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

01 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2019., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Climate Change., Democracy, Education, Environment, Fourth Industrial Revolution., GDP., Happiness., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Trade Agreements., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

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

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

( Seven minuter read)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAN WE DO ANYTHING?

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

upgrade.

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

want and need?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS NEEDED NOW IS FOR SOMEONE TO REALISE THAT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People could buy them or win them.

For Example:

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

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

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

What if countries used SCs to reflect fair trade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, what will the next generation bring?

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

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

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

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

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

01 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

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

Tags

, ,

 

(Two-minute read)

FACT:

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

FACT:

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

FACT:

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

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

Ireland becomes a victim of the law of unintended consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is farcical:

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

Everything else is infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

They are wrong.

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

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

This is the apocalyptical nightmare of the DUP.

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

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

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

If Europe made Britain, then Britain also made Europe.

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

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

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

30 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., First past the post.

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

Tags

,

 

( A two-minute read)

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

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

Image associée

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

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

30 Saturday Mar 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. A LONG BREXIT EXTENSION MAKES SENSE.

Tags

,

 

(Three-minute read)

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

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

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

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

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

WHY?

A lot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what has this to do with Brexit?

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

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WAKE UP BRITANNIA THIS IS WHO THE DUP ARE.

29 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Backstop., Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democratic Unionist Party., Northern Ireland., The DUP.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WAKE UP BRITANNIA THIS IS WHO THE DUP ARE.

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

If you asked the question who are the DUP to the English public I would say 80%  would not be able to answer the question.

If you asked the question in Ireland 90% would answer a Northern Ireland Unionist Party out of date that is based in bigotry antie catholic and united Ireland rhetoric. Citing the territorial claims in the Irish constitution, which the party viewed as illegal and a threat to the security and religious freedom of Protestants in Northern Ireland.  

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Who is the DUP? A brief history of UK parliament’s new kingmaker

A “theocon” grouping whose ideas are unusual in today’s western Europe. To an American, especially from the deep South, the party would seem much more familiar.

You might call it a mixture of old-time religion and secular nativism.

The party is the creation of firebrand Protestant Evangelical Minister Ian Paisley.

Reverend Paisley also founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and was characterized by his entrenched Unionist views and his hostile opposition to the Catholic Church. Paisley helped found the Ulster Protestant Volunteers.

In 1969 members were involved, along with the UVF, in exploding a number of bombs they hoped would be blamed on the IRA (who had not begun their bombings), provoking a Protestant backlash and bringing down the Unionist government of Northern Ireland, seen by them and Paisley as having gone soft on Catholics.

Founded in 1971 by a hard-line faction of the UUP ( Ulster Unionist Party) which was at the centre of a bloody sectarian divide during Northern Ireland’s Troubles – a conflict involving rival paramilitary groups and the British Army which claimed more than 4,000 lives, 50,000 injured, and an estimated 40,000 bereaved or traumatized over 30 years.

In 1975 the DUP contested elections as part of the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC) alliance, which rejected the notion of sharing power with the nationalist (and largely Roman Catholic).

Core to the identity of the DUP is its representation as a party that guarantees to act as a firewall against Irish unity.

The DUP boycotted the talks when Sinn Féin was admitted in 1997. The product of the talks, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (Belfast Agreement) on steps leading to a new power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, was rejected by the DUP, which denounced the new Northern Ireland Assembly as a dilution of British sovereignty and objected to the inclusion of Sinn Féin in the Assembly and the new executive body.

There is now a growing question about the influence of the DUP and its opposition to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement.

In the snap election for the British House of Commons that Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May called for June 2017, the DUP added two seats to bring its representation in Westminster to 10 seats.

May then courted the support of the DUP so that she could form a minority government relying on the DUP’s 10 votes on crucial issues to push her party over the 326-vote threshold for a majority.

After securing the promise of £1 billion in extra funding for Northern Ireland over the next two years, on June 26, 2017, the DUP agreed to provide “confidence and supply” support for May’s government.

The DUP staunchly supports union with Britain.

