, , , , , , , , , , , ,


(Fifteen-minute read) 


It looks like being both.

We are the first generation to know we’re destroying the world, and we could be the last that can do anything about it.


We need to recognize that everything we do, every step we take, every sentence we write, every word we speak—or don’t speak—counts. Nothing is trivial.

Take personal responsibility.

We need to use social media – this is one of the most effective ways to get brands to listen to you, so tell them that you want a change.


Because, unfortunately, the politicians who dominate the world stage are, depressingly, mostly cut from the old cloth, and the leadership challenges they face, are particularly complex and will require different skills — notably a clearer vision among leaders of organisation’s shared purpose.

Because the digital revolution is far from over the pace of change only seems to be quickening when in fact it is causing isolation. 

Because, we are allowing non-regulated large technology platforms to become too powerful, using their size to dominate markets and we are not paying enough attention to how the tools they create can be used for ill –  like device addictions, as we drown in notifications and false news feed posts.

Because there is an increasing imperative for all of us to respond to climate change.  Which will and is challenging our lives developing on a daily bases right in front of our eyes into our biggest need to act as one.

How can any of this be achieved? 

How will the changing political, economic and environmental landscapes shape the world?

Don’t get caught up in the how of things. Don’t wait for things to be right in order to begin.

Because in our age of tectonic geopolitical shifts, “alternative facts,” and conflicting narratives, our routine everyday life is losing sight of our true goals and aspirations.

Because with the rise of short-sighted populism we will solve nothing, other than feeding the great unwashed with short term gratification.

We need to write a piece of software that eliminated malware, viruses and all of that crap. 

We need to show our political leaders that they want to change, to understand our common humanity.

We need to try to put yourself into another person’s headspace and accept people for who they are and what their beliefs are.

We need to collaborate and push for policies that complement both sides of the political spectrum.

We need to make wasting our resources unacceptable in all aspects of our life.  Every product we buy has an environmental footprint and could end up in a landfill. The impact of plastic pollution on our oceans is becoming increasingly clear, having drastic impacts on marine life.

We need to be more conscious about what we buy, and where we buy it from. Living a less consumerist lifestyle can benefit you and our planet.

We need to use our purchasing power and make sure our money is going towards positive change.

We need to realize that what we eat contributes around a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and is responsible for almost 60% of global biodiversity loss.

We need to be supporting eco-friendly products.

We need to try to waste as little food as possible, and compost the organic waste we can’t eat.

We need to make education free for all.  Start educating not for profit but for a better understanding of what is the common values of life.

We need to stop asking the world’s smartest scientists to find us more time and to reverse gravity’s effect on our lives.

We need to stop killing each other. Countries start wars and people die and more people are in poverty.

We need to create out of profit for profit sake a World Aid fund with perpetual funding. (See previous posts) A new nonprofit called Carbon Offsets to alleviate address Climate change and Poverty. 

We need to realize that all significant change throughout history has occurred not because of nations, armies, governments and certainly not committees. They happened as a result of the courage and commitment of individuals. Believe that you can and will make a difference. 

The genesis for change is awareness so I need to stop. 

This year will not only be another opportunity for the leading minds in media in all its forms to highlight consumption for consumption sake.

However, if they wanted to spread a message that helps us all they would ban advertising that promotes consumption for consumption sake/profit. 

Feel free to add your priorities. With rapid innovations in technology and open access to data its no longer “wait and see.” We need to stop the huge feeling of apathy. 

The coming year, let alone the next decade looks unpredictable.

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




































, , , , , , , , , , , ,


(Twenty-minute last post of the year read) 


Technology is not neutral or apolitical.

So information may very well come to succeed capital as a central theoretical concept for political and social philosophy.

The retrieval systems of the future are not going to retrieve facts but points of view

However, the weakness of databases is that they let you retrieve facts, while the strength of our culture over the past several hundred years has been our ability to take on multiple points of view.

The question is, will new technologies speed the collapse of closed societies and favour the spread of open ones. The information revolution empowers individuals, favours open societies, and portends a worldwide triumph for democracy—may not hold up as times change.

The revolution in global communications will forces all nations to reconsider traditional ways of thinking about national sovereignty.

We are witnessing this happing already with the rise of popularism – Election of Donal Trump and Boris Johnston, but the tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. However, mere tools aren’t enough. The tools are simply a way of channelling existing motivation.

The influence in the information age is indeed proving to revolve around symbolic politics and media-savvy — the ‘soft power’ aspects of influence.

The information revolution may well enable hybrid systems to take the form that does not fit standard distinctions between democracy and totalitarianism.  In these systems, part of the populace may be empowered to act more democratically than ever, but other parts may be subjected to new techniques of surveillance and control.

Technology with algorithms are leading to new hybrid amalgams of democratic and authoritarian tendencies, often in the same country, like China that is building a vast new sensory apparatus for watching what is happening in their own societies and around the world.

The new revolution in communications makes possible both an intense degree of centralization of power if the society decides to use it in that way, and large decentralization because of the multiplicity, diversity, and cheapness of the modes of communication.

Of all the uses to which the new technologies are being put, this may become one of the most important for the future of the state and its relationship to society.

So are we beginning to see the end of democracy and the beginning of Cyberocracy?   

Crime and terrorism are impelling new installations for watching cityscapes, monitoring communications, and mapping potential hotspots, but sensor networks are also being deployed for early warning and rapid response regarding many other concerns — disease outbreaks, forest protection.

However, the existence of democracy does not assure that the new technology will strengthen democratic tendencies and be used as a force for good rather than evil. 

