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

11 Sunday Sep 2022

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These oaths are.

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

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

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

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

So let’s ask two questions.

Do they have any value?

How might they best be understood in modern times?

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if anything can King Charles III do?

Prince Charles

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

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

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

———————

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

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

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

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

Forty years ago man stood on the Moon.

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

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

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

Edimburgo: il fascino discreto e misterioso della Scozia

——————–

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

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

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

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF QUEENS AND KINGS?

09 Friday Sep 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF QUEENS AND KINGS?

 

( Four minute read) 

 

The idea of Kings and Queens generally falls under the idea of a Leader.

Emperors, Empress, Pharaohs, Czars, Presidents, Dictators,  Boss, Chiefs, Maharajah, Nawab. Roman Emperors, Sultans, Monarchs.The mystery of the first king in the world is one that has been troubling historians for ages now.

Throughout history, royal dynasties have dominated countries and empires around the world.  Kings, queens, — whatever title they ruled by, monarchs have shaped institutions, rituals, and cultures in every time period and every corner of the globe.

The concept of monarchy originated in prehistoric times and evolved over centuries right up to the present. Efforts to overthrow monarchies or evade their rule — such as the American, French, Chinese, and Russian revolutions — are considered turning points in world history.

The mystery of the first king in the world is one that has been troubling historians for ages now. To put it simply, there is still no definite claim on who the first king on our planet was. The largest obstacle to finding out the answer to this question is the fact that there are no records in existence that speak of kings that lived 5,000 years ago. The first recorded instance of an English king was in the year 871 AD when King Alfred the Great successfully repelled a Viking invasion.

A Monarch, then, is a picture of any elected government we have today.

There is no civilization living today which did not originate in the work and effort of Monarchy.

How many people all over the world can trace their lineage back to kings and emperors. There were thousands of monarchs throughout history and the number of their descendants may run into millions. But most people are unaware of their royal ancestry.This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png

Initially there rise to power was based on who’s the best or who’s the strongest. Eventually you end up with Kings and Queens as in pre-Christian Ireland (and everywhere else) where each little town had its own king and queen.

Yesterday we witnessed the demise of Queen Elizabeth II.

A monarch who has no equal in British history, whose life will now be analysed by the Media from the first nappy to her last smile.

It wasn’t until 2013 that the UK Parliament passed legislation that removed all gender-based restrictions on succession to the throne. The act meant that, for the first time in British history, a female heir could inherit the throne in her own right.

When Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne in 1952, her husband, Prince Philip, was not given the title of king.

The rules governing the line of succession to the British throne have changed several times over the centuries. The current system is based on gender and descent. Under this system, a person inherits the throne if they are:

  • A descendant of King George II (born 1683)
  • The eldest child of the heir apparent
  • A male heir

The rules were last updated in 2013, when Parliament passed the Succession to the Crown Act. This act amended the previous rules in two key ways. First, it removed the preference for male heirs over female heirs. Second, it removed restrictions on who could marry someone in line for the throne. Before this act was passed, people in line for the throne could only marry someone who was Protestant.

It would therefore seems that poor Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne for most of her life without Parliament approval.

Rightly we all, whether we believe in a ruling class, recognize the passing of rare individual that contributed not to just England but to the world itself, for over seventy years, of non political contributions to peace and tolerance. May she rest in Peace.

—————————-

The modern monarchy in England dates back to 1837 when Queen Victoria came to the throne. Since then, there have been six more monarchs – Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and now Charles III.

Upon the death of the British monarch, the heir apparent immediately becomes the next sovereign. This happens instantly, wherever the heir is, and even regardless of whether the new monarch even knows of the death of his or her predecessor. In the case of the death of George VI, his eldest daughter Elizabeth was in Kenya, sleeping in a treehouse, utterly unaware that she had become Queen.

The Question is.

In the world as it is to day, should there be people through an accident of birth be entitled to be the head of a country without election by its people. An unelected head of state is hardly an obvious figurehead for an association that espouses the virtues of democracy’. 

To most people, kings, queens, princes, and princesses belong in the world of fairy-tales where the divine right of kings stated that a king’s authority had been given to him by God, and he thus was justified in ruling completely and totally, without concern for the will of the people or any representative body.

