THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HOW DOES TIME FIT INTO THE BROADER PICTURE OF THE UNIVERSE.

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Two minutes Unscientific though.)

In the sciences generally, time is usually defined by its measurement: it is simply what a clock reads. However, since the advent of relativity most physicists agree that time had a beginning and that it is measured from, and indeed came into being with, The Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago.

Physics is the only science that explicitly studies time, but even physicists agree that time is one of the most difficult properties of our universe to understand.The image of a black hole captured by the Event Horizon Telescope.

We don’t really understand exactly how the universe was born in the Big Bang.

In a past post, I advocated that there was no such thing as the big bang because space-time itself is a product of the special early stage of the universe.

IN THAT POST MY UNSCIENTIFIC LOGIC ARGUED THAT ATOMS HAD TO BE IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE BIG BANG FOR IT TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. THERE CANNOT BE AN EXPLOSION WITHOUT SOMETHING TO HEAT.

Now we have the first picture of a Blackhole that gives the first direct glimpse of a black hole’s accretion disc, a fuzzy doughnut-shaped ring of gas and dust that steadily “feeds” the monster within.

The illuminated dark shadow within marks the edge of the event horizon, the point of no return, beyond which no light or matter can travel fast enough to escape the inexorable gravitational pull.

The event horizon beyond which all reality as we know it is distorted beyond recognition and physical laws collapse, which cannot be seen by definition.

As far as we know black holes are stars that run out of energy and collapse in on to themselves. Depending on their mass and proximity to other black holes they eventually form a super black hole at the centre of their galaxies.

As a result, all matter within that universe orbits around the super black hole and depending on how near or fast the orbit eventually in time will be eating.

As time can’t move with respect to time. Is time an emergent property or a fundamental property?

The singularities within the black holes do not bend space. It’s not a property of time itself. So is it logical to say that time itself emanates from the black hole?

They create time its self, gravity and stars. Stars form inside dense concentrations of interstellar gas and dust called molecular clouds.

Depending on different notions of the ultimate fate of the universe time is an illusion because space-time is finite in extent, but doesn’t have any boundary or edge.

Things ~can get out of a black hole, both to the outside, and possibly, to another universe.

The images now making the rounds are of a supermassive black hole, with the mass of 6.5 million suns, lying at the centre of the galaxy Messier 87. luckily is 53 million lights years away our one is 26 thousand light-years away in a milky way.

All galaxies within the known universe have a super black hole KNOWN AS A SINGULARITY at their centre around the universe that it exists in will eventually collapse.

So perhaps the start of the known universe was two super black holes colliding.

Should we be worried?  We have no time to stand and stare.

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HOW LONG BEFORE BRITAIN REAPPLIES FOR EU MEMBERSHIP.

Tags

, ,

 

(Six-minute read)

You could say that this whole Brexit thing was caused by strong external influences that fell on a political fertile soil in the UK but had no real substance in GB.

Furthermore, it would be correct to say that the EU was devised for, to avoid in future the imperialist ambitions of the nation-states.

It is true that the UK has the right to leave the EU but it is also true that the EU has the right to insist on what terms.

It’s this conundrum that is constantly denied by the majority of the political class in the UK but that is the reality.

Now we are looking at a fragile British democracy which is stuck in the past with a monocracy and a ruling class struggling with “damage limitation” but the damage is already done no matter what happens in October.

So let’s look at the extension period till October.

What is it?

It is basically membership in all but name.

In Brexit terms, this means that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally before its agreement enters into force or if it does not enter in force, until October 2019.

What problem is that for the EU27?

Frankly speaking, none other than the absurdity of 73 UK MEPs contesting the European elections without revoking Article 50.

Will the six months extension achieve anything other than a UK General election that could produce a hard line socialist government with serious problems both economically and politically with rejoining?

Yes.

The collapse to the Union.

A revocation decision would run counter to the outcome of the UK referendum. By approving the withdrawal agreement, the UK becomes a rule-taker with no voice. By rejecting the withdrawal agreement, it faces serious and radical economic disruption.

Either way, the ultimate decision must be made through the British political system that does not represent the people as a whole, because of the first past the post.

The pressure is now taken off from the EU and is now entirely on the UK.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "how will britain use the new six month extension"

IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT:

If we genuinely look at what are the real problems with Brexit.