The new technology may be a double-edged sword even in a democracy.

To this end, far from favouring democracy or totalitarianism, Cyberocracy may facilitate more advanced forms of both. It seems as likely to foster further divergence as convergence, and divergence has been as much the historical rule as convergence.

Citizens’ concerns about top-down surveillance may be countered by bottom-up “sousveillance” (or inverse surveillance), particularly if individuals wear personal devices for detecting and recording what is occurring in their vicinity.

One way or the other Cyberocracy will be a product of the information revolution, and it may slowly but radically affect who rules, how and why. That is, information and its control will become a dominant source of power, as a natural next step in political evolution.

Surplus information or monopoly information that is concentrated, guarded, and exploited for privileged economic and political purposes could and WILL most likely lead to Governance by social media platforms owned by Microsoft/ Apple/ Google/ Facebook/ Twitter.

When we change the way we communicate, we change society. 

The structure may be more open, the process more fluid, and the conventions redefined; but a hierarchy must still exist.

The history of previous technologies demonstrates that early in the life of new technology, people are likely to emphasize the efficiency effects and underestimate or overlook potential social system effects.

The information revolution is fostering more open and closed systems; more decentralization and centralization; more inclusionary and exclusionary communities; more privacy and surveillance; more freedom and authority; more democracy and new forms of totalitarianism.

The major impact will probably be felt in terms of the organization and behaviour of the modern bureaucratic state.

The hierarchical structuring of bureaucracies into offices, departments, and lines of authority may confound the flow of information that may be needed to deal with complex issues in today’s increasingly interconnected world.

Bureaucracy depends on going through channels and keeping the information in bounds; in contrast, Cyberocracy may place a premium on gaining information from any source, public or private. Technocracy emphasizes ‘hard’ quantitative and econometric skills, like programming and budgeting methodologies; in contrast, a Cyberocracy may bring a new emphasis on ‘soft’ symbolic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of policymaking and public opinion.

Why will any of this happen? 

Because the actual practice of freedom that we see emerging from the networked environment allows people to reach across national or social boundaries, across space and political division. It allows people to solve problems together in new associations that are outside the boundaries of formal, legal-political association.

As Cyberocracy develops, will governments become flatter, less hierarchical, more decentralized, with different kinds of middle-level officials and offices? 

Some may, but many may not. Governments [particularly repressive regimes] may not have the organizational flexibility and options that corporations have.

So where are we? 

Future trends:

  1. The advanced societies are developing new sensory apparatuses that people have barely begun to understand and use;
  2. A network-based social sector is emerging, distinct from the traditional public and private sectors.  Consisting largely of NGOs and NPOs, its rise is leading to a re-balancing of state, market, and civil-society forces;
  3. New modes of multiorganizational collaboration are taking shape, and progress toward networked governance is occurring;
  4. This may lead to the emergence of the nexus-state as a successor to the nation-state.
  5. We now have communications tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities, and we are witnessing the rise of new ways of coordination activities that take advantage of that change.
  6. Civil society stands to gain the most from the rise of networks since policy problems have become so complex and intractable, crossing so many jurisdictions and involving so many actors, that governments should evolve beyond the traditional bureaucratic model of the state.

There is no doubt that the evolution of network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies will attract government policymakers, business leaders, and civil society actors to create myriad new mechanisms for communication, coordination, and collaboration spanning all levels of governance. 

However, states, not to mention societies as a whole, cannot endure without hierarchies. 

In the information-age government may well undergo ‘reinventing’ and be made flatter, more networked, decentralized, etc.—but it will still have a hierarchy at its core.” As the state relinquished the control of commercial activities to private companies, both the nation and the state became stronger.  Likewise, as the social sector expands and activities are transferred to it, the state should again emerge with a new kind of strength, even though it loses some scope in some areas.

A central understanding of the big picture that enhances the management of complexity is now needed more than ever. 

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



, , , , , ,


(Sixteen-minute read) 


Because there is no point any longer carry on claiming that we are a victim of world events…Climate change, Artificial intelligence, Capitalist greed etc. 

If Everyone’s FingerPointing, Who’s to Blame?

The answer, it seems, is someone else.

We think blaming means we get away with it.

Getaway with what?

If we stop it may become evident that this blame game is getting us nowhere and maybe, we need to look deeper at that word RESPONSIBILITY.

Could it be possible that our choices got us in the mess and our new responsible choices could get us out of the blame game forever?

The issue at hand is a vicious circle. Greed versus Common sense.

It is important that the leadership of countries are responsible for governing but does anyone remember the last time that a government actually took responsibility for their own actions?


Politicians — hostage to the tyranny of short election cycles — instead wooed voters seeking instant gratification, the protection of unsustainable entitlements, and shortcuts to continued prosperity they pander to popularism. 

Its no wonder we use blame like an auto-pilot switch?

At no point do we want to think that our choices may be contributing to what is going on in our life.

The media changed our perception of so many things preventing us from coming to a consensus not only on how to dig ourselves out of this mess but also on how to prevent it from happening again.

All that has been positive is slowly being replaced with only more negative.

And so no goes the endless, useless recriminations.

The blame game, however, is a lot more dangerous than it sounds. This never-ending cycle not only diverts responsibility but distracts from coherent responses.

That has two immediate consequences.

First, it is virtually impossible to generate a sense of shared responsibility that must underpin any sustainable, effective solution.

Second, the temptation increases for each country to turn inward, significantly raising the risk of protectionism.

