≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY SAY’S ; THE HARDEST THING OF ALL TO SEE IS ALREADY THERE.
(Five-minute read)
You don’t have to be told when you look around at the world, you are looking at the same things since time memorial – the blue sky – the land – the sea- the sun.
However, everything you have seen, heard, felt, emotionally, or not, are your cells communicating with each other, helped by trillions of nanotechnological machines.
It is true to say that the truth has no past. Reality is what it is.
However these days, we see the world with a completely different set of eyes.
Eyes that are subject to the mental filter of black and white conclusions, made by algorithms.
This binary perspective serves to negate what is really happing in our world. It lacks historical awareness, which is creating isolation that can be literal or psychological.
We hear talk about your values, my values, “democratic values,” the “values” of this or that community, “values clarification,” “changing values,” and many dozens of different employments of the term.
Now, of course, the very ubiquity of the term might mean that it is valuable — perhaps even invaluable. Or it might mean that “values” is an overvalued, inflated — and perhaps even a well-nigh worthless — coin of communication. I take the latter view.
Take a look around you. What do you see?
You might see smartphones, I Pads with shining, colorful screen, all data-driven by unseeing algorithms, trapping us in corsets of addiction, for-profit sake.
The word is ubiquitous in the present-day discourse of Climate change -COVID -19 -inequality, ongoing wars, all global problems.
It is — to cite only one example among many — important to know that a particular person “knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” And yet there is something wrong with the term “values,” at least as that plural noun has come to be used in our culture.
What is wrong, I believe, is this:
“Values” functions as a catchall term to cover many different sorts of things that we would do well to keep distinct. “Values” covers and includes things ranging from the basest sort of self-interest to minimal moral scruples to the noblest ideals. As such, “values” can include anything — indeed everything — from personal preferences or tastes, unexamined prejudices, individual aims, and group goals, to religious convictions and moral principles.
Present value is the concept that states an amount of money today is worth more than that same amount in the future. In other words, money received in the future is not worth as much as an equal amount received today.
They are having little and less influence on how we see the world.
Why?
Because we are becoming less and less connected with surrounding influences and conditioners, either they are absent or because they are countered and controlled by other forces like the personalized advertising industry.
Now, of course, we have global organizations, countries governments, both to take a broader view of the problems.
And it’s true to say that vision is a complex process. The brain has to do a lot of work to take a picture and all brains see things differently.
Since our current technologies are advance exponentially ever few years our future habitat on earth will look entirely different.
Against the present backdrop, our current concerns about the world are therefore nieve, of no value put on anything is able to shed individualism.
There is one six-letter word that we can and should do without. That word is “values.”
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with the word “value” — the verb and the noun — nor with its cognates “valuable,” “evaluate,” “evaluation,” etc.
We would be pretty well lost without them.
The present Pandemic hopefully will reshape what we need to value – Freshwater /Air/ Nature/ Life in all its forms, color.
We cannot hope that consumerism profit generosity will save the children, donkeys, ecosystems to climate change.
We must make it so by applying a world Aid commission of 0.05% on all activities within the global economy that operate for profit sake.
( See previous posts)
If the present Corna virus pandemic is teaching us anything it is that our present-day values are worthless.
Your data, your cookies are not your future.
You might have started out 100% human but by the time you die you are 95.5% alien. Another word only 0.25% human.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
The current situation in the world is long past returning to normal.
One does not have to be blind or wear a mask or even take the knee to realize that Covid-19 and AI are the core reasons for the introduction of a basic income.No amount of interventions that will and are costing billions if not trillions will, in the long run, make any difference because of inequality the single most common cause of civil unrest is still with us.
Before we all end up in the frying pan it is imperative that we tap into greed, the driving force of our world.
Many societies need to rethink their political and economic structures.
There is not much argument about the ultimate importance of either, Climate change or the forthcoming Economic Depression or the continuing COVID -19 pandemic or for that matter the resulting of trade wars.
The dangers are now clearly identified.
We are on a path to unimaginable consequences.
The tensions arising can only be managed if people’s lives are supported by a universal basic income that is constant, unconditional regardless of anyone’s financial situation.
The tension from the competing perspectives, cannot be managed because of the forthcoming unemployment, and immigration, which will make the related political priorities academic without financial security.
The only way to secure an enduring solution for the common good is to make all online activities pay for a Universal Basic Income by placing a commission on all activities that have profit for profit sake at their core.
A Universal Basic Income is more effective and less bureaucratic than most targeted benefits schemes such as Social Welfare payments like Universal Credit, which often fail to reach all their intended recipients and have had numerous problems over the past few years.
Because of advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and the economic depression, we now in the infancy of dealing with millions becoming unemployed.
There will no return to contemporary life instead we need to refashion normality itself.
A Universal Basic income will potentially offset the disruption to the transfer of an economy that is run by profit-seeking algorithms but by people’s needs.
Surely it is clear that we must stop fooling ourselves with the ideology of the free market who’s dip down benefits are drying up.
We are seeing the abject failure of most countries to either prepare or handle a pandemic that has been forecasted years. This is because we humans will cut down the last tree, in the hope that another will grow.
Economically, it’s a no brainer, discounting the future.
So the question is: Are we humans capable of enacting and successfully planning for the long term?
Is the time for taxing the companies that benefit most from AI to fund such a program?
TAKE ENGLAND FOR EXAMPLE.
To rejuvenate the nation’s economy.
There are nearly five million self-employed workers in Britain along with around six million small businesses, which are the most threatened by the economic downfall of COVID-19.
Coronavirus is keeping people away from work and forcing the government to take extraordinary measures to ensure people can still stay afloat and make ends meet.
Businesses are closing down – but it is also reducing demand for people who want to go out and work.
The Jobs Retention Scheme, where workers are paid 80 percent of their salary by the Government cannot last forever.
How much would Universal Basic Income cost the UK?
Financing this type of program through taxes: 46% say they would be willing to pay higher personal taxes to fund the program and 54% say they would not be.
But in fact, to ease the pain of the AI revolution it would not be necessary to increase taxes if a commission was placed on all online activities.
The astronomical profits being made on the back of the current pandemic by Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and they’re like is unsustainable in a world plage by poverty.
For example Facebook.
On average a Facebook user will open the Facebook app 7 times a day with an average use of 60 seconds per session.
There are approximately 44.84 million residents of the United Kingdom (UK) used Facebook. By 2022, the share of monthly active Facebook users is projected to reach 62.44 percent of the total population.