There are still many countries which have kings and queens even today. 

Presently 44 countries across the globe have a monarch as their head of state.

For most they are purely ceremonial and are considered as only figureheads. Belgium – Brunei – Swaziland – Lesotho – Japan – Malaysia – Saudi Arabia – Vatican – Bhutan – Monaco – Sweden – United Arab Emirates – Thailand –  Spain – Cambodia. (Are all a few examples. Some Mixed some Constitution, some Absolute )

In the end in the eyes of death we are all equal whether you are divine, king queen or a serf.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com  

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT RUSSIA?

07 Wednesday Sep 2022

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT RUSSIA?

Tags

, ,

What do we really know about the Russian.

The history of the name of Russia is just as convoluted as the history of Russia itself:

It like all countries involves conquest, power struggles, dissolution, and reunification, all are integral part of the way we perceive the world that we rarely ponder their origins.

Modern Russia derives its name from the Kevian Rus’, the ancestors of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

The name Rus’ comes from an Old Norse word for ‘the men who row.’‘ and the men who rowed’ were Vikings who arrived from the territory of modern-day Sweden and became dominant in the region for at least a few centuries.

The Vikings rowed from Sweden to the now-Russian territories and down the rivers all the way to Ukraine. The earliest sources mentioning the Rus’ come from the beginning and middle of the ninth century from Byzantium, Persia, and France.

The Soviet Union Collapses On December 25, 1991 replaced by 15 independent countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Russia’s name truly is a mirror in which Russia itself is reflected with a tendency to swing from one extreme to the other has been very noticeable during the past quarter of a century.

We must remember that before 1914 Russia was predominantly a backward agricultural country.  Until modern times Russia’s geographic “remoteness” from the rest of the world and her inaccessibility except by land or air routes have had afar-reaching influence on her history.

If one thinks about Russia today it conjures up many names associated with its existence.

In no particular or historical order here are a few.

Peter the Great, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Lenin, Bolshevik Revolution,  Khrushchev, Leon Trotsky, Moscow Red Square, St Petersburg, Yuri Gagarin, Vodka, KGB, Trans-Siberian Railway. Stalingrad,  Volga River,  Doctor Zhivago, Mikhail Gorbachev,  Boris Yeltsin, Roman Abramovich, Oligarchs, Alexey Navalny, Communism. Chernobyl, Putin.

In fact what we are talking about is a enormous country with a surface area of 17.13 million square kilometres, with 643 billion trees –holding around 20% of the world’s freshwater, providing  27% of the EU’s crude oil imports, 41% of its natural gas, and 47% of its solid fuel (such as coal) with a population of 146,069,910, speaking at least 270 languages and dialects, a nuclear superpower, separated from the USA by just 4km of water. 

No country is entirely self-sufficient but it possesses some of the richest natural resources of any country in the world.

Indeed, as the world’s third-largest oil producer Russia has yet to make renewable energy an absolute priority.

For Russia’s domestic audience there is no doubt about the “greatness” of the country, which makes it an indispensable player in international politics and deserves recognition by other major powers.

This means that Moscow is driven primarily by security concerns; viewed from such a perspective, the actions against Georgia and Ukraine could be aimed at preventing NATO expansion.

The annexation of Crimea in 2013 and now its involvement into conflict with Ukraine have led to the country being perceived as a revisionist power and breaker of international norms.

——————–

Russia’s communist system is a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. A political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

Although the term communism did not come into use until the 1840s—it is derived from the Latin communis, meaning “shared” or “common”— You might not believe it but for much of the 20th century, in fact, about one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes.

It was neither a religious upheaval nor a civil war but a technological and economic revolution—the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries—that provided the impetus and inspiration for modern communism.

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

To understand Russia’s foreign policy we must bear in mind that, by and large, the Stalin regime has acted in world affairs not on the basis of Marxist doctrine, but on the basis of Russia’s national interests.

Stalin’s principal objectives have been to make Russia independent of the rest of the world in a military and economic sense and to protect the security of the Soviet Union against external attack during the period of “building socialism in one country.”