As the species that have taken over the planet.

The world is looking for bold leadership, and in the absence of it, dysfunction that will make 2019 merely a flesh wound risks is becoming an ever more likely reality.

There is the possibility that our struggle to halt destructive climate change is going to make most of the people around the world very conscious of changes on the planetary level that need to be stopped, and species extinction is in that category. . . .However, unless humanity learns a great deal more about global biodiversity we will soon lose most of the species composing life on Earth.


Because we need to do one big thing that people could get together on that would solve the problem and it needs to happen politically, globally in order to fulfil this vision? 

We might have achieved many small victories in a losing war but what is immediately relevant at the present time is our collective inability to act as one. If not what we will see soon—it is on the horizon—is a second great environmental crisis, and that’s a shortage of freshwater.

It’s a shortage of fresh water that is rapidly growing, that’s causing some of the most tragic humanitarian problems . . .  and it’s going to get worse and worse.

We the grownups we have to start somewhere.

The era that we have to create ahead of us is going to have to include action and research in multiplicity.

I mean, lots and lots of people involved in order to keep the whole planet and all the plants and animals in it, in order to understand how the living world works….where life came from, where we came from, and what we need to be preserving in order to make Earth a livable, habitable place—a planet to be our home. 

Billion of us live in our technologic bubble called cities, indifference to what is taking place outside our own worlds thanks to the Smartphone. If that remains true for the next decade what is left won’t be worth saving.

Where to start?

We now face a substantial possibility of seeing a complete collapse of the ecosystem which will have an irreversible impact of human activity.

The slide toward extinction with all our efforts around the world has not slowed, nor will it in the near future. 

Like conservation efforts around the world had consisted of targeted procedures to save a species here or there or to save a habitat here or there.

Rather than point the finger of blame here a few things we could change.

Hope is after all one of the great attributes we are all ushered towards…

Profit-seeking Algorithms. Regulation

Technology leapfrogging.  Transparency.

Currency manipulator. Emerging economies gained a competitive advantage by manipulating their currencies, weakening labour standards, degrading the environment, or engaging in various forms of implicit protectionism.  Unsustainable national policies. 

Consumption.  Ban Media/TV Advertising that is promoting consumption for consumption. 

Multilateral institutions.  The UN are only as strong as our member nations let it be.  When push came to shove, these institutions shie away from their duties, hindered by widespread representation and legitimacy deficits. Remove the Veto.

Bogus blameRemove False News from Social media 

All those things together intrinsic, to human instinctive behaviour?  

They could go long way to helping us remain in the game.The End Game

Politicians, of course, will say: “It’s not our fault. They are right as to do not hold them to account. 

Education. Stop educating for the market place. Children have to take out of the classroom and learn where fresh air, fresh water, fresh vegetables, fresh everything comes from. To learn true human instinct are not a Tweet, a Like, a Smartphone, a Virtual game.

And trust me — no one will want to take the blame for that tragedy.

Our evolution now is a competition, greed against all of us. 

Everyone can get it eventually, if they just think.

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






, ,


(Thirty-minute read)

We all recognize that there are many problems in our world, which with our collective intelligence could be address if we did not turn them into profit-making.

The dire warnings about climate change are on the top of the list, but as we have seen the recent UN Climate Conference in Madrid shows that we once again are unable to act collectively. Instead, we opt for blindness and continue as if nothing can change the inevitable disaster awaiting us all.

Why aren’t we interested?

Because it is abstract happing over there, impossible to describe – the Amazon is burning, California is on fire, Australia is covering New Zeland with smoke.

Half the world might not believe in the science, but it’s no longer acceptable to hind the truth behind rhetoric that is saying one thing and feeling another as if deny it.

We know that there are climate refugees, that the Arctic is melting, that there is flooding, extreme weather events, droughts, famines, but the story is too complicated we do not feel immersed in it.

Because we don’t believe it we are incapable of believing, we can do something about it even if it is a solid scientific fact.

What is knowledge when our brains are unprepared to receive it?

Most of us can’t explain how our individual and collective behaviour is boosting hurricane winds.

On one hand, we have to feel it, believe it, but our brains find it difficult to imagine ourselves in the future and to plan for that future.

Therefore the question to be addressed by all of us is.

Are we even capable of believing what the scientist are telling us?

What, then, is to be done?

Greta Thunberg might be the figurehead for change, but the emphasis should be on doing.

The change required is not to wait for feeling or belief,  but to act.

Some now argue that the focus should be on the personal shifts taking the responsibility away from Governments. In my mind governments have a responsibility to oversee the conversion to green energy by ensuring that Climate Change does not become a product to be sold for a profit,

We have a colossal opportunity with climate change to do one or the other, turn it into profit-making or save what left of our planet.

The problem with profit is already here to see.

In fact, that’s exactly what Big Oil firms have just started doing. Relying on oil alone simply won’t be enough for the oil supermajors to sustain their profits.

Bio this Bio that, Wall Street Carbon Credit, Green bonds. When you some of the biggest companies on the planet decide to start spending money, we’re more than happy to get in on the action.

This is just the beginning of the trend.

Sadly externality costs of fossil fuels are shouldered not by fossil fuel producers, but rather by wider society.

After gods knows how many Climate summits and we are still unable and will remain so to agree on any practical solution or action other than rely on technology to come to the rescue.

Why is it not possible to cover every bit of unused land with Solar panels?

Because the problem is that we normally don’t use logic to make the decision which electricity source to use. We want it all.