More than half UK pensioners now on Facebook. Facebook use is prominent among high-earners.
It makes most of its revenue from advertising at the average cost per click for a Facebook Ad across all industries of around $2.00 to be the benchmark number.
WhatsApp users average a whopping 74 sessions on the app per day, with each session lasting around 25 seconds. Instagram users only access the app an average of three times a day for around 60 seconds each time. Amazon shoppers also access their app a lot, with around 74 sessions per day each lasting around 25 seconds, however,
(37.4 million UK adults use Facebook regularly 32.1 million UK adults use YouTube regularly15.5 million UK adults on Twitter 7.9 million UK adults on LinkedIn 6.7 million UK adults on Flickr)
Profits are booming so there is no excuse to ignore how people are struggling here.
Within the UK’s population of around 66million, 50 million would most probably be eligible to receive a UBI.
Plans differ on who receives the income.
Some would pay every citizen, regardless of income. Others would only pay those who are below the poverty line, whether they are working or not. One proposal would pay just those left jobless due to robotics.
The direct impact of the virus (that is, impact on health) remains starkly evident in public. Now there is a tradeoff between two issues — containing the virus and restarting the economy.
It is almost impossible to do not to do both things at the same time in a measured way.
The two courses of action in a single question are complicated because the underlying issues are complicated.
It is “an affordable and feasible response to coronavirus There are ways to ensure that all citizens are the recipients of
The coronavirus is “strengthened immeasurably” the case for Universal Basic Income for the common good.
It doesn’t make sense not to make profits that are generated by mobile apps to pay for UBI.
A different world is possible, a more equitable and sustainable society less obsessed with growth and consumption
There may well be confused about what kinds of action actually make a difference and what should be done now and by whom.
A system that creates inequality, insecurity, and unsustainable practices requires fundamental changes in multiple dimensions.
Yes, we must profoundly change the relationship between humans and nature.
What parts of the status quo are truly collapsing and what parts remain firmly in place and who is affected by all these changes?
The competing values will define our systems for decades to come but only if we harness greed.
If we allow our selves to be turned into the sacrificial crows of data we can kiss our arses goodbye into the black hole where no sun shines.
(Limited test programs of the UBI idea have occurred in Finland and Canada. San Francisco. )
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
If one takes a look at the state of the world which has gone through two world wars, numerous pandemics, natural disasters, you could say that its present state all boils down to us, our sense of belonging, our values, our separate cultures, greed, and power.
There is little point at this present moment in us dragging up our past history to ANSWER these questions other than it shows that colonization and slavery contributed to the world’s woes and that we are unable to act as one.
Take climate change.
There is no hope of reducing co2 emissions until we understand what being a human being means.
Until we begin to understand each other there is no hope of tackling any of the current world problems.
So in this post, I am concerned with what has happened in recent times to produce the current century of a world preoccupied with crisis management.
9/11 is my starting point.
Without understanding that Muslims believe that Allaha is the ultimate arbiter of their existence 9/11 was rightly or wrongly declared an act of war against Iraq.
Since then we’ve all been living in the shadow of the World Trade Center that unbridled the economic, cultural, and military power of the US – America First.
The result is continuing wars Iran, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan that are not clashes of civilizations but a clash of ideologies, values, and cultures.
Take Isreal- Palestinian.
It has been referred to as the world’s “most intractable conflict”, with the ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip reaching 52 years.
There can be no peace between Muslims and Non-Muslims because what is happing in Israel goes beyond it.
The world is now preoccupied with crisis management so even if the Palestinian case is settled it won’t stop there.
Worldwide wide it is consumerist capitalism versus religion and tribal fundamentalism.
So if religion determines what we believe what does race tell us?
Nothing when it comes to COVID-19 it is non-races no matter whether you are Muslim or Christian the price of faith means nothing if you are dead.
All of us no matter what race you are, Black or White, Christian, Jews, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, call ourselves after the country we are born in only if the expression of religious beliefs is enshrined in the countries constitution with equal rights and freedoms. Where one can be our race and practice our religion.
A sense of self maybe?
Perhaps it is a race that makes us different from others.
The Irish were considered as being subhuman to the British many years ago before the Great Famine in the 1800s.
Lived segregated cultural traditions do not work. 700 hundred-odd years later, even in a Europen union setting Northern Ireland remains a divided society by religious beliefs, and a border created by colonization.
If we were paid a visit by another race that was intelligent to get here in the first place they would not give an F… what race we were or had been.
Not until the human race understand that is one race will there be any hope in addressing the present problems we all face.
This will remain so till there is a solution to the Israelis and Muslim Palestinian conflict which in my opinion can now only be solved with a one-state solution, not two-states which has no hope of removing the inherent flaws and injustices or resentment of both sides.
All are intertwined forces that are both tearing apart and bring together the world.
What am I saying here is that the Middle East conflict is not just over religion or race it is also over land.
The 9/ 11 atrocity claimed nearly 3,000 lives and shocked the world but now many people are unable to remember the date of the tragedy – 11 September 2001 – 19 years ago the beginning of the Iraq invasion. An invasion that totally and utterly did not understand that Islam is not their religion, it is their life and remains so to this present day.
Instead of world leaders making an effort to prevent the Iraqi invasion according to Mr. Bush, there were no options but to use force which has now lead to one of the most inhuman periods in our recent history.
Recent work also shows that Islamophobia in the West is abetting the Islamophobia in China, with global leaders willing to stay silent about the treatment of Muslims.
These days what one hears over and over is the phrase ” What is needed is “
On top of this, we now have a world pandemic, climate change, America, and Britain first, the erosion of any long term policies by social media, the smartphone, and unregulated artificial intelligence, with religion shrinking in a digital world run by Five Titanic digital companies, run for profit.
It might not be possible to carry on in a world of two deities God and Allah.
If you ask me it’s all ridiculous the last ones standing to go to heaven and who will be there to greet them, is God, Allah, or Jesus? It just doesn’t make sense, intellectual, religious-philosophical, or any other sense.
The world whether it is China and the Muslim or whatever has to come together in new ways.
Wars that are now seen by moderate Muslims as virtually and ultimately as a war against Muslims and Islam across the ethic board.
What does the word Islam actually mean?
It means surrender.
And if we want a world worth living on, surrender is what we will all have to do in the end.
Shalom in Hebrew means peace.
Hebrew: shalom aleichom meaning-peace be upon you.
Arabic: salam alaikum meaning-peace be upon you.