What is really puzzling about Russian foreign policy (and very much deserves further exploration) now is the positioning of Russia in various scales: regional, macro-regional (Eurasian), and global, and their compatibility and (in) consistency, as well as (and at the same time) Russian positioning with regards to its main neighbours, China and the European Union.

“The question we ought to be asking ourselves is why did NATO even exist after 1990?

If NATO was to stop Communism, why is it now expanding to Russia?”

It is important to note that not everyone in the world subscribes to the western ideas of democracy, or even to democracy itself. Not being a democracy is nothing illegal — it may sound regressive in today’s world but it is not illegal.

To try to intimidate and arm-twist a nuclear superpower in the name of democracy unfortunately now has terrible consequences for the Ukrainians and will never work.Global view of Russia and former Soviet satellite countries labeled.

Whether the war in Ukraine lasts weeks, months, or years, depends on individual actions that run the gamut from those of world leaders, to ordinary citizens and soldiers. Soldiers are most likely to disobey orders when they recognize that a war will not achieve its objectives, or that they are fighting for their leaders’ survival and against their own interests.

In order to end a war, a leader’s chances of political and physical survival must be taken into calculation.

An outright defeat of Russia in Ukraine may actually translate into a death sentence for Russian President Vladimir Putin. One would expect Russia therefore to lower its demands but we’ve seen very little evidence of that so far—only the demand of denazification seems to have been dropped.

In a regime like Russia—which is clearly not a democracy, but also not quite a dictatorship—if you win a war, you’re the great hero; if you lose a war, you have shown your incompetence and you’ll be removed

In a recent speech, Putin called the borders drawn after World Wars I and II illegitimate. He said the borders that were drawn by Lenin and by Stalin, partially as a result of the First and Second World War, are illegitimate and have to go. And if those borders have to go, well, then there is no obvious stopping point:

The question is, which empire does he think needs reconstituting? Is it the Soviet Union? Or is it Tsarist Russia? And if it’s the latter—and there are some indications in his speeches that he does mean the latter—then Poland and other countries are going to be justifiably worried.

Putin, now seems to be committing himself to total victory. If he can’t get it, he’ll be responsible and that makes a coup against him more likely.

Putin must come home with some kind of victory because otherwise he’s literally dead.

Are Russians really going to bomb Kyiv, a so-called “hero city of the Soviet Union,” into rubble like they did with Chechnya’s capital Grosny?  Are they willing to kill tens of thousands of people?

No one knows.

He wants to prevent more of these revolutions and prevent a democratic encirclement of countries around him, which could provide a safe haven for Russian dissidents who’d be dangerous to Putin’s political survival. Both of these goals overlap in the sense that he is seeking regime change, which is a dangerous game.

There’s also an interlocking commitment problem here:

Ukraine cannot promise not to join NATO in the long term, which Russia sees as a threat to its borders. At the same time, Russia can’t promise credibly not to ask for more if Ukraine made some concessions now, whether it be territorial concessions, regime change, or a promise not to join NATO.

So the question is.

If there’s a coup against Putin, what would the new Russian government insist on? They’re not necessarily all going to say, “Okay, sorry Ukraine, we made a mistake. Please excuse us.” And Ukrainians would not necessarily accept that anyway. Most likely, Ukraine would strengthen its demands and want Crimea back, resulting in ongoing bloodshed, pulverizing of Ukrainian cities, coupled with insurgencies.

Russia will never have full control of Ukraine. The West—that is Western Democracies—cannot, in my opinion, accept a victorious Putin.

We should not forget those people who are fighting and the costs they are willing to shoulder. Many of them will die because of Putin’s folly.

We’re in a situation where either success or failure both present horrible, dangerous situations, we’d better be very careful and think very, very carefully about what we can do, and perhaps what we cannot do, and prepare accordingly. You don’t want to corner Putin with sanctions to the extent that he feels that he must gamble—all or nothing.

We now at the point that Putin is afraid domestic enemies might overthrow and kill him, and there’s little the West can do to address those fears. The only avenue worth exploring in peace negotiations might be true plebiscites, overseen by international observers.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com.

