software in the world, further emphasizing their technological dominance in mobile computing markets.
The role of search engines as intermediaries or data controllers is not understood.
Indeed Google’s power to control the process and set the agenda is lacking vision.
Despite the growing number of photographers who use Google in their works, it remains unclear how this technology will influence our perspective in photography—and perceptions of spatial reality—outside the virtual world.
A small step in the right direction.
Instead of Google promoting its Logo as a biennial supporter of St Patrick’s Day or
It could with its Logo highlight the Inequalities of the world. The abuse of People Trafficking, Poverty, Corruption. Its Logo could become a rallying symbol for change. Would it do it. Of course not because it suffers from the very symptoms it has or is creating. Exploitation of the weakest, the gullible, the naive, the lonely, the very people who need to be one bar closer to Humanity.
Whatever your opinions are about Google, you can’t deny their influence on the world around us.
Ultimately, Google must grapple with the essential paradox it embodies.
As a corporation, it’s often a cipher, its intentions and methods concealed by algorithms that look impenetrable and impersonal. Yet the search engine and the blockbuster business built atop it utterly depend upon millions of people sharing through searches their most intimate desires, and upon thousands of businesses willing to open their data storehouses to feed Google’s voracious digital maw
” It’s about humans. “
Google may have to listen to the rest of us about what Google will become next.
Old expectations of privacy might be fading but if we are denied the right to reply or remove links it could well lose the head-to-head battle between it and Apple.
“Google nets $115,150 of revenue in one minute, and converts $23,509 of that into profit.
Apple in 60 seconds,makes a dizzying $328,965 in revenue. Translate that into profit, and it’s still an insanely high $71,288. Per second, Apple makes over $1100 in pure profit.
I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written or stored by Google.