So take the knee, not to race, not to religion, but tothe planet.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucks in the bin.
In an interconnected world where there is no such thing as sovereignty because globalization means that nation-states submit themselves to international treaties and international agreements that are not always in their best interests.
The recent economic crisis that started in 2007 and now the coming economic depression and the continuing pandemic will prove that sovereignty of nations being subsumed by international bodies cuts both ways as the global economy is tightly interconnected and hence, cannot be regulated by nations in isolation.
Here is a country that on 30 June 1997, the final embers of its empire came to an end with the 99- years lease on Hong Kong’s New Territories.
Never before has a country passed a colony directly to a communist regime that does not even pretend to respect conventional democratic values.
However the British Empire – for all its messy crimes and misdemeanors – was equally praiseworthy.
The empire was and is not just a story of domination and subjection but something more complicated: the creation of novel or hybrid societies in which notions of governance, economic assumptions, religious values and morals, ideas about property, and conceptions of justice, conflicted and mingled, to be reinvented, refashioned, tried out or abandoned.
The question is are we now to witnessing the final act.
The non-recognition of England is already being used by its national broadcasting company the BBC referring to England as the four nations.
In fact, England is already fragmented.
English nationalists if such a thing exists appear to be blind to the breakup of England.
Today, a hundred years on, the world is witnessing remarkable self-destruction in England.
An uneasy transition has or is taking place, from a decaying colonial legacy to a country that sees life through platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram lies, manipulation, in every area…..with a global crisis forming, which is not just a Pandemic but an Economic depression with mass unemployment.
The question now is whether British people can continue to play their part in the development of the modern world.
It has to pump trillions of quantitative easing money into its banks at the cost of ten years of Austerity. Dumping the EU its largest market on the results of a non-legally- totally false informed non legally binding referendum while building two Aircraft carriers and replacing worthless nuclear submarines, while 8.4 million its people alone are living in sub-standard housing with 400,000 people are either homeless or at risk of being homeless relying on foodbanks.
The people themselves – about half who no longer give a rat’s a— about England, who are now hellbent on their smartphones, Ipads, creating an unrealistic, relativistic, melting pot utopia.
These people will be living on the English purse for some time, not the stuff of which national pride is made. They have other priorities dedicated to its demise.
One would have to wonder why migrants risking life and limb to get here.
Perhaps it because all the servants are leaving.
These are the strange things happening, that demonstrate quite clearly what is wrong with Britain – and, probably, the rest of the ‘developed’ world, both devotion to business and profit, not people.
“We convinced many countries, many countries – and I did this myself for the most part – not to use Huawei because we think it’s an unsafe security risk,” the US president Donald Dump said.
(This is a man who seems to wake up every morning wondering what controversy he can provoke, what headlines he can create.
Diplomacy, or the lack of it, can be a complicated business. We’ve learned that from observing Donald Trump.
Both his campaign and presidency is marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.
This is a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.
From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics.)
With the UK now becoming the US junior partner, (one of the most unreliable partners for any country) who cares when a phenomenal’ trade deal beyond Nigel Farage is promised, providing it sends its new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth to the South China Seas with American warplanes, and supplies the Arabs with bombs to finish off Yeham.
It’s one thing to get rid of the Chinese firm Huawei and its 5G infrastructure and in return to sour the world’s second-largest economy behind the US, which has more money in the bank than any other country.
Indeed three of the world’s 10 biggest sovereign wealth funds are Chinese, together holding more than $1.5tn (£988bn) in assets.
Not too long ago the UK was one of China’s favorite places to invest – not anymore.
Beijing’s ambassador to London, Liu Xiaoming, warned: “China wants to be UK’s friend and partner. But if you treat China as a hostile country, you would have to bear the consequences.”
China operates an Authoritarian form of capitalism against Anglo – American capitalism which is the root of the problem. Global supremacy.
China’s investments may well be subordinate to its National Development and reform commission, but the staggering truth of Huawei is that the US does not want China to be a superpower when it comes to technology.
With the pandemic being used to push the protection of businesses the world population will eventually be tracked.
Both the US and England might well end up as viewed as failed states due to the handling of the COVID-19 with both countries ending up with up distant and withdrawn people far from enhanced by COVID-19.
Not too long ago, the UK did a 79 million deal to import pig semen from China for stemcell research.
Its not stemcell research it needs. It needs a lot of fixing but isn’t that what the next four years are going to be about?
What is needs is some Face Recognition and a written constitution. All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
If you thought that governments’ new energy grants are going to solve all our energy woes think again.
One of the greatest problems with green energy like fossil energy is that it is controlled by the energy giants. The very term Carbon Footprint was introduced by BP.
If green energy had the ability to produce electricity and placing it in the hands of the people rather than those of oil, gas, coal, and utility companies, we would than see its benefits.
It could also lead to some fundamental changes in the way we consume energy.
Electricity access is essential to people’s lives but cost equals pollution.
We need to start shifting our use of energy to when it is there and available rather than shifting the energy production to match our use.
There is already solar technology that allows the establishment of Solar-powered mini-grids, and it is essentially mini-grids are independent, decentralized electricity networks that can function separately from a national grid.
They can generate electricity for local consumption.
When combined with efficient and environmentally sustainable battery storage, solar mini-grids present a compelling economic case.
By 2050 we will still be getting 75% of our energy from fossil fuels’ – it is
estimated that by 2040, the world’s energy consumption will have increased
by almost 50% so watch this video below and tell me is to days rush to move
to alternative renewable energies, such as biomass, geothermal, tidal or
wave, solar, anaerobic digestion really green?
By then with climate change, the demands for cooling will outstrip the demands for heating.
There can be no doubt that implementing a shift in where we get our energy from is one of the grand challenges facing our planet today.
In the two videos below, you will see growing evidence of the non-inclusion of social conscience in the name of renewable energy development, as well as severe environmental damage, with fossil, fuel investment unmasked, exposing the dark side of renewables.
The question is: Are we all been taken for suckers when we hear that renewable energy is clean, that electric cars will save the world by not contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
How to quantify the overall environmental impact of energy technologies has actually been a subject of the academic literature for some time.
Engineers use a process called life cycle assessment to count up all of the interactions between a complete energy system and the environment.
For example, life cycle assessments of electricity generation typically consider power plant raw materials extraction, plant construction, fuel extraction, fuel processing, fuel delivery, fuel combustion, electricity transmission, and other upstream and downstream processes in order to paint a complete picture of the energy and emissions required to produce and deliver a unit of electricity.