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT INFLATION

05 Monday Sep 2022

Posted by in Inflation., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT INFLATION

Tags

, , , , ,

What is inflation?

One can look or think of it in various ways, as it comes in many forms.

The fact is that inflation is a far more complex phenomenon than one might initially assume.

The Big Bang for instance was it caused by inflation?

Did it happen at the begging or the end of something inflating externally or internally.

If it was external it could only have happened on a quantum bases – which means that there was something there before the Big bang that existed other than eternal inflation.

Whether it did or not, during inflation space is repelling space, so there is more space and more repulsion. Pass events cause present events are ever changing is a quantum fluctuation.

The defining characteristic of inflation is its exponential rate of growth.

All inflation whether its space, money, planetary resource use, or the human population, doubles in every fixed interval of time.

It starts slowly, almost flat and then goes up and up till vertical, hitting a material limit.

This is not so in space where it can go on endlessly, according to Einstein theory of relativity.

Indeed it is faster then light, but with the help of gravity it is slowed down as it passes through different density of the universe.

However this is not true in the Quantum world of particles and antimatter which can burst out of nothing, coming back together and disappearing in a flash.

This will be the reason that the James Webb telescope will not discover God.

Unfortunate due to inflation it is looking into the past with the future always over the horizon. Beyond that we have no way now or ever finding data.  Here we reach the limits of language and are faced with the choice of mathematics or myth. 

Thank God. 

—————–

There are zillions of particles popping out of the vacuum of space and disappearing.

Indeed they don’t even come into existence unless they are observed.

However the real question is how does energy turn into particles. What is the actual process of inflation doing. I dont think we know.

Where did it come from in the first place, converting its expansion into Entropy – disorder.

All ordinary matter is however, everything made of atoms including the protons and neutrons that make up an atom. So it stands to reason that inflation after the Big Bang was caused by atoms that were there before inflation existed, in a dormant state.

This then leaves us with no way to explain why individual quantum events happen – they have no cause, but they do happen is standard physics, creating an eternal inflation of creativity.

We can only rely on predictions because probability obeys deterministic laws.

In the end there is no deeper source of meaning for us than to experience our own lives as reflecting the nature and origin of our universe.

For those who demand the Ultimate truth there is no way to take even a single step beyond what other people have already thought.

Lets return to earth.

At its most basic level, inflation is a general increase in prices across the economy and is well-known to all of us. This can lead to fears of possible hyperinflation, a devastating scenario in which inflation rises rapidly out of control or Stagflation (a time of economic stagnation combined with inflation) which also wreak havoc.

Although numerous theories exist, arguably the two most influential schools of thought on inflation are those of Keynesian and Monetarist economics.

Keynesian economists argue inflation results from economic pressures such as the increased cost of production and look to government intervention as a solution; monetarist economists believe inflation stems from the expansion of the money supply and that central banks should maintain stable growth for the money supply in line with GDP

The Keynesian school believes inflation results from economic pressures such as rising costs of production or increases in aggregate demand. Specifically, they distinguish between two broad types of inflation: cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation.

The Monetarist view is perfectly encapsulated by Friedman’s remark that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” According to this view, the principal factor underlying inflation has little to do with things like labour, materials costs, or consumer demand. Instead, it is all about the supply of money.

According to the quantity theory of money, if the amount of money in an economy doubles, all else equal, price levels will also double.

This means that the consumer will pay twice as much for the same amount of goods and services. This increase in price levels will eventually result in a rising inflation level.

Then you have negative inflation when prices drop for various reasons.

What are the Causes of Inflation. 

What causes inflation is significantly complex.

An increase in the supply of money is the root of inflation, though this can play out through different mechanisms in the economy. A country’s money supply can be increased by the monetary authorities by:

  • Printing and giving away more money to citizens.
  • Legally devaluing (reducing the value of) the legal tender currency.
  • Loaning new money into existence as reserve account credits through the banking system by purchasing government bonds from banks on the secondary market (the most common method)

Now I am no quantum expert or scientist but to my mind the world economy is now dependent on electronic products, all subject to the Quantum theory.

Smart phones, laptops, computers, and algorithms all fuelling inflation of knowledge and falsehoods.  The world of computing is full of buzzwords: AI, supercomputers, machine learning, the cloud, quantum computing and more.