If Northern Ireland signed up to single market rules on goods the UK would likely seek a deal for the region which also included services because the bulk of the UK’s economy lies in the services sector rather than in goods.

The British would be shooting themselves in the foot because it plays to the advantage of the EU27 who have a net positive balance towards the UK in goods.

IF THIS WAS TO HAPPEN:

Should the EU limit membership of the single market in Northern Ireland to those areas that are relevant to the Good Friday agreement.

If — and it’s a big if — the UK wants to keep the Good Friday Agreement, the only satisfactory option is full [EU] membership.

“That is the only logical conclusion.”

If the British government is serious about saying it will not contemplate internal legislative divergence within the UK, the entire UK has to stay in the single market.

The logical consequence then is to say, if the UK is bound to keep at least part of the United Kingdom in the single market because of the Good Friday agreement, the choice is: Either it renounces the Good Friday Agreement and then it can indeed leave the single market and customs union. Or it keeps the UK inside the European Union because democratically, that’s the only serious option.

But it would be stupid for the British government to be happy with a single market just for goods. It would insist on having a single market for services — and then you are in the full single market.

It is not a negative for the European Union to accept an extension status for the United Kingdom because that status must come with obligations.

Nothing basically changes, except that the Brits are not sitting at the table.

However, just imagine that a new British government — because it does not feel bound by whatever the previous government did — says: ‘OK, we believe the decision to leave that way was the wrong decision and we want to reconsider. This is the reason that the EU is offering a long extension a period in which Britain could “digest what it really means to be a member of the European Union and what it really means not to be a member.

However, it’s entirely possible the UK will be back where it started at the end of extra time.

In the long run, the influence of GB in Europe and the greater world is being significantly weakened by Brexit. While it is true that many countries may well want to trade with Britain on leaving contrary to the views of the Brexiteers it will not be their term, not English terms.

So we are left with the very fitness of the English political system in a modern world driven by technology.

Both the EU and the UK are the immovable fact of geography.

How long before the UK is a ‘new member?

Less time than trade talks.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’ S: WHICH GLOBAL ISSUE SHOULD WE BE WORKING ON TO HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

(Ten-minute read)

By not be able to coordinate any universal action we now pose the greatest threat to our own survival.

Future civilisation might well create a world without need or want, and make mindblowing intellectual and artistic achievements but in this new age, what should be our biggest priority as a civilisation be?

We could build a far more just and virtuous society but if we let civilisation end, then none of this can ever happen.

An overwhelming amount of political attention goes on concrete issues that help the present generation in the short-term since that’s what gets votes but at the cost of future generations that have no way to stand up for their interests, whether economically or politically.

You might be surprised if you ask the above question using AI.

Climate change comes some way down the list.

Natural risks are still quite small in absolute terms.

The risks from nuclear weapons are greater than all the natural risks put together. So, it seems like the chance of a massive climate disaster created by CO2 is perhaps similar to the chance of a nuclear war.

Since these risks are caused by humanity, they can be prevented by humanity, but what stops us is the difficulty of coordinate action.Image associée

Take Artificial Intelligence.

(There is a 50% chance we will develop high-level machine intelligence in 45 years, and 75% by the end of the century.)

It is difficult to predict what something smarter than us would do.  A sufficiently powerful system might be difficult to control, and so be hard to reverse once implemented.

What’s less appreciated is that new technologies will present further catastrophic risks.

Like genetically engineer a virus that’s as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but also deadlier, and which could spread for years undetected. That would be a weapon with the destructive power of nuclear weapons, but far harder to prevent from being used.

So, let’s ask the question again.

What should be our biggest priority as a civilisation be?

(The flippant answer is we first have continued to exist so that we’ll have the chance to solve all our other problems.)

Improving technology? Helping the poor? Changing the political system? Free Education? Geo-engineering?- to mention a few.

Most of the best ways to tackle these risks are not easily taken by for-profit entities because the beneficiaries live in the future and can’t pay you.

For instance, a better-educated population would probably elect more enlightened leaders (cough). Improve the decision-making ability of people and institutions, this would help to make society, in general, more resilient, and solve many other problems.

However, in order for education to achieve anything, it would have to be on a very large scale to have any noticeable effect.

