THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS ENGLAND ABOUT TO LOOSE THE PLOT.

02 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS ENGLAND ABOUT TO LOOSE THE PLOT.

Tags

,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

In 1975 the UK held a referendum on continued membership of the European Community. This wasn’t presented just as a trade agreement.

Other issues discussed at the time related to security, European funding for UK industries and regions, and aid to developing countries.

That’s not to say that anyone in 1975 knew what the EU would be like in 2019, or how much it would change in the following years.

The EU has grown from 9 European Community member countries in 1975 to 28 today.

Of the five main institutions which run the EU today, four were in place by 1975: the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the Court of Justice. Other bodies have been added since, including the European Council which defines the political direction and agenda of the EU.

Since 1975, the UK has signed up to five more “main treaties” which have extended the powers of what became the European Community and then the EU.

Every EU country, including the UK, agreed to these.

The EU now has “competences” or powers in a wider range of policies including consumer protection, energy and climate change, security and crime. In some areas, the EU’s powers are exclusive, while in others they are shared with, or support, member states’ decisions.

However, in 1975 the aims of the European Community largely concerned trade.

The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999.

If the UK leaves without a deal, all changes.

A no-deal well might be a bluff in the British government’s negotiations with the EU but it will unleash forces throughout Ireland and indeed the UK that England will be struggling with for years to come.

People like Boris have no understanding that a no-deal will be a recruiting sergeant for the disaffected to join the ranks of those committed to violent resistance no more so than in Northern Ireland.

You might ask why people like Boris have no or little concept of the Ugly side of Brexit.

The reason for this in regard to Ireland is plain to see. It is that Britain still thinks that Ireland should know its place.

The Political class of the UK still thinks that Ireland is a British colony and this strain of thought can still be seen to this day with Brexit.

Ireland is servile to Britain.

This is why England shows such disregard for the consequences of British political action on the economic and political stability of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The real test is yet to come.

How the EU respond to the challenges which Brexit is creating for Ireland will determine whether the EU is indeed true to what it was set up for in the first place.

Any tampering, bulling or cherry-picking with the agreed backstop to appease an outgoing Britain Primister that has taken power with 0.02% of the electric can only be viewed as suicidal.

Indeed any agreement made with such a democratic leader cannot hold any water.

Come what may if a no-deal is the preference why not let it be so the.

The cost of a deal will, in the long run, outweigh a chaotic departure.

There is no such thing as a clean exit other than WTO agreements.

Under WTO countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.

Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members. Most favoured nation terms mean that any concession the EU offers to one of its trading partners should also be applied to other partners. So if a tariff is cut for one partner, it should also be cut for all others, including the UK.

Countries which have a relationship based on WTO terms alone have much less favourable access to the EU Single Market. The EU imposes a common external tariff on countries outside. ( Remain)

The UK and the EU would still have a deal. An automatic deal under the all-embracing World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

How?

Because the UK and EU are both WTO members in their own right and the WTO specifies WTO members must offer each other ‘Most Favoured Nation’ (MFN) deals.” (Leave)

Leave without a deal and the future rules on trade would depend on what kind of agreement if any, the UK reaches with the EU after its departure.

This means we simply do not know what barriers to trade in goods might be put in place or that matter the future trade rules on services.

This is because even at present for many service sector industries, the single market is far from complete and obstacles remain to true integration of the market.

Although there have been major adjustments to the original Treaty framework, the Single Market principles, as first conceived in 1958, have remained largely intact.

THEN WE COME TO THE BLAME GAME AS ALWAYS IT WILL TAKE TWO TO TANGO.

“Everybody lies.” It’s pretty easy just to lie and blame someone else even though you know you’re at fault. When you don’t succeed you find someone or something to blame for your failure. At the end of the day, someone has to pay.

The taxpayer.

The Political Class against the great unwashed – the voter.

Boris has found the backstop but the answer might be closer to home than most people care to admit. After all, as has been proved time and time again, the electorate always ends up with the politicians it deserves.

The more often you play the blame game, the more you lose

However much it hurts, voters must take their share of the blame.

That voters are angry and feel ‘betrayed’ rests entirely on their own heads.

The UK’s political duopoly no longer answers to the electorate, but now works exclusively on behalf of its global-corporate donors and has done for some time.

With a no-deal Britain will become  ‘politically homeless,’ a psychological cul-de-sac constructed by individuals unwilling to engage all but superficially with the political process.

The tone surrounding Brexit has become increasingly bitter and accusatory in the last week.

Social media is overflowing with anger – at least from those who voted to leave the European Union. Who to blame – bureaucrats, civil servants, politicians, business leaders? Frustration is boiling over while the pound is heading for free fall and free speech dangles by a thread.

In order to succeed liars and charlatans like Boris first have to be believed. It’s a two-way thing. While swallowing the bait is easy, taking a step back to assess the evidence is always a much harder task, one that requires a certain degree of diligence as well as independence.

It’s not as if Brexit is the first time the Tories have said one thing and done another either.

The modern Tory party is abandoning its political heritage, it now openly derides and scorns the very principles upon which it has been established for 200 years.

The political blame game has started over the responsibility for a chaotic no-deal exit.