There is no argument that total GHG emissions from natural gas, oil, and coal electricity are far greater than those from any renewable energy technology.
Even if it takes more energy and emissions to build a solar farm than, say, a natural gas power plant, the fact that the solar farm produces zero emissions during operation causes it to be cleaner overall. The same holds for all other forms of renewable energy—and nuclear to.
The facts are out there and they clearly show natural gas, oil, and coal electricity emissions vastly exceed those from renewables and nuclear.
But the question remains.
Every day, our species chews its way through more than a million terajoules of energy.
Humanity’s hunger for energy will reach unprecedented levels.
It is estimated that since commercial oil drilling began in the 1850s, we have sucked up more than 135 billion tonnes of crude oil to drive our cars, fuel our power stations, and heat our homes.
So let’s look at six of the main contenders.
Biomass – Recently-living natural materials like wood waste, sawdust, and combustible agricultural wastes can be converted into energy with far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum-based fuel sources. That’s because these materials, known as biomass, contain stored energy from the sun.
Biofuels – Rather than burning biomass to produce energy, sometimes these renewable organic materials are transformed into fuel. Notable examples include ethanol and biodiesel. Biofuels provided 2.7 percent of the world’s fuels for road transport in 2010, and have the potential to meet more than 25 percent of world demand for transportation fuels by 2050.
Hydropower – Also called hydroelectric power, hydropower is generated by the Earth’s water cycle, including evaporation, rainfall, tides, and the force of water running through a dam. Hydropower depends on high precipitation levels to produce significant amounts of energy.
Geothermal energy – Just under the earth’s crust are massive amounts of thermal energy, which originates from both the original formation of the planet and the radioactive decay of minerals. Geothermal energy in the form of hot springs has been used by humans for millennia for bathing, and now it’s being used to generate electricity. In North America alone, there’s enough energy stored underground to produce 10 times as much electricity as coal currently does.
Solar power – The most prevalent type of renewable energy, solar power is typically produced using photovoltaic cells, which capture sunlight and turn it into electricity. Solar energy is also used to heat buildings and water, provide natural lighting, and cook food. Solar technologies have become inexpensive enough to power everything from small hand-held gadgets to entire neighborhoods.
Wind power – Air flow on the earth’s surface can be used to push turbines, with stronger winds producing more energy. High-altitude sites and areas just offshore tend to provide the best conditions for capturing the strongest winds. According to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a network of land-based, 2.5-megawatt wind turbines in rural areas operating at just 20% of their rated capacity could supply 40 times the current worldwide consumption of energy.
Nuclear
Its problem is the radioactive waste and its disposal.
These energy resources are renewable, meaning they’re naturally replenished and they utilize energy sources that are readily available however I suppose that there remain three pertinent points when it comes to renewable green energy.
Availability – Cost – Sustainability.
‘How do I know if green electricity is really green?’
Leaving aside that some renewable energy technologies might produce more overall emissions than fossil fuels because they cost so much if you don’t have control over the type of energy, and its cost it’s equivalent to the pollution with all of us condemned to global warming.
Take Solar thermals for instance.
Really good but if it costs twice as much as burning coal the manufacturing cost was all dirty energy to produce clean energy…If you had a solar cell that took two Joules of dirty energy to make it and it only returned one Joule of clean energy in its life—it’s a loss…
Hydropower/Dams
Have environmental impacts, presenting social sustainability issues.
Wind and solar energy are highly dependent on the weather – and the time of day.
Fossil fuels have one major advantage over renewable energy sources – they are very easy to store and transport. Green energy requires the energy to be transmitting over long distances and currently, there is no easy way to store the electricity produced by wind or solar energy for appreciable periods of time.
Battery technology is not yet good enough to efficiently store large amounts of energy. This is an area that is really ripe for innovation and we are really only at the start of deploying and testing potential solutions.
The supply must match the demand.
So we have a quandary, do we continue to develop super grids like large-scale wind and solar power stations in the Mongolian Gobi desert or the Sahara, in the sea, or on land not suitable for agriculture or establish Solar-powered mini-grids with power-sharing deals.
Nearly a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union comes from Russia far from green.
As new technology is developed it will shift the geopolitics of energy, It will change relationships between not just countries but cities, towns, villages, and apps.
A major energy transition is underway, creating opportunities while increasing uncertainty and developing the need to ensure sustainability, affordability, inclusiveness, and security.
By many measures, the world is still in the early stages of a deep and profound transformation in energy and industrial and agricultural processes. This transformation will not be easy, for mobilizing meaningful economic change is rarely a simple process that proceeds without opposition.
So where are we at the moment the vast majority of the country – nae, the world – is dependent on fossil fuels which are contributing to the destruction of the Earth’s atmosphere and ultimately our planet?
So throughout the course of our lifetimes, we can expect some big changes.
A large amount of responsibility falls to major energy suppliers who rely heavily on policy initiatives to drive deep decarbonization. Thinking more clearly about power and stimulating that broader narrative are the purposes of this post.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
The answer lies basically in this question -why is it that governments can afford a fighter plane, but teachers need to hold a bake sale to buy school supplies.
Understanding how the balance of payments work is key to understanding the monetary leverage that one country holds over another. Based on the modern method of money creation, the functionality of the balance of payments is really a zero-sum game.
Wealth used to be defined as the accumulation of human time and labor.
This is why human time and labor are consolidated under ideologies (eg. Socialism, democracy, communism, etc.), which are framed with borders around cultures, religions, and historical significance. Time and labor are consolidated as a measure of GDP.
World GDP can now be considered the measurement by which human time and labor are used to manage the debt which is a product of the money creation process.
As Yanis Varoufakis says ” It is pointless to continue to do macroeconomics analysts focusing on a single country” “It is not any more trading volumes or fiscal data it is the ebb and flow of financial capital”
There was or there is no need for the Coronavirus to expose still more flaws in economic structures. Inequality is to be seen in foodbanks, people sleeping on the street, the color of your skin, not least the increasing precarity of work, owing to the rise of the gig economy and a decades-long deterioration of workers’ bargaining power.
A Clap will not save nine, but thanks to Covid-19 the bastions of global Capitalism are on hold.
There has never being a more important time to effect change to Capitalism.
So will or can we use the current state of emergency to start building a more inclusive and sustainable economy.