Improving technology holds the possibility of enormous gains, but also enormous risks.

Avoid accidents from AI systems are the most neglected of all risks.

More to the point, no matter what you think has happened in the past, if we look forward, improving technology, political organisation and freedom gives our descendants the potential to solve our current problems, and have vastly better lives.

Then, among the catastrophic risks, climate change gets the most attention, while issues like pandemics and AI are the most neglected.

An issue can be big but comparatively well-known and crowded, like climate change, or it can be small but neglected, like land use zoning reform.

In most countries, there is no government agency that naturally has mitigation of these risks in its remit.

So, even if we only focus on the impact on the present generation, these

catastrophic risks are one of the most serious issues facing humanity.

Probably part of the reason most people aren’t immediately ready to jump into action is that there appear to be so many problems and no simple solution presents itself for any of them.

One approach is to address each risk directly. Or rather than try to reduce each risk individually, we can try to make civilisation generally better at managing them – if we could all coordinate — if every nation agreed to contribute its fair share to reducing climate change, then all nations would benefit by avoiding its worst effects.

Unfortunately, such an approach in our capitalist consuming world is pie in the sky.

The truth is we only do so out of self-interest.

As we are witnessing with the Paris Climate Agreement made on 12 December 2015 when it comes down to the nitty gritty no one wants to pay either in the short term or long term.

It would be great if we could make the government have more concern for future generations.

To enable a universal action it has to be unseen and paid for by all without knowing. 

You only have to look at the reaction of the yellow jackets movement spontaneous calls to protest against the increase of the internal consumption tax on energy products. A rebellion of the provincial under-classes that typifies the 21st century (web-populism, fake news and a visceral, exaggerated hatred of both media and political elites).

Like the 5Star Movement in Italy, they started as an internet rebellion against representative democracy.

We all live in an apocalyptic bubble of social media- SO IF WE ARE TO GENUINELY TACKLE ANY OF THE WORLD PROBLEMS IT REQUIRES A PERPETUAL FUND THAT GENERATES ITS FUNDS FROM PROFIT FOR PROFIT SAKE NOT INCREASED TAXES.

(SEE PREVIOUS POSTS)

Such a fund would turn the United Nations from a begging organisation into a world organisation with clout.

AI CALCULATES 19% chance of extinction before 2100.

It’s possible to grow the capacity of a community faster than you can grow your individual wealth or career capital. WE NEED TO USE OUR BUYING POWER TO EFFECTS CHANGE.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "images of global issues"

Why?

Because we will need to change our way of thinking and the extent of how we consume resources.

To achieve food and water security. To stop HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND OCEAN DESTRUCTION – TO CREATE A MORE MODERN AND EFFECTIVE UN. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WILL A LONG EXTENSION GRANTED TO ENGLAND BE GOOD FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

,

 

(Two-minute read)

 

A LONG EXTENSION MIGHT SAVE THE IGNOMINY OF ENGLAND LEAVING THE EUROPEAN UNION WITHOUT A DEAL, FORSTALL IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE BRITISH AND IRISH ECONOMY AND ALLOW ENGLAND TO HOLD EITHER A NEW REFERENDUM OR GENERAL ELECTION BUT IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF IN OR OUT.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "all images english extension"

To take no-deal off the table, it is not enough to vote against no deal — you have to agree to a deal.

BECAUSE A NO DEAL IS NOW A LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF THE ENGLISH NEGOTIATIONS IT MEANS TO ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE A DEAL IS TO REVOKE ARTICLE 50, AND AS THE EU DOES NOT WANT TO BE THE FALL GUY IT MEANS THAT ENGLAND IS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

The United Kingdom committed to the success of European integration would undoubtedly strengthen the EU.

Unfortunately, the majority of British citizens don’t see other Europeans (if they consider themselves Europeans at all) as fellow citizens but as deeply foreign—in some senses more foreign than non-Europeans from former British colonies in India or Africa.

As a result, even though 60% of total UK trade is covered by EU membership and the preferential access it grants to 53 markets outside the EU they see the European project—indeed Europe itself—as alien.

England is already showing contempt for the European project by issuing new passports removing the European Union’ on the front cover, by introducing a Settlement registration for European citizens.

Overall, it is also evident that none of the alternative relations with the EU presents itself as more advantageous compared to EU membership.