You could say that the EU is “not interested in the blame game.

Any further extension will only be given by Europe to give it time to prepare for a no-deal. In doing so it will ensure that Britain takes ownership of the no-deal and the responsibility for setting it right.

For the EU countries with the deepest trade ties with Britain — Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Belgium — there are no illusions about how messy and costly a no-deal Brexit will be.

But hard Brexit will amount to an overnight legal revolution, and officials admit it is impossible to be fully prepared to manage the disorder after Brexit.Anti-Brexit placards are seen during the demonstration outside Parliament

There is one thing for sure with a no-deal it will not be so easy to keep a grip on political events.

We should not underestimate the disorder and destabilisation there may be on both sides.

In today’s world, many of the threats to Britain’s security are global in nature.

Luckily there is one last hope.

Boris and his lot in a week have done more damage than Irish republicans, scots nationists. Three years ago he complained that the government spent £9 m on leaflets now is blowing £138m on billboards that should read ” Taxpayers Money”

So wake up Britain what is being done is in your name there is no allocating blame.

A General Election is definite after which the anger has to go somewhere.

Brexit will fail and stay will not be an option.

WTO must be answers and solutions to this General election Brexit vote.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN?

01 Thursday Aug 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Dehumanization., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Life., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Technology, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN?

Tags

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

 

(Twenty-minute read)

Answering this question is not as straightforward as it might appear.

There are billions of us alive all consciousness of each other but unable to explain why.

Perhaps this is why religions were created.

Consciousness is everything people experience.

However, there are different levels of consciousness and they can be related to other global changes in conscious level. All are private and inaccessible to observers.

(Conscious level (how conscious one is) and conscious content (what one is conscious of) are related to each other.)

So at what is a structure complex enough to become conscious.

Why am I human instead of a particle?

If we are particles we are no longer dealing with a purely material theory of consciousness because the source of the conscious particles cannot itself be material.

Its source requires an immaterial intervention.

I will return to consciousness later in the post.

The role that technology plays in human life is becoming an increasingly urgent question not just in tackling climate change but what will be considered in the future to be human.

Where we’re headed and what it will mean for humanity is a question seldom discussed.

Bioelectric implants, genetic modification packages, the ability to tamper with our very biology —  there won’t be enough time to adjust or to reassess who we are and what it means to be human.

Our technology is developing so much faster than our culture and our institutions, and the gap between these things can only grow so far before society becomes dangerously unstable.

It’s hard to really know what we are becoming because so many of these changes are unforeseen or unpredictable.

At the moment computers and robots interact with the world without being conscious.

Are we at risk or are we becoming semi-machines who are like the marionettes of our own moment-to-moment experiences?

We’re losing our ability to be in the world in a way that isn’t mediated by some electronic appendage.

The more we live through screens, the more we are living in a narrow bandwidth, an abstract world that’s increasingly artificial the more we are becoming non-human.

The virtual world might be safe and controllable, but it’s not rich and unpredictable in the way the real world is.

What is all this doing to our habits, to our cultural sense of who we are?

With synthetic biology, which is basically human beings redesigning their biological structure we are distant to lose our connection to reality altogether.

Why?

Because it’s about us modifying our very genetic code which is extremely dangerous if it’s not controlled and safeguarded.

Intelligence is the most powerful instrument around.

If you’re embodying that kind of intelligence in increasingly sophisticated machines we will be coming to depend on them more and more over time.

(What worries me is that we’re headed in the direction of building AI technologies that are at the human level and, eventually, far beyond that.)

If AI becomes so intelligent that they can perform an infinite variety of tasks across domains of activity. We’ll continue to make them smarter and more capable and more powerful until we reach a point at which they start to learn on their own and start to modify themselves. Once that happens, they’ll be fully unpredictable — and then who the hell knows what happens next.

Any fool on the street can tell you that with nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, machine learning, bioengineering, brain implants, quantum computers, algorithms, robots that technology is changing at a whiplash-inducing pace.

So because there is no widely accepted theory about what happens in the brain to make consciousness possible what is it about being human that really matters?

Back to look at Consciousness.

Nothing has authority over it but is it what makes us human.

Nothing is above it. Nothing rules it.

Since everything exists within it, it does not exist within anything.

Since it is not dependent on anything, it is eternal, it is outside of realms of being and time.

In fact, consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity. It is not dependent on anything. No one can envision it. No one can comprehend it. Neither physical nor unphysical it is beyond knowledge.

It simply apprehends itself.

The brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it.

This implies a very real and direct connection between the brain, human consciousness and the existence of the Universe — that they are fundamentally inseparable at the quantum level.

Consciousness permeates reality.

Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

Who or what counts as human?

It’s well-known that the Nazis considered Jews to be non-human creatures.

All the questions we currently face can be traced to this, larger, underlying question. What is Human?

If one says that all and only Homo sapiens are humans, one is expressing a preference about where the boundary separating humans from non-humans should be drawn.

What sort of evidence can settle the question?

There’s something about us that is the opposite of artificial. It’s the opposite of something made.

This raises the below questions.

What genetic engineering stuff promises to bring down the line is human beings who are tailored to particular purposes, either by themselves over time or by other human beings.