If we don’t, we will stand no chance against the major crisis – an increasingly uninhabitable planet – and all the smaller crises that will come with it in the years and decades ahead.
Capitalism is facing at least three major crises.
A pandemic-induced health crisis that is rapidly igniting an economic crisis with yet unknown consequences for financial stability and all of this is playing out against the backdrop of a climate crisis that cannot be addressed by “business as usual.”
The COVID-19 crisis is exacerbating all these problems with governments playing a leading role, in delivering immediate solutions in the short term. However, the solutions are still not designed in such a way as to serve the public interest over the long term, and therefore they will not lay the foundation for a robust and inclusive recovery.
With reports on the seriousness of the coronavirus evolving each day if not each hour, the eyes of commerce are on epidemiology.
The effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine could become yet another one-way relationship in which corporations reap massive profits by selling back to the public a product that was born of taxpayer-funded research.
The ongoing coronavirus crises are forcing governments to cash out in order to keep businesses, workers, and their economies afloat, but extending loans to businesses at a time when private debt is already historically high. Flooded the world with liquidity without directing it toward good long term investment opportunities like renewable green energy will result in the money ended up back in a financial sector that was (and remains) unfit for purpose.
The ability of companies to service any of this debt is debatable never mind the economies of countries.
This time, rescue measures absolutely must come with conditions attached, bailouts should be designed to steer larger companies but to reward value creation instead of value extraction, preventing share buybacks, and encouraging investment in sustainable growth and a reduced carbon footprint.
It was the high private debt that caused the global financial crisis in 2008. The result of this has been to erode the very public-sector institutions that we need to overcome crises like the coronavirus pandemic.
On top of these self-inflicted wounds, an overly “financialized” business sector has been siphoning value out of the economy by rewarding shareholders through stock-buyback schemes.
If one really looks at Capitalism at its basic modeling – its beating heart is profit for profit sake.
To day’s Capitalist Economics is set up with this mantra, not to serve people’s needs, or to protect the environment, or to spread the rewards, rather to enslave people to the world of consumption- produce something at the lowest cost to produce the highest profit.
Apart from the tragic human consequences of the COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic, the economic uncertainty it has sparked will likely cost the global economy trillions in 2020, the UN’s trade and development agency, UNCTAD, said on Monday.
What is clear is that if politics and trade wars emerged as uncertainties in recent years, now a third leg in the stool holding up global confidence has suddenly gone wobbly.
It is also clear this is going to be a slow-rolling, highly consequential event, that has all the ingredients required for internal strife in many countries.
It is clear that if we keep exploiting wildlife and destroying our ecosystems, then we can expect to see a steady stream of these diseases jumping from animals to humans in the years ahead.
It is clear that we need to invest in ending the over-exploitation of wildlife and other natural resources, farming sustainably, reversing land degradation, and protecting ecosystem health.
It is clear that the virus is already robbing the world of carbon reduction and it’s only a matter of time before climate change dwarfs the impact of COVID-19.
It is clear that all country’s fates are intertwined.
It is clear that if there is some message here, it’s that this is totally predictable other than without proper oversight, that AI may replicate or even exacerbate human bias and discrimination, cause potential job displacement, and lead to other unintended and harmful consequences.
It is clear given the growing importance of this powerful technology, AI regulation should not be designed in a haphazard manner. As governments struggle to keep up with the unprecedented speed and scale of technological change, companies are facing a crisis of trust amid the growing “techlash” and are increasingly being called on to self‑regulate the technology they are developing and deploying.
It is clear despite vast efforts worldwide to address the symptoms of the coronavirus pandemic, the root causes have been largely ignored, to rebalance the needs of people, the planet, and animals.
It is clear that there’s a lot still to learn about the virus – and therefore how extensive its impact on the global economy could become. Some of the most basic aspects of the virus remain unknown. It all depends on the eventual scale of the epidemic, and at any given point, no one has been able to say whether it has peaked. We don’t know whether it will burn out, like SARS, or come back seasonally like the flu.
It is clear that the impact on markets not to mention human behavior is far from normal never mind the new normal. We are operating in the uncharted territory and the stark reality is that we as a species are unable to act as one.
It is clear that the last thing we need to hear from brands is that we all in this together. They are simply trying to remain relevant and in demand. They need to rethink engagement data-driven empathy no longer cuts the ice.
It is clear that Humanity must become the killer app.
It is clear that we’re living in a world of transparency and in such a world inequality cannot be tolerated.
It is clear that nowadays, it is no longer enough for a business to figure out how it was going to turn a profit. The social goals of the business – are not mere “add-ons or marketing ploys” they must be “part of the DNA of the business.”
It is clear that an unregulated algorithm-driven world will put its riches into the hands of the few.
The problem that we have is not globalization it is a lack of global governance, a lack of means to address global issues.
To solve social problems such as pollution, poor nutrition, and poverty, climate change, you name it there is only one solution.
At the end of Yanis Varoufakis, The Combination That Changed Capitalism Forever, he promotes the establishment of what he calls a political movement that he calls a progressive international movement that is globally and act like activists locally by using purchasing power, he also puts forward a vision of Capitalism where there is no stock exchange, replaced by private ownership and Greene every bonds backed by treasuries.
The green energy bonds are a must So the young generation is able to buy into the process that creates their destiny.
Purchasing power as an economic power to effect change, unfortunately, is visible and like all things that are visible will not work due to greed, cultural differences, etc.
THE SOLUTION MUST BE INVISIBLE AND APPLICABLE WORLDWIDE.
To create a perpetual ongoing fund that spread the cost fairly to tackle climate change and inequalities worldwide.
Make a profit for profit sake pay by placing a 0.005% commission on all, Hight frequency trading, on all foreign exchange transactions over £50 thousand, on all sovereign fund acquisitions, on all gambling and world lottos, on all consumption advertising, on all dividend payments.
Profit for a Purpose- with-Purpose.
Nearly a third of the world’s oceans and land areas could be placed under environmental protections without harming the global economy.
You cannot put a price tag on nature, but a recent independent report, commissioned by the Campaign for Nature charity, found about $140bn (£110bn) a year would be required by 2030 to place 30% of land and sea under protection.
Achieving the target of 30% protection would lead to increased economic output of between $64bn and $454bn a year.
The benefits to humanity are incalculable and the cost of inaction is unthinkable.
To younger generations, the state of the planet is even more alarming but if they don’t get their proveable faces out of their smartphones and their fingers out of where the light shines we all going to witness horrors unimaginable.