If it leaves and rejoins under the Maastricht treaty it would have to formally commit to joining the euro and abandoning the pound as part of new membership terms.

Totally unthinkable with the current political climate.

So we must now ask that question. What are the parameters re an extension request other than taking part in the European elections?

Continuing UK membership of the European Union (EU) creates rights and obligations: for the UK as a state, for individual citizens, and for businesses and other organisations.

British political discourse is very rarely about what is to be done together as Europeans; it is far more about what can be extracted from Europeans.

EU legislation is seen as having been imposed on the U.K. And when it benefits U.K. citizens, they claim it’s a British initiative.

The orthodoxy of the EU apart from the customs union and the single market is being able to move around the EU is an inherent part of being a member.

If England is granted a long extension and contest the European Union elections there are crosscutting rights and obligations, such as the UK’s right to a say in the making of EU laws, and its obligation to comply with them once agreed.

EU member states are able to veto new states joining.

There are other areas where a British veto could be used to block European Union initiatives – foreign affairs, taxation, justice, and any constitutional changes, or blocking majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

EU member states are able to veto new states joining.

There are other areas where a British veto could be used to block European Union initiatives – foreign affairs, taxation, justice, and any constitutional changes, or blocking majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

The power to grant one is at the EU’s discretion.

 

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WOULD SOMEONE IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD NOT TURN DOWN A FURTHER EXTENSIONS.

Tags

, ,

(Seven-minute read)

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.

The endless political crisis in which the United Kingdom has been sinking for nearly three years invites us to consider Brexit as the most pathetic example of a democratic accident that we have seen for a long time.

Britain’s 43-year marriage with the European Union (and its predecessors) could be about to come to a spectacular end which is perhaps emblematic of a nation without a written constitution.

A travesty of democracy.UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage stands on a campaign bus for Brexit.

Theresa May is now ( by just one vote), legally obliged to seek an extension to article 50 and avoid a no-deal Brexit.

Does it really matter?

YES. 

BECAUSE IF THERE IS NO EXTENSION AND IT IS LAW TO AVOID A NO DEAL THERE IS ONE ONE OPTION LEFT AND THAT IS TO REVOKE ARTICLE 50.

BRITAIN STAY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Britain would then participate in the EUROPEAN UNION ELECTIONS  as a full member and would introduce MPs. The British would then take part in the decisions concerning the program and the composition of the new European Commission and the budgetary framework until 2027.

Then we are now looking at a Brexit which could trigger the break up of the UK either by organizing a new peoples ballot or a general election.

However, voting is not compulsory.

So it might all come down to how many people actually bother to turn up and vote.

In the meantime, we have a member state introducing a Settlement Scheme to allow European citizens to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021.

(If your application is successful, you’ll get either settled or pre-settled status)

EU citizens in England are to becoming second rate English citizens with their right to call Britain their home under threat.

It’s hardly surprising that England is a deeply troubled country when it had to hold a debate on whether the Europe flag should disappear from public buildings.

I find it extremely disturbing that the English Government had to debate a motion whether to ban the flying of the European Flag commemorating the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 apostles, the 12 labours of Hercules and the 12 months of the year. They are a symbol of universal perfection and the flag is supposed to be a symbol of peace in Europe.

I ALSO FIND IT BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT A MEMBER STATE AFTER A REFERENDUM THAT WAS WON BY LESS THAN 4%  (almost 900,000 live in the EU alone were only allowed to vote if they were registered on the electoral lists in the United Kingdom.) WAS DRIVEN BY LIES, HELD BY A PRIMINSTER TO PLACATE EUROSCEPTICS IN HIS PARTY,  WAS NOT LEGALLY BINDING TILL ARTICLE 50 WAS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT OUT ANY PLANNING SHOULD NOW BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY OF A FELLOW MEMBER STATE IRELAND.

The above asks the questions about the future of the country and its purpose; where it is heading.

Can a simple majority of the votes cast (corresponding to a minority of the electorate as a whole) commit the future of future generations to its present concerns?

In a sense, we have not seen anything yet: the ratification of the withdrawal treaty, if it goes well, would mark the beginning of the process. As soon as the divorce agreement is implemented.