We becoming products or commodities, and products or commodities are subordinated to particular functions or purposes.

All the values that give our lives meaning are at risk.

What becomes of autonomy? What becomes of free will?

All these questions are on the table.

By the year 2500, people will not need to be exactly like they are now so it stands to reason that semi humans will break the bonds that hold our present-day society together. They will shatter our sense of identity so quickly that it creates a kind of existential chaos.

So what are these technologies adding to the human experience and, more importantly, what are they subtracting from the human experience?

We live in a world of wonder and mystery, and the more we discover, the more there seems to be to find out but should we be more worried about the world we’re creating?

The artificial kind of worlds.

.This post is compliments of the FRIGHTLY SORRY<SORRY<SORRY. CLUB.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: NOT LONG NOW FOR ALL OF US WITNESS HOW PATHETIC WE AND OUR WORLD LEADERS REALLY ARE.

27 Saturday Jul 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: NOT LONG NOW FOR ALL OF US WITNESS HOW PATHETIC WE AND OUR WORLD LEADERS REALLY ARE.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

With all our technology and communication tools one would think by now that the messages being sent by Earth in the form of climate change would be ringing alarm bells all around the world.

Unfortunately, our existential anxiety is still not fueled by a burning planet.

We have many world leaders, but no leadership.

Yes, the world is better off when leaders act in their nations’ best interests and it is hard to argue that we’re not in a time of crises. Civilisation is best served when leaders also act in the best interest of their region and that of the community of nations.

That requires leadership.

The reality of climate change is now staring us all in the face but we are unable to take collective action.

We all have different views on today’s reality, but when our world and civilization has been viewed as it truly is, nothing could be more disgusting than what pathetic human rule has done to our entire world population.

The UN remains an indispensable world forum to coordinate policies, voice grievances, and even take collective action. But the effectiveness of the world body is determined only by the efficacy of the leaders of its member states, notably those permanent residents of the UN Security Council – the world’s government.

Unfortunately, they preach that which they don’t practise, cause tensions, and create more problems than they solve.

Therefore seeing just how much civilization all around this world has been suffering so badly in many different ways through pollution, genocide, violence, GMO, pharmaceuticals, human trafficking, slavery, torture, and now natural worldwide disasters, you would be right to say the chances of global cooperation to tackle Climate change is impossible. 

When all that any individual can really see is all the pain, suffering, and the many difficulties upon billions; all they really want most out of their own life is the way to help all on this earth by taking control but the chances of replacing greed with common sense are zero. As human beings in a messed up world, all that we can do is live day by day with hope for better tomorrows.

This is the reason why we just do not hear the truth that the world is at a pivotal point.

The Earth is a beautiful machine without consciousness hence it will react without any self-monitoring ability.

The old world order is no more, but there’s no new world order either. The confusion allows all to blame all, and in the process, everyone escapes accountability for their lack of international responsibility.

Climate change might sound unbelievable but it is not a false alarm.

It is never wise to underestimate the ingenuity of Mother Nature and I am sure that there is no one doubts that the future will still have unpleasant biological surprises in store.

It seems a sensible precaution, therefore, to start taking action before the climate is wreaking havoc on the human race.

We cannot be sure that anything our primitive species ever designed would be effective against Climate change.

History is full of nightmares, some natural some man-made.

We might have peace of mind before whatever inescapable doom awaits us ( in not the so distant future) Accepting that it is an impossibility to get humanity to act as one we need a country to lead by example.

As there is no good worldwide for the benefit of our entire population, but rather only misleading lies in every direction what better country than Ireland the land of forty shades of green.

WHY NOT CALL A WORLD CONFERENCE:

Every human being has a relationship with plastic but unfortunately not ever one has a relationship with nature that is now facing a crisis that requires once again International recognition of the Unity of the Globe.

This is where Ireland has a moral duty to call on all nations of the world to attend a Unity of the global conference, in the Emerald Isle.

For every participant in attendance, Ireland will plant a tree to offset their travelling carbon footprint.

The Paris Climate change conference achieved shallow unbinding promises.

The clock is ticking until the next US election starting in November 2020 with the winner inaugurated on Wednesday, January 20, 2021.

Just think of the influence of such a world meeting would have on the election of new USA president and its policies re Climate Change.

If you want to leave a legacy to be remembered by other than the backstop/Brexit what better opportunity to promote the Green.

This gathering should have not just world leaders but leading Industrials, representatives from world organisations and the young that are going to inherit the earth.

Its sole purpose is to present the facts from all side and recognize the need for the world to act as one and achieve a just climate change program that is binding and fully financed – a moon landing moment.

The venue could be at Croke Park.

We are now in need of universal laws of logic and we have to assemble them in such a way that at least one of them work.

There is no more room or time for the Blame game.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME I HAVE GOT THIS WRONG.

24 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Democracy, Elections/ Voting, England., Heredity Monarchy., Modern Day Democracy., Political voting systems., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., The common good., The Obvious., The Queen., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME I HAVE GOT THIS WRONG.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Three-minute read)

They say that mad dogs and English men come out in the noonday sun. Boris Johnson Shuts Down Donald Trump After Trump Talks ...