When looking at sustainable electricity resources, we commonly identify four:

Solar, Wind, Hydro and Biomass.

Each of them is renewable, but that doesn’t necessarily make them sustainable.

Sustainability is determined by three different parameters:

Environmental sustainability, Social sustainability and Economic sustainability.

If producing a renewable energy device costs more energy than it produces during its lifetime, it’s not sustainable.

Mining coal is bad for the environment, but mining neodymium and other rare earth metals for wind turbines is equally polluting.

Let’s not close our eyes to what’s happening:

Anything that’s mined destroys complete ecosystems.

There’s one overarching aspect of social sustainability – we have one globe where we can provide enough food and energy for everyone. Using the planet’s effectively and efficiently is therefore crucial.

Economic sustainability seems easy enough to measure. If a technology can be sold without subsidies it is sustainable, right?

But in most countries, fossil fuels belong to the most heavily subsidized products.

According to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, fossil electricity is still subsidized for over $100 billion worldwide.

So, how do renewable energy technologies compete with that when subsidies for renewable sources are only one-sixth of that? And which of these can be called economically sustainable?

The one that can be purchased cheapest by consumers.

Sustainability is a very complex word and entails many aspects of which we’ve only scratched a few here to illustrate its diversity.

The question is:

How do we deal with all these aspects? Can we balance all the pros and cons? And how do we do that?

What we can do, is use the full matrix of available renewable electricity technologies and use them in the most sustainable way. Just by using logic.

Solar panels on sloped roofs that are otherwise not used,? Yes, please!

Solar panels on Dutch polders ( Low-lying land)  instead of cattle to create an “energy landscape”? No!

Wind turbines on the North Sea with high impact on nature? No!

Wind turbines on abandoned land with limited impact on nature? Yes, please!

Hydropower with dams that submerge complete villages and arable land in Brazil?! Madness!

Corn production for energy while we could produce food or feed? Of course not!

Biomass residues for electricity production? Yes, please!

Electricity production from living plants while the plant grows while producing rice on the same surface? Yes, please.

We want electricity for the whole world, at low cost, at low environmental impact, as soon as possible, with high return for the companies, with large local economic growth, with high shareholder value, easy to use for consumers, available always and everywhere.

You know what? That’s not possible.

Let’s decide what’s most important and take that as a starting point.

Starting point 1: I want cheap electricity: Here’s your coal-fired power plant. It has all the advantages of cheap electricity, but don’t complain when the Earth dies and when you’ve run out of coal.

Starting point 2: I want renewable electricity at the lowest possible price: You’ve got the choice of hydropower, wind power, solar power or biomass.

Depending on local subsidies and providers, one or more of these options will be available to you. Some of the electricity companies will provide “green electricity” and you don’t even have to choose.

Please don’t ask about the exact sustainability of your renewable electricity. It’s cheap, it’s renewable, forget about the rest.

Starting point 3: I want sustainable electricity: Now we’re talking. You’ve got the choice of hydropower, wind power, solar panels and biomass.

Let’s check what can be combined with other applications at the same land and what has the lowest impact on nature and people in the long run. You might have to pay a bit more than you’re used to, but at least you’ll be assured of a long-term solution and availability of electricity without hampering the access to other resources for yourself or others.

If we all chose starting point 1 nothing will change, we won’t stop climate change and smog will be the number one death cause in large urban areas.

If we choose starting point 2, we’ll focus on low prices that will compete with the sustainability of the renewable energy source. We might end up using fossil resources to produce renewable technologies and not changing anything in the end.

I’ve chosen starting point three. If you do too, we might have a chance of moving towards a sustainable electricity matrix with minimal impact on nature and people.

In fact, we actually may get to a point where energy is abundant, cheap, sustainable and available to everyone everywhere.

Where are we at this point of any time?

At this point, it’s hard even to imagine what a planet that’s 3.6 degrees C hotter would be like. To put this in context, human activity has already warmed the planet by about 0.8 degrees C — enough to produce severe droughts around the world, trigger or intensify intense storms and drastically reduce the Arctic ice cap, not to mention out of control fires.

Fires that will consume the parched forests of the temperate latitudes.

The wildfires in Australia are giving all of us preview that we can’t imagine today.

All the above might be true but it does not address the main problem.

Our usage of Energy.

Industry is increasingly seen as a solution to our global environmental problems, ignoring the role of major corporations in creating the current multiple crises.

Natural resources often lie at the heart of wars and civil strife and the estimated impact of greenhouse gas emissions varies widely due to uncertainties about the future.

We don’t know what the costs of climate change are, and health costs are highly uncertain.

Many scientists have ruled out arguments that market forces and technological changes can gradually lead to a sustainable energy future.

While the investment opportunities for renewable energy continue to grow, the question is to what extent the government ought to finance such investment.


Because it is no longer efficient for the government to invest in uneconomic technologies at an early stage. This why the political headwinds currently facing the renewables sector are immense.

However, these new energy sources did not simply emerge as the result of free-market forces. Rather, the government heavily subsidized each new energy source.

As the costs of PV technology, wind turbines, energy storage, and other clean energy technology have decreased over time, they have become competitive in their own right.

So here is your new year resolution.

If your community is like many others today, most people want to offset as close as possible to 100 per cent of their consumption.

It’s no longer necessary to have 32 acres of solar power panels to meet the demands of 1,000 homes.Solar Container

The majority of solar panels are 250 watts, which means you’d need four panels to create a 1-kilowatt peak (1kWp) system, eight panels to create a 2kWp system, 12 panels to create a 3kWp system, and so on.