In fact, the Brexit could upset the political landscape in Europe traditionally dominated by two mastodont parties. Extremists are becoming increasingly important not just in the Conservative Party and the Labor Party but in the forthcoming European Elections.

But a lot of water needs to go under London Bridge and wind blow in Brussels before it is possible to create a world of peace and reconciliation, to tread ever more softly on our planet.

The tragedy of the present time is precisely that such an aspiration seems to be the exception and that anger or passion are infinitely more widespread than reason and argument in the streets of London or Paris, as on social networks.

In a chaotic world driven by technology surely there is only one democratic route and that is to revoke article 50, pause think.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

 

 

 

 

 

it could ultimately take up to a decade.

 

Could the UK come crawling back?

Technically, yes.

 

 

 

 

Britain will never get a better EU deal than it has right now

it is useless to prolong the discussions to infinity,

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

“As algorithms push humans out of the job market, wealth and power might become concentrated in the hands of the tiny elite that owns the all-powerful algorithms, creating unprecedented social and political inequality.”  Yuval Noah Harari.

Is he right?

Thanks to digital data, the state is able to have visibility on its population but is unable to govern concretely. Indeed, how can effective public policies be put in place if we can not quantify the objectives to be achieved according to the realities already observed?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "social credit system"

The crucial problem isn’t creating new jobs. The crucial problem is creating new jobs that humans perform better than algorithms.

Consequently, by 2050 a new class of people might emerge – the useless class. People who are not just unemployed, but unemployable.

Technology is never the main driver of social progress. Technology is only an amplifier of human conditions.

Why then, do we keep hoping that technology will solve our greatest social ills?

Technology has done nothing to turn the tide of rising poverty and inequality.

Yuval Noah Harari sees the problem clearly, “The most important question in 21st-century economics may well be: What should we do with all the superfluous people, once we have highly intelligent non-conscious algorithms that can do almost everything better than humans?”

Software is eating the world.  More and more major businesses and industries are being run on software and delivered as online services.

Most of what people learn in school or in college will probably be irrelevant by the time they are 40 or 50.

We need to change what we value. If we don’t our political and economic systems will simply stop attaching much value to humans. Even in an age of amazing technology, social progress depends on human changes that gadgets just can’t deliver.

What should we do?

We can’t move from the world we have to the world you want without a total paradigm shift

But what is the truth? What about reality?

Do we really want to live in a world in which billions of people are immersed in fantasies, pursuing make-believe goals and obeying imaginary laws?

Well, like it or not, that’s the world we have been living in for thousands of years already.

In order to move forward, we need to embrace technology both as a means of production and a method for producing new roles while not allowing code itself to push us into oblivion.Photo of a large monitor in a busy intersection showing images of a suspect.

The world may well be becoming more equal with more technology however rather than transferring wealth from the middle-class to the tech elite it does not distribute wealth universally.

This can only be achieved by moving to Universal assets ownership.

A Universal basic salary will only fuel consumption. 

I think most people really do want to believe that they’re contributing to the world in some way, but consumption without a purpose will indeed lead to creating a whole class of flunkies that essentially exist to improve the lives of actual rich people.

Of course, I can hear that Universal Asset ownership is a Socialist idea. But in a world that is now driven by the technology of detachment, we must find a way of engaging in sharing responsibility and rewards.

Sure there are plenty of ways to contribute to society, other than ownership, but, if we are to act as one people, we must be free to decide how and want to contribute.

Returning to the Question of DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP.

I think most people do not want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they will have to do next.

If the hegemony of Google is to be demonstrated, we must also understand that the company is filling digital governance that states are struggling to reclaim.

We’ve been taught for the last 30 to 40 years that imagination has no place in politics or economics, but that, too, is bullshit.

So here is a solution.

The trove of data generated by every digital citizen should not be held by governments or companies but by citizens themselves.

If not the digital companion whispering to our ears the next stage will be delimiting the good of the bad.

We already have social-style scores, anyone who has shopped online with eBay has a rating on shipping times and communication. There is a lot of data being collected with little protection, and no algorithmic transparency about how it’s analysed to spit out a score or ranking.

I am not advocating here China’s social credit system which is a vast plan to monitor citizens, judging citizens’ behaviour and trustworthiness. The potential for abuse is enormous. The Social Credit System is in large part a direct response to a collapse in public confidence in government officials and others in positions of authority. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "social credit system"

I am advocating a system of social credits to reward projects that reduce climate change, social inequality and that promotes free education. 