With 99 days until October 31, we have just witnessed a most undemocratic act.

THE ELECTION OF A NEW PRIMINISTER BY 0.2 PERCENT OF THE VOTING ELECTORSHIP WITHOUT AN GENERAL ELECTION (who has to ask the Queen for permission to form a Government.)

Never mind Brexit Daddy Trump likes him, so could be prime minister and then US president?

He was born in New York. In theory, he could leave Downing Street and move to the US and 14 years later enter the race for the White House.

However, there are the real Questions Great Brits should be asking themselves.

Is it time for a written constitution?

Is it time to scrap first past the post?

Is it time to revoke articular 50.  Stay in the European union till you have sorted yourselves out?

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: AS WE AWAIT JUST WHAT WILL BE THE NATURE OF THE FALL OUT FROM BREXIT.

22 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: AS WE AWAIT JUST WHAT WILL BE THE NATURE OF THE FALL OUT FROM BREXIT.

Tags

 

(Twelve-minute read)

The 17,410,742 people who voted Leave did so in full knowledge of the consequences.

This is obviously far from reality.

The reality is that simmering below the surface of Brexit is that the EU will be poorer for the loss of England but it will continue to shape legislation and regulatory standards that will affect British businesses now and in the future.

Far from ‘making Britain great again’ the vote seems to have divided friends and families as well as the United Kingdom itself. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The DUP claims to speak for the people of Northern Ireland. Only five of the thirty-three London boroughs voted to leave the EU.

The great tragedy is that after two world wars we once again waiting on the consequences that are yet to come.

It could be said, Brexit and quantum physics both remain incomprehensible to most observers.

One way or the other Brexit now has deeper domestic political consequences.

Nexit Image

There are many intriguing aspects of a UK exit not to mention the Legal expenses to untie forty years of regulations and laws.

Apart from causing a sharp, short-term hit to Britain’s economy, what circumstances will we be dealing with to navigate through this period?

The first consequence of a no-deal will be a UK government not just in a financial crisis but unable to govern.

Why?

Because the UK was always going to suffer a massive economic hit in return for reasserting its precious constitutional and sovereign independence.

Because of the impact of reduced demand for UK exports from the loss in EU market access, which at the moment is totally underestimated along with the reduction in UK investment associated with reductions in FDI will force a recession within a year.

Which will not be counterbalanced by the projected savings from repatriating the UK’s net contributions to the EU.

The EU will not allow the UK, upon leaving, to have the same level of market access that it now has without paying a price.

Britain will not be able to leave the EU and remain in the single market unless it is willing to sign up to EU rules that it did not help to write.

A World Trade Organisation (WTO) relationship will involve the biggest increase in tariff barriers – and, more important, non-tariff barriers – to trade, reducing the British economy’s productivity and curbing inward investment.

It follows that leaving the EU and ‘de-Europeanising’ British regulation would do little to boost its economy.

There will be a decline in productivity from restrictive migration.

Whether there is a deal or no deal it has already damage relations between London and other EU capitals and here is no douth that the political landscape will change in the not so distant future.

However, nothing much will change within or about the EU.

The far-right will not come to power in any EU country. But it will be capable of attracting enough support to shape political debate, on the left as well as the right, and therefore to influence governments’ actions.

So for the sake of protecting that unity, the EU will be in no mood to offer generous post-Brexit deals for Britain.

Negotiations will be in danger of turning into an acrimonious tug of war.

Brexit will not harm the EU’s cohesion, confidence and international reputation.

As Brexit will disrupt the EU’s internal equilibrium closer economic and monetary union might be out of reach in the short term but further integration will continue.

What we know so far.

A no-deal will make negotiating a new trade deal with the EU tricky, and all

EU legislation, along with free trade, would end immediately.

More than 100 banks have set up in London as a gateway to Europe. That could end if Britain leaves. London is already faced pressure inside the EU to give up trading in euro-denominated derivatives, a trillion-dollar market.

It will deter investment in the UK economy.

What new strategies will come to fruition in the longer term?

The Eu did not cause the chaos we now see in the UK political system which is totally out of date and non-representative of its citizens with first past the post.

We are witnessing the appointment of a new Primister without a mandate from the whole of the country.

We are witnessing a risk of a break-up of the UK in the event of a no-deal.

We are witnessing a Northern Ireland tied to England with a no-deal outside the EU which could see the emerging of conflict again.

We are witnessing a vis-a-vis conflict with Spain on the sovereignty of Gibraltar.

EU leaders have reiterated that there will be no negotiation over the UK’s

membership of the bloc.

At the moment British people can live freely elsewhere in the EU, and this is a major benefit for the 1.8 million people who do so. If this were to change either way the EU’s relationship with Britain could become toxic.

The impact of EU competition and procurement rules on the NHS is contentious. As the relevant EU directives have already been incorporated into UK law, the government would need to repeal or amend the law if it wished to reverse current arrangements.

To leave the EU could have major implications for health and social care, not least because it has ushered in a period of significant economic and political uncertainty at a time when the health and care system is facing huge operational and financial pressures.

The government will need to negotiate arrangements with the EU as to how both ‘ordinarily resident’ UK citizens and citizens from elsewhere in the EU will access health care services in future.