A large fixed-tilt photovoltaic solar power plant that produces 1,000 megawatt-hours per year requires, on average, 2.8 acres for the solar panels.

Concentrating solar power plants require an average 2.7 acres for solar collectors and other equipment per 1,000 megawatt-hours; 3.5 acres for all land enclosed within the project boundary.

A solar panel system for a family of three costs around £4,000-£6,000 in the UK.  Solar panels could reduce your monthly energy bill by nearly 50%

So switching to solar energy is a smart decision that allows you to create your own power instead of buying it from the National Grid.

Energy bill savings from solar panels ultimately depend on two things: How much electricity your solar panels produce, and how much of this electricity you use.

More than half of all new electric power worldwide came from renewables last year.

Sounds too good to be true?

Prove me wrong by trying it.

Start your own research by forming an action group.

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



, , , ,


(Twenty-minute read)

In a few days, we enter a new year but not a new beginning as all of us began with Adam and Eve.

SOME TIME AGO I WROTE A POST: Adam and Eve were black. They lived in Africa but never meet each other.

Good and evil existing in every single human being and despite their extreme differences, one couldn’t exist without the other.

In this follow up post I will once again ENDEAVOUR TO STEER CLEAR of the Bible’s account of humanity which is, in fact, both frustrating and ambiguous because of the truth of human nature in and of itself are the acceptance of the impossibility of separating good from evil, two powerful entities that live inside us all.

So there was Adam one and Adam two,  Eve one and Eve two.

Adam One wants to be famous, rich, and win it all for himself and aggressively pursues that goal by calculating survival.

Adam Two seeks internal satisfaction and stability for himself and humbly offers healing and service to others.

Eve One also wants to be famous, rich and to be there for our children. Security.

Eve Two also seeks to attract love, a relationship, to be a mother.

Both care about themself first and both will kill to survive, which is the tension of One and Two that never goes away.

Adam I’s desires are infinite and always leap out ahead of whatever has just been achieved.

Only Adam II can experience deep satisfaction.

Throughout our lives, we’ve all done irrational, incoherent things and acted in totally unexpected ways. There’s a nature within us that, on occasions, pushes us to act or think against the norms.

Homo erectus was a very successful early human, spreading across the ancient world and surviving Earth’s changing environments for nearly two million years—at least five times longer than our own species has been around.

Science has taught us that the first humans were in central Africa but does not say that the first humans were black.

They could have been black, dark, reddish, pinkish, yellowish, or whatever, but the bottom line is every ethnic group, every skin colour, started with the Black Africans, because all human beings were black clear up to 10,000 BC.

Therefore Adam and Eve were black-skinned.

Biblically, there is no evidence that they were “white”.

There is still only one race of Human beings because within Adam and Eve were all the genetic material necessary to produce the variety of humans we have today. Now we are one race with a blueprint written in a code (or language convention) which is carried on very long chemical strings of DNA.

Back to Adam and Eve.


In the first post, I said they never meet each other so they were created both Androgynous.

Since the word, Adam is not used previously in the Bible before either of them arrived there is no evidence that this word must denote a male. Indeed, the explanatory phrase, “male and female he created them,” could be read as clarifying what the nature of this Adam actually was.

“Jesus and God are the “us”.

Just as Eve was taken from Man, so Jesus was taken from God… So my thoughts are not my thoughts, nor your ways are my ways.

To this end, a number of rabbinic passages preserve what may have been a popular interpretation of this passage, which indicates that the first human actually comprised of both genders.

When one looks at humanity now if we could ever all get on the same page again there is no telling what advancements and accomplishments we could attain.

Unfortunately, men have honed and refined the practice of separation into the art of alienating, persecuting and even enslaving other men by virtue of our differences; whether they be nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation or any other excuse to ostracize someone different from themselves; sometimes even to the point of genocide.

This was and is the message that Hitler and the Nazis and all-white supremacists needed and need to hear today.

No man is better than any other man. We are all just little specks of dust.

There is no empirical evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and it has never been shown that evolution happened in any degree.

If we are prepared to dismiss the Genesis narrative, then we have the problem of deciding just when in the scriptures God begins to tell the truth.

Evolution in all aspects, including theistic evolution, is a myth.

Like today, when efforts are often made by intellectual theologians to harmonize modern science with the creation account in Genesis, the rabbis of ancient times were aware of the popular scientific philosophy of their day and integrated it – albeit in a way that also subjugated it – to fit within their broader worldview.‍

We are now on the threshold of discovering that subatomic particles can exist in two places at once. So gravity has self-awareness, in which the quantum state of one part of the system cannot be written without reference to another part of the system.

What are my circumstances calling me to do?

At what points do my talents and deep gladness meet the world’s deep need?

Happy New year.

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







The continuing exponential deterioration of the world environment — the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, desertification, exponential human population growth, air and water pollution, the pollution of the world’s oceans, loss of topsoil, the continuing loss of ancient forests throughout the world, and the rate of species extinction.

The violence already done to the earth is on a scale beyond all understanding….  how the industrial media have been able to convince so many people that if they just recycle they are “doing their part” for the environment, while they continue with their high-consumption lifestyles and all the other environmentally destructive practices that take place in industrial growth societies.

The wild ecosystems and species on the earth have intrinsic value and the right to exist and flourish and are also necessary for the ecological health of the planet and the ultimate well-being of humans.

Humanity must drastically scale down its industrial activities on Earth, change its consumption lifestyles, stabilize and then reduce the size of the human population by humane means, and protect and restore wild ecosystems and the remaining wildlife on the planet.