One word in particular is used throughout computing – algorithm.

Computers string algorithms together in complex fashions to produce more algorithms. So, an algorithm is the process a computer uses to transform input data into output data. Every piece of technology that you touch involves many algorithms.

They are black boxes—neither the company using them nor the people making them take responsibility for how they can wreck lives and reinforce stereotypes.

There is no knowledge of what they are even being judged on.

The people making the algorithms don’t take responsibility for users of their code and the people using algorithms place responsibility on the creators.

Algorithms are aimed at optimizing everything including inflation.  

They, that is profit seeking algorithms have put too much control in the hands of corporations and governments, perpetuate bias, create filter bubbles, cut choices, creativity and serendipity, and could result in greater unemployment and are no doubt at this very moment manipulating inflation.

The question now is are we living in two realities because they coexist with all advances in technology. In fact, everything people see and do on the web is a product of algorithms.

The use of algorithms is spreading as massive amounts of data are being created, captured and analysed by businesses and governments. Some are calling this the Age of Algorithms and predicting that the future of algorithms is tied to machine learning and deep learning that will get better and better at an ever-faster pace.

They will create new ways to misrepresent reality and perpetuate falsehoods.

Can anything be done to stop them plundering the world for short term profit?

Yes but it has to done now.

The adoption of data-driven technology affects every aspect of our society and its use is creating opportunities as well as new ethical challenges that are coming with climate change.

In the world before AI there were many different concepts of fairness. Once we introduce complex algorithms to decision-making systems, that range of definitions multiplies rapidly.

Inequality and unfairness have complex causes but society may reasonably conclude that justice requires decision-making processes to be designed so that human judgement can intervene where needed to achieve fair and reasonable outcomes for each person, informed by individual evidence.

The risk is growing as algorithms, and the datasets that feed them, become increasingly complex.

All algorithms programs should be vetted for ownership, transparency, bias, before being allowed to operate in a sustainable way.

Don’t worry you will always be around because each of us is an atomic pastiche an atom of you will always be around.

We are made of material created and ejected into the Galaxy by stars.

Try inflating that!

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

Contact: bobdillio33@gmail.com

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

04 Sunday Sep 2022

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

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

Tags

, , , ,

( Ten minute read)

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

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

Below are a few examples of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the common elements in the above?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Money

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

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

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

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

 Its’ no wonders it is going down the Pan.

————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

—————————-

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

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

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

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

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

So who owns the country?

Private no right of way sign

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corporations own around 18% of England and Wales.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

.

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

30 Tuesday Aug 2022

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

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

Tags

, , ,

Four minute listen.

( Five minute read)

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

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

How much more evidence do they and us need ?

MAKE YOUR MINDS UP!

The Evidence for Rapid Climate Change Is Compelling:

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

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

Right now there’s nothing like enough understanding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s be clear what it means:

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

Why?

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

Why carry carbon risk in their portfolios at all?

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

So can we stop worrying about climate change?

Sadly we cannot.

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t get me started on the food crisis.

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

Consider this conundrum:

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

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

Leadership is action not position.

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

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

Contact: bobdillon33gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THERE IS NO SINGLE SOLUTION THAT CAN ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT GOING TO COST TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS.

29 Monday Aug 2022

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THERE IS NO SINGLE SOLUTION THAT CAN ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT GOING TO COST TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS.

Tags

, , ,

( Seven minute read)

It is now beyond the obvious that it is going to take trillions and trillions to reduce the impact of climate change.

It is also obvious that we are incapable of addressing any of the problems that climate change is waiting to reveal on the world on a global scale.

I DON’T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT IT IS BEYOND MY COMPRENSION THAT WE REMAIN SO INACTIVE TO DO THE RIGHT THINK AND DEMAND THAT OUR POLITIONS GET REAL.

More than 800 million people—11% of the world’s population—can already feel the consequences of climate change in their daily lives, including increased frequency of natural disasters, prolonged droughts, and irregular weather patterns.

Extreme weather events are known to create poverty traps, or conditions linked to health, education, livestock, and assets that perpetuate the cyclical nature of poverty because people need a significant amount of capital to recover from them.