It is clear that a coalition of old folks in the establishment won’t cut it.
All our efforts have to be inclusive, integrating all stakeholders, the earth and all that live, grow, and die on it.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
As if the world does not have enough problems regardless of the application, genetic engineering is a very controversial topic in our society.
According to most religious doctrines, life begins at conception, not anymore.
When digital technology took over the world, things we perceived as science fiction became reality. Today the same thing is happening with Genetic Engineering.
Life is made up of just four alphabets that give the instructions, and when we change the guide book we change the being carrying it.
As we are seeing it does not matter what religious beliefs you have or otherwise, the current coronavirus is not fussy who it infects.
We are on the verge of being able to transform, manipulate, and create organisms for any number of productive purposes.
Human genetic engineering may soon be possible. It might well be in its infancy from changing the course of our lives. From medicine to agriculture, to construction and even computing, we are within reach of age when manipulating the genetic codes of various organisms, or engineering entirely new organisms, promises to alter the way we relate to the natural world.
Genetically engineered food is a divisive topic that is deeply embedded in the ongoing debate around climate change, sustainability, and food security.
There are many pros and cons regarding this topic and there are many powerful arguments for and against genetic engineering and gene therapy.
We already improve crops and animals. Why not humans?
Evolution is a change in the inherited characteristics of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
This happens anyway and genetic enhancement is just speeding up this natural process.
We will have to make difficult decisions in the future on whether we want to play god in order to be able to fight deadly diseases and colonize another planet, grow enough food, replace exhausted resources.
Of course, the big question is.
Is it wrong to play god by effectively creating and changing life?
Altering genes to improve strength, beauty or intelligence undermines the moral and legal idea that all humans are equal, creating further inequality in society – those who are genetically engineered and those who are not.
These individuals would have no say in this, but when they arrive at the pearly gates will they be allowed to enter.
Genetical engineering is an extremely controversial issue without even considering the views of religions. The ethical question becomes even more daunting when we consider genetic engineering as it applies to animal life, particularly human life.
One could say that God has no say about any of this?
The Bible does not directly address the issue of genetic engineering, because genetic engineering was unknown at the time that the Bible was written, so there is a concern that a bold pursuit of advances in genetic engineering is motivated by defiance of God.
God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and overall the creatures that move along the ground.’
The gift of life is a product whether it comes from God or not and can be reproduced and modified to make a better product. So where are we with the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.
It is my belief that genetic engineering has promised to better mankind, and it is our ethical obligation to research it but not exploit it.
Determine the genetic material of embryos in humans limiting the chances of children’s autonomy to determine their own destinies.
This means that the entire life of children is changed irrespective of their wish. This practice is immoral in nature because it is an unnatural way of molding the life of a human being to become what they themselves do not wish to be, resulting in social inequalities.
All raises a number of significant ethical issues.
From genetically modified crops, using less water to speeding up the growth of plants to adapt to the global warming problem, to the overall life expectancy of animals and humans, to designer babies, to the development of new diseases, or to miscarriages, to resistance against antibiotics, to political decisions, to the uses of genetically modified bacteria for making biofuels, to the use of genetically modified seeds to increase yields and also make plants more resistant to pests, to the whole ecological system, to human behavior.
By treating the human embryo as mere ‘laboratory material’, the concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to alteration and discrimination. Dignity belongs equally to every single human being, irrespective of his parents’ desires, social condition, educational formation, or level of physical development. To create embryos with the intention of destroying them, even with the intention of helping the sick, is completely incompatible with human dignity.
Embryology is governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Human embryos produced for research purposes cannot be implanted into any woman’s womb and must be discarded after 14 days.
In evaluating these concerns, we need to bear in mind that genetic engineering is still young. Some of the possibilities, such as creating new species of superhumans or subhumans, seem highly unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future.
However, there is a need to have morally correct legislation that guides the way science develops genetic engineering otherwise it will be a Pandora’s box of dangerous genetic modifications posing a threat to humanity with the rich in a society enjoying the fruits of genetic enhancements.
EcologicalEngineering, the application of science to the optimum conversion of the resources of nature to the uses of humankind.
NATURE is being distilled—among many forms—into a network, where nodes represent species and links represent interactions between them.
Ecosystem engineering combined with genetic engineering not only impacts communities on ecological timescales but will profoundly shape the evolution of life on Earth. The complexity of an ecological community can be distilled into a network, where diverse interactions connect species in a web of dependencies.
The dynamical consequences of community structure is not yet a well-defined theory for the assembly of communities that incorporates multitype interactions.
The role of these ecosystem engineers has not been considered in ecological network models.
To unravel nature’s secrets we must simplify its abundant complexities and idiosyncrasies.
On the other hand, GENETIC engineering is entering a new phase as the available techniques become much more precise. Precise genetic editing opens up the opportunity for personalized medicine, with treatments tailored to our own unique DNA.
What is becoming possible and what will the implications be?
Just imagine a genetic engineering breakthrough that brings the dream of fixing everything from a deadly disease to environmental catastrophe into reach, simply by cutting and pasting bits of DNA.
Primarily, as with any technology, once it becomes cheap and easy, it’s going to be used more and more – so we can expect an explosion of activity and innovation around genetic engineering in the coming years.
A lot of controversy surrounds “transgenic” genetically modified organisms, resulting in bureaucratic obstacles that mean GM crops are scarcely cultivated across much of the European Union, Africa, and Asia.
For example, if a gene from a pig was inserted into a banana, will people of the Muslim faith stop eating bananas and so on.
Did you know that over seventy percent of all processed foods on supermarket shelves contain at least one genetically engineered ingredient? If you are not eating 100% organic food, you are eating genetically modified foods. It is almost impossible to avoid eating GMO foods. Presently, over ninety percent of the soybeans, canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed oil are bioengineered. Seventy-two percent of the corn is genetically altered. And more and more food products are being altered every day.
Considering every five minutes, there is a new life and every eight minutes a death and none of us last forever.
We all live for a short time in the fourth dimension of time so is any of this relevant.
Leaving apart the ethical issues, let us be optimistic for a while.
Genetic engineering hasn’t, and won’t, stop it raises ethical and moral questions to which there are, as of yet, no clear answers.
How we as a species solve these problems will tell us not only something about the global landscape of moral decision-making but will define precisely where the human race will end up over the next few generations.
It’s not an exaggeration to say genetic engineering could totally alter the way we live – and these changes won’t necessarily be positive.