It will create numerous consequences in the sporting sector mainly related to the massive presence of foreign players in the Premier League championship.

The results all point to a grave act of self-harm.

If Leave supporters could have foreseen the result of their votes, how many would have changed sides?

There will be no point in saying why did nobody tell us what the consequences were?

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY SAY’S: WILL A ROBOT WITH EMOTIONS SPELL THE END OF HUMANITY.

17 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Artificial Intelligence., Communication., Dehumanization., Democracy, Emotions., Evolution, Facebook, Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY SAY’S: WILL A ROBOT WITH EMOTIONS SPELL THE END OF HUMANITY.

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Eighteen-minute read)

 

An absurd thought you might say but it is the holy grail of AI to manipulate your feelings our emotions.

However, the uses of emotionally AI are nearly endless.

The number one question is going to be how do we stop being manipulated by those who control the data.

Another words democracy itself has been and is becoming more with Social media an emotional puppet show run by companies such as Facebook who is undoubtedly one of the kings of social networking.

It is who and how data is controlled that determines the outcomes of elections and referendums as we have seen with Brexit and the election of Donal Trump and now the coming of G5 we going have:

Autonomous Driving.

Remote Robotic Surgery.

Smart(er) Factories.

Immersive Gaming and Augmented Reality.

Supply Chain Management.

Digital Transformation in the Experience Economy.

It will “offer users no less than the perception of infinite capacity.

                                                  –

But how can we find a balance between accelerating technological progress

and governments’ responsibility to improve the economic conditions and raise

the level of wellbeing for their citizens?

There isn’t a single solution.

Why?

Because Democracy is based on feelings. During an election, you are not being asked to vote rather how do you feel.

Currently, many people cannot imagine their life without social networks, which in less than a decade have become an indispensable resource in our daily lives who have served multiple purposes throughout its short life and replaced other media.

With 2.38 billion monthly active users as of the first quarter of 2019, Facebook is the biggest social network worldwide. It is at a size where it’s worth really taking a careful look at what are all the things that it can do to make social media the most positive force for good possible.

But like climate change, we sit back and watch the development of technologies that have little or no regulation both of which are reshaping the world we live in and the Earth exponentially.

Perhaps sometime in the next few decades, we’ll start developing technologies that improve human intelligence. We’ll hack the brain, or interface the brain to computers, or finally crack the problem of General Artificial Intelligence.

Should we be worried about technology’s advance and our demise?

Will Technology Save Us Or Enslave Us?

Intelligence is the source of technology.

The purest case of an intelligence explosion would be a General Artificial Intelligence rewriting its own source code.

That prospect would certainly change our viewpoints on what is life.

The potential impact on our world is enormous.

Both climate change and GAI  are heading us all to a  critical point of all human history.

Right now, almost no one is paying serious attention to either.

So what might a General Artificial Intelligence do with nanotechnology?

Feed the hungry?

Heal the sick?

Help us become smarter?

Remove our emotions so we have no sense of guilt?

Instantly wipe out the human species?

Probably it depends on the specific makeup of the AI.

See, human beings all have the same cognitive architecture. We all have a prefrontal cortex and limbic system and so on. If you imagine a space of all possible minds, then all human beings are packed into one small dot in mind design space. And then Artificial Intelligence is literally everything else. “AI” just means “a mind that does not work like we do.

So you can’t ask “What will an AI do?” as if all AIs formed a natural kind.

There is more than one possible AI.

Back to the question of whether a robot could or should have emotions.

From an intellectual point of view, this may not be as important to a robot as being able to interrupt human emotion and also display it back while interacting with people.

The most efficient way to answer the question would be to start by making itself smarter: Acquiring more computer resources could probably be most easily accomplished by hacking every computer connected to the internet.

Once that’s done, it could use the resulting enormous amount of computing power to calculate the most optimal way of rewriting itself for more intelligence.

Using this newfound intelligence and raw brute force, it may turn to develop new and more efficient computer chips and proceeding to turn the surface of the earth and nearby matter into computer innards.

We would not escape as we are made from perfectly usable carbon atoms, just waiting to be utilized as computronium – re-purposing our atoms.

It would then be simply a matter of the robot fooling a human, an easy task into thinking it had emotions.

The sort of emotion a robot might actually be programmed would be the same as its intelligence that being artificial.

If it turns out to be possible to create an AGI, it will presumably be given a task of some sort.

Here are a few.

  1. Psychotherapy software that utilizes an emotional connection to dispense advice.
  2. Call answering software that detects caller emotions and responds accordingly.
  3. To foresee the consequences of actions.
  4. Robots will not be susceptible to the effects of fear, adrenaline or shock and could potentially make strategic, reasoned decisions much faster than a human soldier.
  5. Robots would not be restrained by human emotions and the capacity for compassion.

So could a robot acquire Adrenaline along with emotions?

Emotions appear to be integrated as part of a biological body and a biological brain but our inability to see beyond biological programming does not allow us to answer this question.

There is no doubt that as AI technology grows more sophisticated, the potential for implementing it in weaponry is all but guaranteed – Drones that get an Adrenaline kick.

Adrenaline can be used in both technical and nontechnical contexts.