Why not use human wisdom, not machines, to move our world forward.

Democracy as we know it will not survive the Forth Technological Revolution unless we all have a stake in it other than the vote.

Looking at the state of the world the idea of a ‘useless class’ might feel abstract to most of us at the moment and will remain so until we use our buying power as our voting power to effect change.

Right now we’ve got upside down democracy where every decision has been made globally, behind closed doors by corporations. If the people see no point in a democracy, because it seems to have no relevance to their everyday lives and the situation in which they live them, they will not do anything to defend it or take part in its processes.

With Universal Asset ownership business can become part of the solution,
not part of the problem.

That’s a project we can all get behind.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Who actually is the useless class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT IS THE VALUE OF A HUMAN TO DAY ?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

( Seven minuter read)

At the best of times, money is a touchy subject but when it comes to putting a value on a human there is a vast array of circumstances that all boil down to pain and pleasure.

Whatever rest assured with the Forth Industrial Revolution and Climate change we are going to learn the real value of human life. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "can we put a monetary value on ourselves" Should the value of life be variable depending on age?  UTILITARIANISM.

Have you been thinking about putting yourself up for sale lately?

Ever wonder how much money you could get on the open human market?

Money is merely an arbitrary store of value, wars and natural disasters bear witness to this fact.

In a system where capitalism is a prime determinant of value, how can we preserve what we truly value as humans, what matters to us beyond money?

No matter where we stand on the socioeconomic ladder, the future of the “normal life” doesn’t look good.

CAN WE DO ANYTHING?

Humanity is more important than money — it’s time for capitalism to get an

upgrade.

So how can we change capitalism so that it focuses on what humans really

want and need?

There have been many different forms of capitalist economies ever since money was invented around 5,000 years ago. The current form of institutional capitalism and corporatism is just the latest of many different versions with the current revolution in technology promoting another form of materialism, by and large, is a psychological trap.

Profit-seeking algorithms recognise that money is inherently neutral that it is merely a vessel for the exchange of experience between two people. Its value only becomes realized when it’s put into motion.

Technology will not be the key which frees us from this precipitous world.

Most people these days aren’t even conscious of what they’re using to determine their self-worth.

No matter how much you own, how much you buy, how much you earn, the disease of more never goes away- just look at the current state of the world.

Old-style protection of nature for its own sake has badly failed to stop the destruction of habitats and the dwindling of species. It has failed largely because philosophical and scientific arguments rarely trump profits and the promise of jobs.

In one of my recent post, I addressed the power of your back pocket – buying power as a means of effecting change. It needs to be supported by Social Credits. (See below)

Instead of having our humanity subverted to serve the marketplace, capitalism has to be made to serve human ends and goals.

Of course some time ago it dawned on someone that, by making it possible for people to buy and sell natures services, we could save the world and turn a profit at the same time. The industrial revolution of the nineteenth century. Nature by capital.

(Sorry, did I say nature? We don’t call it that any more. It is now called natural capital. Ecological processes are called ecosystem services because, of course, they exist only to serve us. Hills, forests, rivers: these are terribly out-dated terms. They are now called green infrastructure. Biodiversity and habitats? Not at all à la mode my dear. We now call them asset classes in an ecosystems market. I am not making any of this up. These are the names we now give to the natural world.)

WHAT IS NEEDED NOW IS FOR SOMEONE TO REALISE THAT:

1. Humanity is more important than money.
2. The unit of an economy is each person, not each dollar.
3. Markets exist to serve our common goals and values.

True wealth occurs when the way we spend our money is not simply compensating for how we earn it. The welfare of a nation or the world can… scarcely be inferred from a measurement of GDP.

The real value of money begins when we look beyond it and see ourselves as better, as more valuable, than it is.

Rarely will the money to be made by protecting nature match the money to be made by destroying it.

I’m talking about the development of what could be called the Natural Capital Agenda: the pricing, valuation, monetisation, financialisation of nature in the name of saving it by Social Credits.

They could put a stop to the risk of a progressive “privatisation” and “commodification” of nature.

We’re staring at trillion-dollar problems in the world with climate change, that is about to speed up and we need commensurate solutions.