While we humans are gaining the powers of the gods, we aren’t at all ready to use them. We aren’t prepared to handle these Promethean technologies responsibly.
While the advance of genetic technologies is inevitable, how it plays out is anything but.
A first inkling of where we are heading can be seen in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry.
When genetic Engineering reaches the mass, the change is going to be permanent.
The overlapping genomics and AI revolutions may seem like distant science fiction but are closer than you think. Because we are all one species. We will ultimately need to develop guidelines that can apply to all of us.
As a first step toward making this possible, we must urgently launch a global, species-wide education effort and inclusive dialogue on the future of human genetic engineering that can eventually inform global norms that will need to underpin international regulations. This process will not be easy, but the alternative of an unregulated genetic arms race would be far worse.
Scientists today have loftier ambitions than building a new app or social media companies.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
As global citizens, the news is packed with statistics and updates on the challenges we face. Most of these challenges have existed from time memorial and are too large to be solved by one person at a time and if they affect huge numbers of people we are numb by their enormity.
Photographs can be effective for a while. They capture our attention — they get us to see the reality, to glimpse the reality at a scale we can understand and connect to emotionally. But then there has to be somewhere to go with it.
“There is no constant value for human life.”
Granted that certain global issues cannot be solved by on-the-ground, grassroots-style projects like human rights, climate change, wars, etc.
So is it a perception problem?
No matter how hard we try we are unable to perceive the whole earth never mind the Universe as one.
We witness this many times in history when the value of a single life diminishes against the backdrop of a larger tragedy and now we are once again witnessing it with COVID-19.
We all go to great lengths to protect a single individual or to rescue someone in distress, but then as the numbers increase, we don’t respond proportionally to that.
We don’t scale up, even when we’re capable.
There’s a hard limit to human compassion. The human mind is not very good at thinking about and empathizing with, millions or billions of individuals. As the number of victims increases, our empathy, our willingness to help, reliably decreases.
We seem unable to prevent our past from impacting our present?
However, our current behaviors are not shaped by past events but by mass media in the form of social media which is creating self-limiting beliefs.
They appear so real to the extent that we cant hardly tell whether its a self-limiting belief or a real one, as a result, we are unable to see the world correctly, so we look on as millions die.
Numbers simply can’t convey the costs, there’s an infuriating paradox at play.
We know that we must protect the Earth but are unwilling to pay the cost of doing so.
Our problem is to replace the false beliefs we acquired with the right one.
Which issues are the most urgent?
And can one person, really, truly, make that much of a contribution?
Here are some of the major issues all global citizens should be aware of if not there are living in coco land.
FOOD.
One in nine people in the world goes hungry each day.
It has been estimated that if women farmers could be given the same resources as men, millions of more people could be fed.
How can it be 2020 and people are still going hungry?
Nutritious food is often more expensive. Visit your local supermarket and compare the price of a punnet of strawberries to a chocolate bar.
Even though approximately 12.9% of the world is undernourished, about 30% of the adult population is overweight.
HEALTH.
In a world of more than 1 billion people living in extreme poverty (less than $1.25 per day) and 2.2 billion living on less than $2 per day (2011 data)
The reality is far more complex. Untold hundreds of millions of people lack access to essential health services, in fact over half of the world population do not have basic health care. We are a long way from the universal right to health.
Communicable diseases were responsible for 71% of deaths, and low-income countries are the most severely affected.
EDUCATION.
It’s estimated that approximately 600 million children are not mastering basic mathematics and literacy while at school.
HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS. OCEAN CONSERVATION
The earth is full. Full of our waste, full of our demands.
The economy is now bigger than the earth, unimaginable, unattainable, and unsustainable. There is no infinite growth possible on a finite planet because nature sets the rules and individual issues mean nothing if they are not attached to nature.
There are countless studies and evidence all around you indicating that the coming crises are inevitable.
If an economy grows at 2% per year, it will double in 35 years.
Imagine twice as much human economic activity as we now have. Can our planet sustain this? Do we need to do this? Why would we want to? Why are we doing this?
Even though a lot of us know that it makes no sense to try to grow endlessly and outstrip the only planet we have.
What if anything can be changed?
We all know that the road to global decarbonization must involve renewable energy.
Although the Paris agreement’s goals are aligned with science, alarming inconsistencies remain between science-based targets and national commitments.
Its a no-brainer in the current emerging global political climate.
Rather than tackle mitigation measures economies are now due to Covid-19 returning to pumping more not less carbon into the atmosphere.
Climate stabilization must be placed on par with economic development, human rights democracy, and peace.
From a money perspective, we can’t help it—we live in a grow-or-die system.?
Currently, we have a system that provides humans to have an innate cost/benefit assessment tool called the smartphone operating at all times.
Here are a few suggestions.
It is now vital that we consider the motivation and funding sources of those who are shaping our worldview.
Money must be created without debt so it doesn’t force us to grow and consumer beyond our means.
New Money must no longer enter circulation as credit, that is, as debt.
It will simply be money spent into circulation by the government as a permanently circulating exchange medium to enable the country’s economy to function.
This money will be equity on the national balance sheet and be our commonwealth.
It will replace bank-created debt-money ending the privilege of commercial banks to create and issue what we use as money.
Then we have trillions in the form of pension investment funds that are nontransparently invested. If we demanded that these funds were moved from fossil fuel industries to green energy industries whose returns are going to be massive we would be reducing carbon emissions by millions of tonnes.
Next, we have the advertising industry.
All advertising that does not promote sustainability should be curtailed by law. We must turn the direction of humanity towards thriving not consumption for profit.
With the coming economic depression, we do have room for growth—the growth of community cohesion and commons conservation. We can grow our efforts to educate our children, care for our people, and care for the planet. We can grow into a more just, caring, sustainable society.
Because we are careering into a world of a few haves and billions of have -not.
Access to information owned by Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple, to name a few, must become transparent and available to all as the interactions of all our individual worldviews shape the condition of humanity.
Lastly, we must address inequality.
There are now 65.3 million people displaced from their homes worldwide.
Think about that number: 65.3 million. Can you even imagine it?
It’s now or never that we make a profit for profit’s sake contribute to a World Aid fund.
(see previous posts)
As Mahatma Gandhi put it, “Earth has enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
We can’t eat drink or shit data.
All human comments appreciate. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
While the pandemic continues to turn the world upside down, new realizations are beginning to dawn on us, there’s no going back to normality.
There is no doubt that we are getting close to the “new abnormal”.