Since poverty and climate change is a two-way street, reductions in poverty
now can allow people to better adapt and respond to changing environmental conditions in the future.

WE ARE NOW JUST ON THE TRESHOLD OF REAPING THE REWARDS OF TRASHING OUR PLANET FOR CENTURIES FOR SHORT TERM PROFIT.

To day countries spend billions on defence, but there is no defence from climate change.

We all know that the impacts of climate change and global warming will have a snowball effect, generating more and more problems as the crisis unfolds world wide.

Yes we can invest in communities fighting the impacts of climate change at the local level but climate change impacts every form of life—humans, plants, and animals.

We all know it is happing.

Thanks to mass pollution – dumping million of tons of plastic into to our oceans, pumping trillion of tons of carbon into our atmosphere, the earth is now crises.

The simple truth is that no single solution can address every cause and effect of global climate change—it will take collective, significant actions at all levels to preserve the planet and protect our future.

This is now common sense not a scientific theory.

So what are we doing?

Spending $239 for every person on the planet, 2.1% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP), on military budgets.  Poring up banks, Pouring money into GDP, No politician wants to tell us the real story of fossil fuel depletion.

The real story is that we are already running short of oil, at the same time, wind and solar and other “clean energy” sources are nowhere nearly able to substitute for the quantity of fossil fuels being lost.

This unfortunate energy story is essentially a physics problem.

Energy per capita and, in fact, resources per capita, must stay high enough for an economy’s growing population. When this does not happen, history shows that civilizations tend to collapse.

Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations.

Politicians will avoid talking about possible future economic problems related to inadequate energy supply. If there are energy supply problems, they need to be framed as being temporary, perhaps related to the war in Ukraine.

Politicians want to get re-elected. They want citizens to think that everything is OK.

Most high-level politicians are aware of the energy supply issue, but they cannot possibly talk about it.

Instead, they choose to talk about what would happen if the economy were allowed to speed ahead without limits, and how bad the consequences of that might be.

So politicians cannot tell the world how bad the energy situation really is.

Furthermore, politicians see that they can have more control over populations if they can direct citizens in a way that will use less energy.

Businesses also want to minimize problems.

They would like the news media to publish stories saying that any economic dip is likely to be very mild and temporary.

What is wrong is a physics problem.

The operation of our economy requires energy of the correct type and the right quantity. The economy is something that grows through the “dissipation” of energy.

Falling energy consumption is associated with economic contraction.

The truth physics terms, is that world economy is a dissipative structure, just as all plants, animals and ecosystems are.  All dissipative structures have finite lifespans, including the world economy.

Citizens around the world can sense that something is very wrong.

It looks like the economy may be headed for a serious recession in the near term.

If a person understands the connection between energy consumption and the economy, such a rapid drop in energy supply looks like something that would likely be associated with economic collapse.

The rich and powerful can see this change as a good thing if they themselves can profit from it. When there is not enough energy, the physics of the situation tends to lead to increasing wage and wealth disparities. Wealthy individuals see this outcome as a good thing: They can perhaps personally profit.

For example,

Bill Gates has amassed about 270,000 acres of farmland in the United States, including newly purchased farmland in North Dakota.

Estimates of how much money it would take to end global climate change range between $300 billion and $50 trillion over the next two decades.

——————-

Even now, I am one of a very small number of people in the world writing about this issue.

We are now seeing that the approach seems to produce inflation rather than more energy production.

If people are not to freeze in the dark in winter, longer-term solutions are needed

.Militaries around the world are no doubt well aware of the fact that there will not be enough energy supplies to go around. This means that the world will be in a contest for who gets how much.

In a war-like setting, we should not be surprised if communications are carefully controlled.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

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

27 Saturday Aug 2022

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

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

Tags

, ,

( Three minute read)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s holding us back?

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

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

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

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

Global climate change is not a future problem.

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

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

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

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

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a look.

https://youtu.be/9GjrS8QbHmY 

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

Contact;  bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. IT’S NOW OR NEVER FOR RECALIBRATION OF THE CAPITALIST WORLD WE LIVE IN AND DIE ON.