IN THIS NEW AGE OF visions promote mega technology solutions to economic and environmental ills and propose massive high-tech global management and development schemes for the biosphere.

We just don’t get it with piecemeal political/economic/legal/technological approaches to protecting the environment.

Depressing, isn’t it?

So to cheer you up here is my Christmas greeting.











(Seven-minute read)


Brexit is now set to become the best optical illusion of 2010.

But don’t panic there are still plenty of blatant lies to be told before it severs all ties with the European Union.

The path to a hard Brexit will now be paved with lots of them.

Parlement no longer has a say in the negotiations with the European Union. They now can’t really deliver anything except their own opinions.

Politically, Brexit represents a rise in the disgruntlement of the average person: the working or lower-middle-class citizen, who feels unheard, left behind, disenfranchised.

This is sneered at as “populism”

Apart from in Britain, populism has manifested itself with the election of Donald Trump in the US. This is terrifying. There is Marine le Pen in France, who is not going away.

So if Britain has the nerve to pull a no-deal Brexit, Europe can do nothing about it.

The European Union after decades of good neighbourly relations will have no option but to treat Britain like an adversary- trade wise.


Because Border disruption does not stop at customs checks.

Because if it concedes or gets embroiled in piecemeal cherry-picking trade deal it will lose all creditability, leading to a Singapore economy operating on its doorstep with tit-for-tat tariffs.

The result will be a cultivated facade that is going to require countries to be extremely careful in dealing with the British Government.

So where are we?

BREXIT was 90% about the UK itself, and 10% about the EU. With the withdrawal agreement passed this no longer applies.

Maybe the European Union can continue as if nothing had happened, but it won’t be the smart thing to do.

The EU can survive Brexit but to do so it must reform and reform very very quickly.

The smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to make a structural adjustment, make the “ever deeper union” with the original four countries, and understand that the rest of the EU members only want the trade.

Thus the risk to the European Union would not be primarily in Brussels but in the domestic political landscape of the member states.

Its only course of action is a comprehensive trade deal not just with England but with London, or no deal.

As a no-deal will risk stripped London of their lucrative EU “passports” that allow them to sell services to the rest of the union it will have to join the single market or the European Economic Area that encapsulates the EU and non-members such as Norway. That will, in turn, requires accepting freedom of movement.

Or the City can go it alone and operate in a much looser regulatory environment.

Currently, London is the undisputed market leader in Euro – denominated derivatives, worth billions. It clears a whopping 972bn euro-worth of Euro-denominated contracts a day. Not to mention the employment it creates.

There are a number of potential scenarios, including that the current status quo prevails and the UK carries on trading with the EU under existing free movement principles. “That outcome is not beyond the realms of possibility,”

However, that means freedom of movement for goods, people and capital between the UK and EU will continue to operate. For millions of people who campaigned and voted for leaving the EU, this is will be difficult to accept.

By staying in the single market and customs union, the UK would be liable to EU rules and legislation regarding the free movement of goods, services and people across borders. Plus, it could put the UK in the dangerous position of still having to accept EU economic and political policy, while at the same time denying the UK a seat at the negotiating table.

Brexit damages both the EU and the UK. But the Brexit damage is greater to the UK.

Countries that have preferential trade deals with the EU but have not yet agreed to roll over those benefits for British exporters in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit. Still, more losses could come if Britain failed to conclude rollover deals with Vietnam and the MERCOSUR countries of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, which have recently signed trade agreements with the EU.

However, regions in Ireland face the most severe Brexit consequences, with potential economic exposure on par with the impact on regions of the U.K. that are currently most dependent on ties to the EU.

The UK could still end up being forced to comply with EU laws and regulations, as is the case with Norway and Iceland.

We are all looking at a disorderly world and you don’t have to be a blinkered horse to know that the digital age favours the fast and the small over the inflexible slow-moving bureaucratic.

The question should be “Will England be Part of Europe” instead of “Is England a Part of Europe“.

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


THEY SAY THAT THE FIRST ATOM WAS CREATED BY THE BIG BANG.Atom Photo - Science Photography by David Nadlinger

This photograph shows a single positively-charged strontium atom (An alkaline earth metal, strontium is a soft silver-white yellowish metallic element that is highly chemically reactive) suspended in an electric field between two metal electrodes.

What is amazing here is that we’re looking at is actually the particle emitting light.

To my feeble scientific mind, an electric field is a vector field that shows the direction that a positively charged particle will move when placed in the field.

Vector fields are useful for describing things that we cannot see, such as magnetic attraction and gravity but not time.

My feeble scientific mind again.

As it is impossible to create energy out of nothing (Energy can’t be created or destroyed) it had to be present or introduced before the big bang, therefore time had to have had a power that converted into light.

But there is no evidence for or against the universe having an infinitely long past.

Unfortunately, the Big bang cannot give any direct information about the actual origins of the universe. It only supplies evidence of the start of the expansion which is still visibly in progress because of its light “signature.”

If the universe is or was expanding, then the natural conclusion is that if you were to rewind the universe, you’d see that it must have begun in a tiny, dense clump of matter. A singularity a hypothetical moment in time. 

The problem with this line of thinking however, is that the theory of general relativity can’t describe what came before the singularity, which should exist at the point in time just before the Big Bang.

So what we see as time also started with the Big bang, so there is nothing before it.

There is nothing for the big bang to grab hold of in nothing, therefore the Big Bang was nothing blowing up.Big BangWhat is Cosmology?