It is commonly used in describing the physiological symptoms (such as increased heart rate and respiration) that occur as part of the body’s fight-or-flight response to stress.

In a robot, it would not be just an act in the same vein. A thinking person feels empathy for something that looks alive and has complex behaviours, even if it doesn’t have life in a biological sense.

In the end, there is absolutely no reason why any sane human would ever want them to have characteristics but technophobic response actually feels rational.

Like a robot dealing with sick people should be able to mimic some emotions like compassion and carefulness….. They testify to the fact that emotions and our biological body operate together.

While a consensus is yet to be reached over the scope and scale of the effect we should expect from mobile connectivity on poverty-reduction and inequality some argue that it might be the best hope we have.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE: OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF IRELAND.

16 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Open Letter., Our Common Values., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE: OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF IRELAND.

Tags

 

16/07/2019

Dear Sir,

I write as a man from the land of the Green.

In my life, I have had the great gift of travelling the world both by land and sea.

Today we are celebrating the first man on the moon some fifty years ago.

Then as a much younger man, I watched Armstrong place his foot with now the famous words ” A small step for man, a giant step for humankind.

Never did I think that our world so full of life might become the dust that his boot stood on.

Every human being has a relationship with plastic but unfortunately not ever one has a relationship with nature that is now facing a crisis that requires an International recognition of the Unity of the Globe.

This is where Ireland has a moral duty to call on all nations of the world to attend a Unity of the global conference, in the Emerald Isle.

For every participant in attendance plant a tree to offset their travelling carbon footprint.

The Paris Climate change conference achieved shallow unbinding promises.

The clock is ticking until the next US election starting in November 2020 with the winner inaugurated on Wednesday, January 20, 2021.

Just think of the influence of such a world meeting would have on the election of new USA president and its policies re Climate Change.

This gathering should have not just world leaders but leading Industrials, representative from world organisation and the young that are going to inherit the earth.

Its sole purpose is to present the facts from all side and recognize the need for the world to act as one and achieve a just climate change program that is binding, and fully financed – a moon landing moment. 

The venue could be at Croke Park.

I Robert De Mayo Dillon are humble available to discuss why Ireland should be the birthplace of a new begging.

Yours a Cara.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS CLIMATE CHANGE NOW IRREVERSIBLE.

15 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS CLIMATE CHANGE NOW IRREVERSIBLE.

Tags

,

 

(Ten-minute read)

The honest answer is nobody knows.

THE BASIC SCIENCE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE IS ACTUALLY SIMPLE AS IS THE BASIC REALITY OF THE ONE CERTAINTIES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. THE WORLD HAS GOT WARMER.

It’s no longer an academic question or a question to be arguing from a position of hope.

Dealing with the impact on the environment requires concerted action, not just by a few, but by everyone.

With increasing frequency, evidence of global warming and climate change are making headlines around the world. Politicians, while giving lip service to the dangers that lie ahead for the planet, lack a fundamental understanding of either the dangers or the solution to the problem.

They all promise a technological solution but fail to grasp the social context which makes the problem difficult to solve.

The urgency and complicated nature of a solution put humanity at a distinct disadvantage and many scientists involved in the study of our planet concur that if we act now, we would only be able to make a difference in what is happening by the end of the century.

The problem is that the situation is growing more desperate and yet those in power are not.

Why are these issues so difficult to address?

Because the crisis looms because of the power of money of the oil companies. They have a vested interest in not developing other forms of energy to compete with oil.

Because the present shifts we are experiencing are not global.

At present, there is no chain reaction around the world that pushes Earth into a terrifying new hothouse state from which there is no return.

Because of the diagnosis of climate change is still a scientific issue, the response to it is not.

Because the world, after 30 years of warnings, has barely got to grips with reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Leaving fossil fuels in the ground is, for example, a question of regulation, while investing in renewable energy is a policy choice, and modernising our housing stock to make it energy efficient is about overcoming the lobbying power of the building industry the energy industry.

Because while extracting new fossil fuels continuing, we are on course for another 2C or 3C to transform Earth this century. At best we are flatlining, with investments in Green energy.

Because none of this climate change will be smooth, gradual and linear changes. It may be fast, abrupt, and dangerous surprises may happen.

Because climate migration is already happening.

Europe is not coping well with even modest numbers of migrants, and future flows look likely to increase substantially as migration itself is an adaptation to rapid climate change.

How will the cooler, richer parts of the world react to tens of millions of people escaping the hotter, poorer parts?

Because if we throw into the mix long-term stagnating incomes for most people across the west and climate-induced crop failures causing massive food price spikes and we have a recipe for widespread unrest that could overload political institutions.

Because we now have inward-looking nationalists that will move us further away from the internationalism needed to ensure the continuation of stable global food supplies and to manage migration humanely. And without cooperative internationalism serious carbon dioxide mitigation will not happen, meaning the underlying drivers of the problems will exacerbate, leading to a lock-in of a deteriorating, isolationist, fascist future.

We are facing the same three choices in response to climate change as we did before this scorching summer:

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), make changes to reduce the adverse impacts of the new conditions we create (adaptation), or suffer the consequences of what we fail to mitigate or adapt to.

So what can be done?