One of the main problems is engaging the population of a country or countries to part take in the need to effect change.

We can harness the country’s ingenuity and energy to improve millions of lives if we could just create a way to monetize and measure goals by Social Credits.

People could buy them or win them.

For Example:

What if governments and world corporations were to introduced 100 million SCs to reduce obesity levels.

What if governments were to reward green energy projects with SCs.

What if governments were to use SCs to replace pensions/ treasury bonds.

What if countries used SCs to reflect fair trade.

What if education and reduction of inequality were promoted by SCs.

To protect the world from the despoilation and degradation which have done it so much harm. After all, it is not most environmentalists who have misunderstood the realities that come with ‘growth’ a finite Earth, but most economists.

Forget what society tells you about what it means to have succeeded, and endeavour to create your own definition of success based on those human qualities and virtues that you value most.

We are fundamentally empathetic creatures in an evolutionary process that started with blood ties, then tribes, religion, and currently nations but could extend to humans as one, then to creatures, plants and finally our planet.

The adage that money makes the world go round is the saddest reality of life.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Is the first generation of digital natives and sharing is their norm, could it be that collaborative consumption rather than consumer capitalism will be their norm?

If so, what will the next generation bring?

Time is the one resource all of us use to have, but it’s also painfully finite in nature. You can’t bank it — all you can do is invest it wisely.

Money is fluid.  Therefore, money is a reflection of the owner’s values and intentions.

We all have some sort of measuring stick that we use to determine our value as a human being.

Put another way, if we have access to all we need, would we need money?

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: COULD SOME ONE PLEASE TELL ME IF THE UK CRASHES OUT OF THE EU WITHOUT A DEAL HOW CAN THE BORDER BETWEEN IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HARD BORDER.

Tags

, ,

 

(Two-minute read)

FACT:

Britain’s oldest problem and Brexit’s biggest obstacle.The information leaflets say that avoiding a hard border remains a priority for the Government “in all circumstances”. Photographer: Bryn Colton/Bloomberg

FACT:

Without a deal, the inner-Irish Border would become an outer EU barrier.

FACT:

The Irish Government faces the ultimate political Catch-22 dilemma:

How to simultaneously meet its EU treaty obligations to police an outer border of the bloc with its Belfast Agreement promise to respect the open Border.

Ireland becomes a victim of the law of unintended consequences.

A no-deal Brexit – vaporised the backstop and forces a hard border.

In the immediate wake of a no-deal, the UK has said that it will allow goods to enter the North from the Republic tariff-free and avoid the need for any Border checks.

However, this does not look like a sustainable long-term position. It now seems that the outstanding backstop questions will be pushed into talks on the future EU-UK relationship.

This will put huge pressure on businesses in the North and would also appear to be in contravention of World Trade Organisation rules.

The bottom line is that, barring an arrangement similar to the backstop coming into place, some controls at or near the Irish Border look inevitable after a no-deal Brexit.

Many argue that technological solutions – drones and suchlike – will do the trick.

This is farcical:

You only eliminate physical checks between two territories separated by a border when they share a customs union and have broad regulatory alignment.

Everything else is infrastructure.

Otherwise, the EU might insist on checking goods entering from Ireland through continental ports, making Ireland second-class members of the EU single market, with a potentially huge economic cost.

The reality is that no amount of economic modelling can capture the unquantifiable human and psychological costs of the return of a hard border.

Brexiteers tell us that the customs union and the single market have nothing to do with the Good Friday agreement.

The nearly 21-year-old, consent-based international peace deal that placed the constitutional destiny of the divided communities of Northern Ireland – 56% of whom voted to remain in 2016 – in our own hands.

They are wrong.

Of course, lurking in the long tall grass of the Good Friday Agreement an international treaty is a United Ireland.

Those who signed up called it the Good Friday Agreement, those forced reluctantly to accept its terms still call it the Belfast Agreement. However, the key elements were a mutual renunciation of violation with the assurance that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK as long as the majority of its citizens wanted it to – but could in principle become part of a United Ireland if a majority desired it in the future.

This is the apocalyptical nightmare of the DUP.

On Brexit day whenever it arrives Britain will immediately be excluded from hundreds of treaties and agreements signed by the EU.

Leave the European Union without a deal would mean denouncing an International Treaty marking another step in Englands long and troubled history with its European neighbours.