The quandary is:

Nothing can create Something and Something cannot turn into Nothing. 

So, the universe is just time in an amagnetic field called space, (which is an absence of mass or vacuum) but it is not static because of time.

Space can’t move with respect to time—the time is time governing all existence however there isn’t in my mind even a common time in the entire universe.

Each universe comes with its own time.

A narrative that’s recreated after the event but does not have any boundary or edge as it is incapable of going backwards.

Even space-time itself is a product of the special early stage of the universe.

The ultimate origin of the arrow of time, which is the asymmetry of the world in time, is still a bit contentious.

Is time an emergent property or a fundamental property?

Enter Quantum Mechanics.

Even if you have empty space—no matter, no light—quantum mechanics says it cannot be truly empty.

blank space

Here is a picture of time.

Holt disagreed.

“Is that really nothing?” he asked.”There’s no space and there’s no time. But what about physical laws, what about mathematical entities? What about consciousness? All the things that are non-spatial and non-temporal.

“Charles Seife, author of “Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea” (Penguin Books, 2000). He proposed starting with a set of numbers that included only the number zero, and then removing zero, leaving what’s called a null set. “It’s almost a Platonic nothing,” Seife said.

Ultimately, the definition of nothing may just be an ever-moving target, shifting with every scientific revolution as new insights show us what we thought was nothing is really something.

“Maybe nothing will never be resolved,” Tyson said.

But something is moving. “It has a topology, it has a shape, it’s a physical object.”

If there were a true “nothing”, no matter, no energy, no spacetime, then that nothing would be unstable and would begin generating matter, energy, and an expanding spacetime. This is the central thesis of books such as The Grand Design and A Universe From Nothing, which posits that the universe can be explained without reference to a supernatural creator deity.

Saying it was a god doesn’t help.

The same question exists, but now you add a whole new set about where the god came from.

The very first particles of light had to come from somewhere.

The fact is, it is not possible to know exactly what the initial light-source was. It came from in some hidden sector of the universe that we can’t see or touch.


This is where it becomes even more than wired.

What time is it?

So if the universe shouldn’t exist, why is it here?

The creation of virtual particles. These are the tiny particles that leave even physicists drooling.

In the field of quantum mechanics, all fundamental forces are carried by particles.

The universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. This fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity.Big Bang

For instance, light is made up of massless particles called photons that carry the electromagnetic force. Likewise, the graviton is the theoretical particle that would carry the force of gravity.

And so God created the universe by creating the quantum field, therefore, atheists have merely moved the question from who created matter, to who created the quantum field?

The fact remains something can not come from nothing.Faraday's Constant

Even the subatomic particle called the Higgs boson is the product of something.

It is a superpartner particle for all the currently known particles.

They are all involved in chemical bonding which needs a motion in the form of a vibration.

Where did this vibration come from?  Time.

Within the emptiness of this vibration, over time temperatures came into existence with one vibration rubbing up against another creating an electric field, in which magnetic forces are observable. As superpartner particles destroy each other, we get packets of pure energy or particles of light known as photons. A phonon is a quantity of energy found within a vibration.

There is nothing at all strange about the reality of light existing independent of the heavenly bodies.

So, in reality, it is quite beyond Empirical Science (i.e. observable by the scientific method) to claim that they can happen without space or time.

There doesn’t have to be a reason for things existing, nor is there any need for supernatural beings of any kind, Space, matter, energy and forces behave the way they do on their own.

Or is everything happening in your head, the world around you is in your brain?

It’s based upon data created by your sensory organs but it’s still just a sensory construct in your brain and you don’t see reality as it truly is.

First, the universe had to expand and cool down sufficiently for the matter to condense out of the energy following the rule E=mc^2 while the Quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning it existed forever.

Quantum Matmatice now seems to tell us that it is possible to exist in two places at once.

The universe finally became cool enough for true matter to form; this was when the universe also became transparent, allowing photons to travel, which is what you and I are made of today…trillions of neutrinos stream through your body at any given moment.

So God is outside of time and space, outside the universe and does not have a beginning, but we know the universe has a beginning and will have an end.

Are we look for a new messiah in technology?

Does this mean that we will know the truth for sure?

Absolutely not.

Quantum mechanics can give you the probability to go from one state to another state, in a way that involves summing over possible intermediate states.

The probability sum which tells you the odds of starting with “nothing” and arriving at “a universe like the present”, is then something like a sum over all those possible universes that start at a point and expand to become like the universe we see.

The Big Bounce.

There might never have been such a thing as nothing.

If the environment were different, the probability is that we just wouldn’t be here.

If something falls into a black hole and is eventually squeezed to a singularity, what happens to the information it contained?

Without this information, the reality you see is an illusion. Time will tell.