27 Saturday Aug 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., A Constitution for the Earth., Algorithms., Capitalism, Civilization., COVID-19, Cry for help.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. IT’S NOW OR NEVER FOR RECALIBRATION OF THE CAPITALIST WORLD WE LIVE IN AND DIE ON.

Tags

, ,

 

( Six minute read) 

With the current frangible condition of the world the question is, should we be focussing more on local and community resilience rather than trying to address climate change on a world scale. 

Of course it is only natural that all of us look to ourselves but  “The economy comes first,” seems to make less and less sense.

This time is undoubtedly critical, to decide on our definitions of economy or wealth?

What, indeed, is most precious to us?

Covid, of course, may have shifted the landscape, not necessarily of our wants, but of the possibilities available to us, and how we order our list of priorities. 

Taking account of the increased threats to global stability posed by “a nuclear blunder”, aggravated by the gradient of climate change and combine this with technologies that are wreaking the cultural web of civilization, as the loss of biodiversity begins to fracture the web of the biosphere, with consequences that are both wholesale and probably irredeemable. The question must be broader than our “wants” at the personal, or even national level, but must consider “the world” in its full dimension.

Hence, our choices made on the local scale must further consider their impacts more globally not only in a geographical sense, but across the swathe of beliefs and views that different cultures hold as their framework to make sense of existence, to give value and meaning to life, and to decide upon which goals count as being worthy of achieving.

The intermeshing quality of the world’s many woes has been conveyed by the term “changing climate” (i.e. climate change per se being just one item on the list), and amid a morass of such magnitude, positives are apt to remain obscured and muffled.

                                                            ——————–

In the industrialised West, we have become increasingly focussed on money as a goal and the accumulation of personal wealth, and it’s trappings, as our measure of success.

In short, the time is now or never, yet as set against a backdrop of “business as usual”, beyond the confines of human cultures, and considers more broadly our place on this planet, within the context of all life.

Opportunities to address climate change are not merely slipping through our fingers, but wilfully being cast aside.

Thus, the message is not just one of yet another traditional way of life being driven to extinction by climate change, but that because the Earth system is an interconnected and “living” organism, impacts on any component of it will be felt throughout, causing the body to sicken and die.

Change is frightening, and uncertainty even more so; thus we tend to cling to a familiar craft, even as it sinks.

But, if we want a world that is both habitable and agreeable into the future, for all Earthlings, our choices are limited to those which also reduce the conjoined burdens of our rapidly consuming finite resources and the carbon emissions and other pollution that are discharged in the process.

However, due to the tardiness of our efforts, the scale and rate of the changes now required are staggering, amounting to an 8-10% reduction in carbon emissions per year in the wealthiest nations of the world, which presents as a practically insurmountable challenge.

If Capitalism in all its forms usher in a definite of sustained mitigation of carbon emissions, it is highly unlikely that climate targets will be met.

Full collapse is not yet inevitable, or already crumbling out of our hands change might yet be managed.  

Albert Einstein is quoted, perhaps apocryphally, as saying (something like):

“The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking. If we want to change the world we have to change our thinking…no problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it. We must learn to see the world anew.”

Is this the world you want.

The perils of treating natural capital as income, are evident to all.

We do not have enough fresh water for the people.. Billions of people are subject to hunger today. So the new model must consider all these needs. This model must be more human and more nature oriented… We are all interconnected but we keep acting as though we are completely autonomous.”

Change requires all of us developed a deeper recognition of our common humanity.

Instead of merely documenting loss of habit, bio-diversity, air and water quality, and more, we have to work with the larger society to do a better job of maintaining invaluable and irreplaceable ecosystem services. 

This can only be achieved by education. Education that balances the sciences with the humanities.

Education that prepares children to live in a changing world by emphasizing critical thinking and learning-to-learn as much more than rote memorization.

(The below video ALUNA should be shown in all schools.)  

Such a world won’t be achieved overnight. 

BECAUSE THE CAPITALIST WORLD IS NOW WITH THE HELP OF ALGORITHIMS GOING UNDERGROUND. 