Divorce or not, Europe will continue to have a huge influence over British politics and society – history has a few lessons for us here.

If Europe made Britain, then Britain also made Europe.

The solution is a long extension – resulting in a new Commission and an English Government that represent all of its people.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S : ARE THE ENGLISH PEOPLE NOW GOING TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY FIRST PAST THE POST.

Tags

,

 

( A two-minute read)

This blog has addressed the need for British politics to come into the 21 Century.

Debates about liberty and sovereignty of the democratically elected parliament are now been brought into sharp relief.

Image associée

It is time to replace the Magna Carter the English charter of 1215 document with a proper foundation document that could and would rectify glaring defects in contemporary British structures.

A modern-day written constitution would formalise more clearly the relationship between its citizens who are this day serfs to the crown.

IT WOULD SPELL OUT THE AMBIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND PARLEMENT.

It would, in particular, modernise the capricious 19th-century electoral system that unfailing reproduces an unrepresentative House of Commons.

For Example in 2015 David Camron on an overall majority with just 37% of the overall vote.  Hardly a popular mandate for conservative rule.

The existence of safe seats partly explains the relatively low turnout seen in many UK General Elections. The majority of seats in UK Westminster constituencies are safe seats, due to the requirement for only a simple majority. This is bad for pluralist democracy and clearly undermines any attempt to develop a genuine multi-party culture.

It creates complacent MPs with ‘jobs for life’ who are free to take voters for granted.

The first-past-the-post system has long served up such certainties: in 12 of the 17 general elections since 1950, fewer than one in 10 seats shifted from one party to another. Some have remained firmly in one party’s control for more than a century.

Whatever Brexit brings both the European Union and England need to wake up the needs of its citizens to be involved and represented.

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

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. A LONG BREXIT EXTENSION MAKES SENSE.

Tags

,

 

(Three-minute read)

March 29 was supposed to be Brexit Day. Oops. Now it will be April 12, or May 22, or sometime in December, or perhaps in 2020 or—increasingly plausible if not yet entirely likely—never.

England is now the Land of False Hope and Former Glory.

You wanted in, but wanted to keep your own money; you paid less rent, but wanted to stay “special.” Fine.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit cartoon"

Unions are all about compromise, and we wanted things to work with you but now we both have Brexit purgatory.

Without Britain, the EU “project” is ever more a matter for pessimism.

WHY?

A lot.

May’s humiliating retreat from Brexit will send a troubling message to populist parties across Europe. Just as the Brexit referendum initially fueled populist rhetoric in France, Italy, and Germany about breaking up the euro or weakening EU institutions, Brexit’s embarrassing setbacks are likely to have the opposite effect. After all, if Europe’s best-performing economy, most stable democracy, and the strongest military power cannot cope with leaving the EU, what hope can there be for similar initiatives in France or Italy?

What is needed for both the EU and England is a long extension to allow both the European elections with a general election in England.

How this extension comes about – whether because of a new prime minister or a general election or a second referendum or a vote in Parliament to erase all of May’s “red lines” which prevented her negotiating a Norwegian-style associate membership of the EU – is impossible to predict.

It is also not very important to allow the election of a new European Commission without the contamination of Brexit if any future Trade deal is to be negotiated.

Because once the promise of unfettered national sovereignty combined with integration in the global economy is revealed as a delusion, the most likely scenario will become an endless sequence of “temporary” transition arrangements which will solve nothing.

Because British voters probably will realize that any such semi-detached arrangement, far from enabling the UK painlessly to “take back control,” would involve high economic costs and a reduction in national sovereignty.

Because as this understanding sinks in, the Brexiteer ardour will dissipate, politicians seeking re-election will be forced to focus again on the domestic issues of economic, social, and regional policy that largely motivated the 2016 referendum protest – and one way or another Britain will decide to remain in the EU.

Because the reality is that political conditions are sure to stabilize once the period for renegotiating the UK-EU relationship is extended again from the new, very soft, April 12 deadline until the end of the year or beyond.

Because it would then become an important but subsidiary issue for the country to agree on a credible mechanism for setting aside a referendum that decided to make two plus two equal five.

But what has this to do with Brexit?

Because the blame game will extend far beyond Westminster and the list of suspects will be long.

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