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




, ,

    (Five-minute read)  The outcome of today’s General Election has been decided by a system called first-past-the-post.The Brexit and anti-Brexit protests at the Houses of Parliament Some seventeen million voted for another referendum and fifteen million voted not to.  An irrefutable travesty of democracy.  In Britain’s electoral system, seats won at a general election are not shared out between the parties proportionally nationwide. There is no system of proportional representation for candidates who come second in each constituency. Instead, each one of the 650 constituencies is self-contained, meaning any vote not used to win a seat is, in effect, wasted. Even if millions of voters support the same party, if they are thinly spread out they may only get the largest number of votes in a couple of these contests. Tens of thousands of voters supporting the same party and living in the same area will end up with more MPs. This means the number of MPs a party has in parliament rarely matches their popularity with the public. As parties want to get as many MPs as possible, parties prioritise voters who might change their minds who live in swing seats. Parties design their manifestos to appeal to voters in swing seats, and spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. As the number of MPs a party gets doesn’t match their level of support with the public, it can be hard for the public to hold the government to account. Many swing seats have two candidates where either could get elected. But some have more. The more candidates with a chance of getting elected the fewer votes the winner needs. Voters try to second-guess the results. If a voter thinks their favourite candidate can’t win, they may vote for one with the best chance of stopping a candidate they dislike from winning. There can never be one nation. First past the post allows the Nigel Farage’s of this world to manipulate the results as was shown in this election which handed Boris Johnson the victory by not fielding candidates in almost half of the districts. ( In the districts that they did contest, Brexit party candidates divided the pro-Brexit vote and thereby handed Labour some important seats. In some places, the Conservatives gained seats from Labour on modest swings, while the Brexit party got swings of more than 10%.) People who voted for the populist Brexit Party at the general election. They needn’t have bothered: Nigel Farage’s Brexit party won zero seats but took votes away from the Labour Party that could not support clearly the remain side of Brexit .Should we laugh or cry. This is the real tragedy. It’s too early to say what the consequences are going to be – Leave the EU, Yes. With or without a trade deal. Both possible. Brake up of the Union. Depending on the forthcoming results of Negotiations with the EU. A written constitution. Inevitable if there is ever to be one nation.  All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.




, , , ,


(Twelve-minute read) 

Of course, it is being blamed for eroding trust, but trust isn’t something that can be immediately forged; it must be built over time.

Social Media, on one hand, has tremendous power for good but it also causes a breakdown of trust casting a negative net far and wide. 

The real power of Social Media is its decentralized nature.

Random stories, true or not, posted on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, can achieve sudden popularity and notoriety by touching the minds and hearts, not just millions, but tens and hundreds of millions of people.

So is Social Media the perfect mechanism for spreading emotionally powerful messages designed to generate an epidemic of fear even when the content is totally and obviously false, who cares?

This is why dictatorships cannot tolerate Social Media. Autocratic governments can’t control the content or who receives it.

There is no easy fix.

The issues involved are complex.

In little more than a decade, the impact of social media has gone from being an entertaining extra to a fully integrated part of nearly every aspect of daily life for many.

Yet one thing is certain, developing trust is contingent upon authentic communication and algorithmic mechanical content has no authenticity.

They are destroying our ability to create and consume valuable content.

What qualifies as “valuable content” is, of course, subjective.

For a piece of content to qualify as valuable, it must be relevant.

Valuable content isn’t static. 

Content that isn’t useful isn’t valuable.

Doesn’t that sound like Social Media should support and enhance the idea of democracy, that more people will be exposed to more diverse news and therefore more intelligent overall?

Certainly, that is the idealistic view.

There is no centralized control to Social media so there are endless ways that your data is being mined on a regular basis to feed Artifical Intelligence algorithms that are conditioning consumers with algorithm content.

But does that actually happen?

The reading audience determines what’s considered valuable content.

Better education should lead to better opportunities for all people.

If the audience wants short-form content, platforms believe it’s their duty to give it to them.

  • Tweets are limited to 280 characters maximum.
  • Instagram Stories currently max out at 15 seconds, video posts at 60 seconds.
  • Snapchat Stories are capped at 60 seconds.

My question is why are these platforms not smacking the viewer over the head with hard-hitting messages that clearly states what the content is and where it comes from.

IE it has been posted by an unidentifiable source or individual it might encourage him or her to dig deeper.

Of course, you can use social media to give quick-hitting answers to burning questions while linking to long-form content.

Google’s algorithms work under the assumption that blog posts worth reading must contain at least 2,000 words.

Longform content tends to spread the message out, allowing the reader to become more and more emotionally invested over time.

In this environment, it’s no secret that short-form content is increasingly prevalent and popular.

how can we feel we have “independent thinking”?

Have we been herded into a collective bounded and defined by fear?

How is this a society that functions as a true democracy?

In fact, bad actors have an advantage because they are not constrained by legal, ethical or moral considerations. They can direct their money, knowledge, and power toward totally selfish goals.

From the perspective of a bad actor, Social Media, as a decentralized, “free” messaging channel, is actually the most powerful and cost-effective tool for manipulation they have ever had.

What do we do to change the direction of decline? 

How can we have rational discourse about our differences, to learn mutual respect?

How can we support more positive, life-affirming messaging? Regardless of the stories we tell, how can we commit to the narrative of Social Media as a means of increasing the state of well-being of society?

Each of us has a voice. Use it wisely!

The way that prominent social media platform companies, particularly Facebook, are currently operating and are financed is inherently undemocratic.

Facebook adds 500,000 new users every day, that’s 6 new profiles every second!

No other platform enables target groups to be so directly contacted and motivated towards interaction.

There are some 680 million Twitter users. 

The question is, are we at a point where the social media organizations and their activities should be regulated for the benefit of all.

Digital technologies have become pervasive.

Of course, many have begun to believe that the biggest challenge around the impact of social media may be the way it is changing society. The “attention-grabbing algorithms underlying social media… propel authoritarian practices that aim to sow confusion, ignorance, prejudice, and chaos, thereby facilitating manipulation and undermining accountability.

Facebook and Twitter and they’re like maybe gone in 10 years, but there will be something else.

Do we want to try to put the genie back in the bottle? Can we? Does social media definitely have a future?

Social connections are fabrics of society. 

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