In order to alter the direction of climate change, an effective strategy, based on a consensus between developing and industrialized nations, is essential.

This agreement must address the social factors inherent in the system- inequality.

Politicians will need to understand the real issues involved in technology and its social aspects and adopt plans which will have long term goals.

Can the damage done be reversed? Only time can tell, but climate change is certainly becoming increasingly apparent, and immediate action is necessary if irreparable damage is to be averted.

Given the colossal wealth and the scientific knowledge available today, we can solve many of the world’s pressing problems and all live well.

Given that our environmental impacts are so long-lasting, the future is the politics we make today. The future is up to us if we act collectively and engage in politics.

As I have suggested in previous posts all activities that are profit for profit sake should be made to contribute to a world aid fund. ( See previous posts) Market forces are really important — and that they could be harnessed to fight climate change.

No governments,no countries, no companies, no forms of taxation, no non-binding promises, no tree planting, no electric cars, no world organisations , no one person, no protests, no declaration of an emergency, no extensions, no amount of warming, no amounts of warnings, no natural disasters will make any financial contributions to the trillion that are going to be needed.

We all know our world is in a state of crisis but we have seen nothing yet that is going to accompany climate change.

I am sure that there is no need to draw the picture.

We do know some incontrovertible facts, however. CO2 concentrations, temperatures and sea levels are all rising.

Why are we being such idiots about climate change?

Climate change deniers say nothing is certain. True, we don’t know if the planet will be two degrees or ten degrees warmer in 2100. Yes, humans may be causing climate change, but trying to do anything meaningful would collapse the economy and send us back to the Dark Ages.

The sobering truth is that the planet has already been responding faster than expected. It’s crushingly obvious that fighting climate change should be one of the world’s top priorities.

What gives?

It’s not that they are stupid or blind. Instead, they seem to firmly believe that climate solutions inevitably mean more government, higher taxes and less freedom — and thus are threats to their core values and identity. Dire warnings of the looming climate disaster may just make people throw up their hands in despair, sink into denial, or dig their heels in deeper against government action.

So here’s where we now stand.

We have a pretty clear understanding of the threat climate change poses to us, our children and our grandchildren. We are already being forced to cope with more droughts, more floods, more extreme storms. At the same time, we have in our arsenal effective policies that are difficult for rational people to demagogue as crippling to the economy or as a subversion of our cherished way of life.

We thus face a stark choice. Do we let future historians excoriate us for our failure to act in time? Or do we step up to meet the challenge?

So it’s really up to you.

Insist that climate change be a key issue in elections and all future elections.

Combat the lies and deceit from the Koch brothers/ Donald Dump Presidents and other deep-pocketed climate deniers. Push for a reasonable fee on carbon and for incentives for renewable energy (and energy efficiency steps) at all levels of government.

Make Greed Pay:

To day we celebrate man landing on the moon. In not the so distant future we could be celberating the last man on earth.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: A NO DEAL IS LIKE JUMPING OFF A CLIFF. YOU CAN JUMP OFF ONLY ONCE.

15 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: A NO DEAL IS LIKE JUMPING OFF A CLIFF. YOU CAN JUMP OFF ONLY ONCE.

Tags

,

Social media, smartphones and the resulting digital cacophony have pretty much seen off the possibility of “silent” anything.

It Britain leaves the EU without a deal we will hear the screams for years.

The UK decided in June 2016 to follow the path to departure from the European Union; that the voters were lied to and electoral law was broken in the preceding campaign; and that, after nearly three years, the path has led Britain to the edge of a cliff.

With their parliamentary system now becoming so fixated by what they see as her historic duty to deliver Brexit no matter what the cost no one on either side is capable of seeing that they are not serving democracy but upholding the falsehoods of a Referendum which in its self was not legally binding.

Noise is not the same as democracy and there is no distinct parliamentary solution to this conundrum.

To shrug off the chains of tribalism is impossible because of first-past-the-post elections – which do not truly represent the voting citizens.

That a government has to face elections every five years and could be turned out is important but is it enough.

The last two elections make plain that British politics is no longer dominated by just two parties. More proportionate distribution of parliamentary seats would inevitably mean coalition government.

The electoral system is often seen as unfair, making votes effectively unequal • The monarchy and House of Lords are unelected • Government is not bound by a superior, entrenched constitution • Citizens don’t take a full part in the democratic process (voter apathy) • Referenda is used infrequently in the UK • Representative process is flawed in key respects (‘Elected dictatorship’) • House of Commons doesn’t reflect social composition of the UK • Party system offers voters a limited choice (two-party system)

Imagine a country where fundamental rights and liberties were enshrined in law and could not be ignored by a government.

Oh, wait, sorry that’s not Britain, that’s how the European Union works.

This idea that the EU is undemocratic and/or unelected has to stop.

Laws are approved, amended or rejected by the directly elected MEP’s using proportional representation in the EU Parliament and elected government Ministers in the EU Council from the 28 member states.

The Commission President is now elected in the similar method of the UK Prime Minister, he or she campaigns during the European election and is the leader of the largest party after the Parliamentary election. The other 27 Commissioners are appointed by the 27 elected governments and the entire Commission is approved or rejected by the directly elected Parliament.