If there is to be any movement in the right direction we can only make the Capitalists world change its short term model of profit for profit sake with our buying power.  By boycotting any corporations/ companies/ organisations/ etc that dont have sustainability at their core of their business models.  

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

Contact:  bobdillon33@gmail.com  

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. IS THERE AN INVISABLE AGENDA BEHIND THE RUSSIAN – URKRAIN INVASION.

26 Friday Aug 2022

Posted by in The cost of war., The Ukraine., Ukraine/Russian war., War

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. IS THERE AN INVISABLE AGENDA BEHIND THE RUSSIAN – URKRAIN INVASION.

Tags

,

 

( Three minute read) 

Is there now another epoch-making struggle going on in the background?

 Are we caught in-between globalist agenda for total control?

There have been many wars — terrible wars — fought on Planet Earth over the past 100 years.  We know that wars lead to deaths, destruction and lay the foundations for the next war.

The Ukraine conflict is fundamentally a war between East and West, between radically different cultures, different races, different religious orientations, and between very different people there is just no telling how this ongoing saga will end up.

However, the greatest war of them all could literally be around the corner, unless it is stopped by the people of this planet.Ukraine-9bd90

While there are several weighty co-factors at work, there are also numerous variables which can short-circuit the extremely precarious current trajectory toward full scale nuclear war.  

Were that to happen, this world can forget it ever existed and say goodbye to our cosmic identity.  

So what is behind this war or any war for that matter. 

Consciousness is limited by identity. and identity is limited by ignorance with most people tending to identify themselves with narrow categories – a nationality, a race, a religion, which leads not only to conflict but also to a stunting of imagination and potential. 

If we could widen our sense of identity, into the universe, we would  be saved from untold trial and tribulation.

When we see ourselves this way it would be the first steps towards identifying with our place in a universe ( that we have convincing evidence actually exists) in which no wars will change the light of different outcomes. 

Of course all of this is far in the future.   

It is clear that the Ukraine is shaping up to be the “War of the Millennium” and things will change very quickly depending on where one is domiciled on the planet. 

Why? 

Because globalization has inextricably interconnected the financial and economic sectors throughout the community of nations, each and every market is deeply affected by the other markets and the ongoing technospheric breakdown, which is now accelerating (due to Global Climate Change,) will only add more fuel to this fire.

In Vladimir Putin, the West is confronting a polished warrior who will not be intimidated or threatened, deceived or bamboozled, bulldozed or railroaded … as the Anglo-American Axis (AAA) does everywhere else on the Planet Earth.

Historically, Russia has always gone its own way.

After all, it is world supremacy vs. national sovereignty which is and has always really been at stake.

Given the realities of a much larger conflict going on in the Ukraine — one where East and West are at loggerheads in the most profound and fundamental ways — there is very little that can be done on the political level or diplomatic fronts … unless the West relents.   

This is a struggle for a new “indivisible world” includes “indivisible security”, “indivisible diplomacy” and “indivisible wealth”

The final breaking point has not yet arrived, but as the war intensifies the Ukraine appears to be the real location of Armageddon.

At present Ukraine is the very claw of a bird that has force the power of this world to get into a sanctions war, introduce sanctions that are unprofitable for themselves, or extremely unpleasant from the point of view of political consequences, and get a demonstration of the impossibility of achieving their goals by such methods.

Without Ukraine-2022, this would be impossible. This is exactly what are we starting to observe right now.

You don’t have to be told that it is very easy to start a war and a total other kettle of fish to stop.

Take the Iraq it started with Weapons of Mass Deception.  

The question is when should our hard earned income be paying for state-supported killing and the obscene loss of innocent lives, nattily called “collateral damage.”

When should we back decisions that cause untold trauma, pain, suffering, dismemberment, mutilation and death in the name of freedom and ferreting out terrorists.

War clearly generates money for weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and many corporate entities who profit from conflict.

How can we make peace pay?

Without our money and our acquiescence, there can be no wars. 

The rapid advancement of technology is not only fundamentally altering the ‘game’ it is the Game.. What if they gave a war and nobody showed up? 

Of course, the people don’t want war…But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.”

— Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials. 

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

Contact:  bobdillon33@gmail.com