We are all in this together and no one really knows what the future holds but you only have to look at the advertising industry to see what is coming.
We are now in a digital dance in which the use of surveillance and testing to find and control outbreaks will eventually determine who gets to make or earn a living or not.
Under the cloak of preventing the virus from spreading governments are either already deploying, or actively considering, surveillance technology of such intrusiveness that it would have caused outrage and furious protests even a month ago.
As the human and economic impact unfold, how massive this change will become is still unclear.
Indeed, it is a real question as to whether normal or abnormal can be sensibly used at all, given their tremendous baggage and built-in biases and the general confusion they create.
However, there are a few new norms becoming clearer.
The current devastating pandemic is likely to happen again and again and the digital dance to avoid the next outbreak will not be to the tune of governments, but two powerful global corporations laying down the law to territorial sovereigns and restructuring the economic order.
Whole industries grossing billions of dollars are built on the words “normal” and “abnormal” and on the ideas of “well” and “disordered.”
It is therefore inconceivable that the right thing can be done and that the situation can change. Given that even the best and the brightest in the field of advertising are attached to an illegitimate naming game, from Bio this and Bio that there is probably no hope for change other than COVID free.
Add the coming World economic depression, with unemployment and climate migration one thing is clear, slowing the pace of climate change and adapting to its impacts, must become a central organizing principle of society at all levels, from local to global through national and regional.
The declarations of climate emergency must start meaning that, rather than being just an additional agenda item for busy executives and politicians.
Why?
Because climate change and the erosion of wildlife habitats will ensure a ready supply of zoonotic viruses.
Up to now, the emphasis is on lifting the lockdown has centered solely on the necessity of bringing the economy out of its cryogenic chamber to take in the world it has inherited.
We’re all online now, new conformity which is developing a serious digital divide between the young and older generations. And if the impact of Covid19 is another step in the collapse of modern societies, then it is likely it will have been another climate-driven step in that collapse.
The new normal, in other words, change what was wrong but keeps what was right with the old normal.
But if the old normal was wrong, then why did we call it normal?
The word “normal” appears straightforward enough itpossesses a certain kind of authority or “power to divide and distinguish things” since a person’s mental model of “what is normal?” is tremendously influenced by how society and its institutions define “normal.”
But like many of our words, as soon as we begin thinking about it, it starts to fall apart at the seams. The fact with which we started our process of categorization becomes the standard or norm, and everything that diverges from that norm is not just different but abnormal and therefore less than normal.
Our concept of normal pulls double duty; it tells us that what is, ought to be.
Nor can it mean “free of discomfort,” as if “normal” were the equivalent of oblivious.
Normality forces upon us are that “in most cases, no formal rules or standards indicate what conditions are normal” In the absence of such rules, those who wish to identify normality will normally turn to one of three different definitions.
The first is the statistical view, “where ‘the normal’ is whatever trait most people in a group display”. Normal is what is typical, what most people do – which means it is impossible for any individual to be normal.
Second, the norm provided a concrete standard that, if followed, allowed the user to reproduce a specific pattern. Normal-as-ideal, then, might be in harmony with normal-as-ubiquitous, but it might be quite different.
What is normal for a human being, then, are all those behaviors that make it fit to thrive in its particular niche. The capacity to feel shame when betraying a loved one is normal in this scheme, as is the desire for one’s offspring to survive.
When it comes to defining normality, we start with what we think is normal before even considering what is abnormal with all three above end up sliding into each.
The new normal will mean that most of us will go back to most of what we were doing before the pandemic struck (1), but that our societies will make changes for the better (2), which will end up being good for the survival of our communities (3).
The question, then, is why would you use the word “normal” at all?
Normal is safe. It’s familiar. In the face of fear, people long to go back to a time before the fear set in.
Covid-19 causes us to experience a great deal of anxiety, and then we imagine a carefree time before these feelings set in. We don’t begin with normality and then categorize those instances where it is transgressed.
If we begin with all of those things that we instinctively feel are “abnormal” and then try to find comfort by erecting a norm that resolves our anxieties. We then locate this norm “in the past”, which gives us the benefit of claiming the norm as our own. This, after all, may seem easier to attain than one that requires all the hard work of creation.
It is not something we need to build from scratch; all that is necessary is that we return home to it.
We will all continue to face daunting challenges for which we are not prepared. Modern medicine, as advanced as it is, is still, in the grand scheme of things, relatively young.
We’re not sure what exactly the future will look like – which is why we prefer to discuss it in the familiar terms of the good ole’ days – but we know that it’s coming to greet us.
Bergson used the term élanvital to describe the mysterious impulse toward an open future that seems to animate all life. In fact, this impulse is what life is. Life, says Bergson, “since its origins, has been the continuation of one and the same impetus which separates itself into diverging lines of evolution”.
If we are careful two huge tech companies that control mobile phone technology will enable governments to build and deploy proximity-tracking apps on every smartphone in the world.
Your online appointments for everything IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
Here is a shortlist of Normal abnormalities in the world.
640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
750 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)
In developing countries, some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass—fuelwood.
The wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%. In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s financial assets
A quarter of humanity — live without electricity.
51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations.
A strong economy in a nation doesn’t mean much when a significant percentage (even a majority) of the population is struggling to survive.
THE NEW NORM.
Thinking about it, I much prefer the new COVID-19 normal, as I am certain you do too. After all, it has, in some bizarre way, opened our eyes to the infinite treasures that lie within us and in front of us, that we may have been too numb to notice until now.
What was once the unknown and frightening becomes your new normal.
We can make the new normal any way we want providing we make it GREEN.
If “the new normal” means giving up to technology then THE NEW NORMAL MUST BE REJECTED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.
These temporary measures are just that; temporary. They need to be observed, but NOT FOREVER. New normal or not, every day really is a miracle.
The new normal that activity tracks your steps, whether you are black or white, rich or poor, left or right-wing, gay or straight, Muslim or other, Facebook or Twitter, contaminated or not, is irrelevant to living life and appreciating the world we all live on.
It’s the powerful combination of humanity and values that count. We are living in a world of continuous change “Technology Rules The World.”
The new norm requires that we consider our systems as a platform for scaling value.
An investment that needs to be made by leadership. The time has passed for small commitments, hyperbole, and delays in embracing sustainable investing.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
No amount of interventions that will and are costing billions if not trillions will, in the long run, make any difference because of inequality the single most common cause of civil unrest is still with us. 
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
bobdillon33blog 