EU treaties are ratified only with the consent of every 28 national parliaments and government approval.

European protesters, for example, have exercised their democratic right to put pressure on elected officials, as is the case with TTIP and the French government is threatening to veto the agreement in the EU Council. That is a representative of just 12% of the EU population able to defy the will of the other representatives of 82%. That would be like the London Assembly led by the Mayor of London, representing roughly 12% of the UK population having a veto on UK trade deals. Unimaginable (and impossible) in a British context.

Evidence suggesting proportionally citizens can influence the decision of the EU better than in the UK.

We need to educate all European (especially British) people on how their vote in the European election can kick out the EPP led Parliament and Commission. That they by voting in left or centre governments in their national elections can kick out the EPP led EU Council.

It’s time our education system, national politicians and media gave the knowledge to the citizens on how to use them.

The EU is unelected/democratic is a myth, it’s the UK that has the problems.

There is no direction to history, no implacable force of providence driving England towards an act of irrevocable, collective self-harm.

However with no entrenched Bill or Rights Referendum and General Elections simply do not offer the choice that the nation needs.

Elections are about consent but also about enabling citizens the opportunity to express their political convictions.

A great deal of uncontrolled (prerogative) power lies in the hands of the prime minister, who is not directly elected • There are few controls on the Prime Minister’s extensive powers of patronage • Pressure groups can also reflect the interests of privileged groups rather than the public at large.

Indeed the present Conservite elections of a new leader without a mandate from the people to be Prime Minister shins a light on just how out of date English Politics is.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS THIS WHAT IS WRONG WITH MODERN DAY CAPITALISM. WE JUST HUMAN CAPITAL.

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Capitalism, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Populism., Purchasing Power., Reality., Sustaniability, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS THIS WHAT IS WRONG WITH MODERN DAY CAPITALISM. WE JUST HUMAN CAPITAL.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

The term ” Human capital” suggests that we create ourselves as social beings, and then society recognizes the outcome of our self-making by assigning them values. This value is then exchanged for commodities and services of equal value.

WE SPEND OUR LIVES TRYING TO MAKE THIS VALUE HIGHER.

No discussion of human capital can omit the influence of families on the knowledge, skills, health, values, and habits. But when we become a risk, a drain on society, a problem of a life gone on too long we reflect the political and economic goals that the notion of human capital was designed to fulfil – profit.

When we assign value to human life it means different worth including negative value – to the lives of different people. Life subsequently came to be valued according to its ability to foster the national economy – its potential contribution to GDP with nil contribution deemed a surplus to manage.

This has become the bedrock of modern capitalism – persons and profit with the smartphone transferring its owner into an asset of significant value.

Profit-seeking Algorithms that are now embedded in our societies making it seem natural to be monitored and to allow access to every moment of our days.

Assigning life a market value is no way to guarantee that this value will be high.

Everyone is able to help themselves but information technologies are fastening individuals to prefabricated categories ( Age, gender, religion, ) solidifying us as persons of a certain kind.

Even if we consider ourselves to be so much more than our data or human capital, we cultivate, display, and leverage, our socially recognized arsenal of valued traits—no matter how worrying the manner in which they were consolidated—whenever circumstances call for it.

Human capital, then, is something other than the sum total of our ambition.

Like other kinds of capital, its value is set by market dynamics that support a larger process of accumulation.

We are unable to determine how much we are worth to our society.

There is no stopping this form of unattachment to reality, to politics, to nature, to others and it is destined to become worse. We have world leaders Twittering, governments pandering to populism, androids apps grabbing your data even if you block them.

Indeed it would be fair to say that Capitalism is disappearing underground.

The idea of human lives as surplus—superfluous to society rather than being its building blocks—offends our robust sense of self.

However, in designating selfhood unique yet classifiable, a personal project of self-creation yet a collective subject of political policy, we end up with human capital.

We feel oppressed by constantly having to demonstrate our worth in a matrix of investments and returns.

Is there any solution to this detachment?

Not with Social media that is putting a protective net around people with this net actually becoming a limiting cage.

A vote every five or ten years will not do it.

Countries must enable their citizens to become involved directly in the economy by offering non-trading but inheritable Participation Bonds with guaranteed returns in order to make the economy serve the people rather than the other way around.

In a world of universal and instantaneous communication with robotic technology now treating our abilities to earn a living the coffers of the state are diminishing.

Some will say that Participation Bonds is a form of Socialism.

It might well be but it is not the state owning the assets of a country but its people have a vested interest.

The current relationship between the balance sheet value of human capital and the operating costs of the human capital is not realistic. Successful leaders want to know how their people are deployed and new technological advances clearly are of little value to countries that don’t put their people first.

Therefore, economists regard expenditures on education, training, medical care, and so on as investments in human capital. They are called human capital because people cannot be separated from their knowledge, skills, health, or values in the way they can be separated from their financial and physical assets but tangible forms of capital are not the only type of capital.

No matter what colour, creed or status you are if you are not attached you cannot reap the rewards.

Other words if you are on a sailing boat crossing the Atlantic there is no point in being pushed over or jumping overboard if you want to arrive.

The old adage of “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves no longer applies.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