The sense of political identity currently offered by the DUP leadership reflects a change of emphasis away from cultural unionism towards an agenda drawing on more civic understandings of politics.

However, it has blocked efforts to pass a Climate Change Act in Northern Ireland, as well as having a history of supporting creationism and blocking legislation on the legalisation of abortion and gay marriage.

It is the only political party in Ireland to support Brexit.

The DUP induced a political crisis in Northern Ireland through a “green energy” scheme. The final cost to the taxpayer for this fiasco is expected to be upwards of £400 million.

The party is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, but it goes further than that.

Members of the party have described LGBT people as “disgusting” and an “abomination”.

The DUP traditionally avoided all contact with the Irish government.

Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster, DUP deputy leader and leader

Yet Arlene Foster is the political figure who holds in her hands the future of Brexit.

Her beliefs were forged in the bloody years of Northern Ireland: her father was shot in the head and she escaped an attack on her school bus.

Almost everything you need to know about the DUP and Brexit can be gauged from its name, with the emphasis on “unionist”.

To the DUP, the backstop represented its worst fears come to life:

But ultimately, what does the party want from Brexit?

First of all, the DUP has said it still wants the UK to leave the EU with a deal – but it must be one that treats Northern Ireland no differently from the rest of the UK.

It is hard to imagine a group less suited to this crucial role.

A political NI party of narrow-minded, intransigent bigots who care nothing for the wider interests who relish in a political mindset of ransom and provincialism that was is probably still is attached to the Ulster Volunteer Force.

The party is continually in denial about reality. Representing just 36% of the last General election in NI that voted to remain.

A party that has been spoonfed English taxpayers cash, including a 1 billion, to support England departure from the EU.

Wake up Britain!

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ITS TIME FOR THE SOCIAL SECTOR TO MOVE BEYOND THE US-VERSUS THEM.

28 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in #whatif.com, Capitalism, Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Purchasing Power., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Trade Agreements., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics, World Trade Organisation

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ITS TIME FOR THE SOCIAL SECTOR TO MOVE BEYOND THE US-VERSUS THEM.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Twelve-minute read)

There is no point at shaking our fists at corporations whose drive is to maximize profits at the expense of communities.

The world is changing faster than ever before with levels of social inequality spiralling out of control, with most of the world’s problems resulting from this, in one way or another.

The story we have been telling ourselves about our origins is wrong and perpetuates the idea of inevitable social inequality.

There is a fundamental problem with this narrative.

It isn’t true.

Civilization meant many bad things (wars, taxes, bureaucracy, patriarchy, slavery…) but also made possible written literature, science, philosophy, and most other great human achievements.

Civilization’ does not come as a package.

Unfortunately most see civilization from their smartphones and TV sets hence inequality, as a tragic necessity.

Once we learn to throw off our conceptual shackles and perceive what’s really there one can imagine overthrowing capitalism or breaking the power of the state, but it’s very difficult to imagine eliminating ‘inequality’.

In fact, it’s not obvious that doing so would even mean since people are not all the same and nobody would particularly want them to be.

Against a background of limited resources GDP growth is still seen as the ultimate political ambition.

‘Inequality’ is a way of framing social problems appropriate to technocratic reformers, the kind of people who assume from the outset that any real vision of social transformation has long since been taken off the political table.

With billions of people hyper-connected to each other in an unprecedented global network, it allows for an almost instantaneous and frictionless spread of new ideas and innovations. Combine this connectedness with rapidly changing demographics, shifting values and attitudes, growing political uncertainty, and exponential advances in technology, and it’s clear the next decade is setting up to be one of historic transformation.

The tech invasion has already taken over retail and advertising – and now invading forces have their eyes set on healthcare, finance, manufacturing, and education, banking.

It is time we turn the page on an approach to “the economy” under which communities are passive recipients, relegated to react to its ups and downs.

If we really want to understand how it first became acceptable for some to turn wealth into power, and for others to end up being told their needs and lives don’t count, it is here that we should look.

For instance, almost everyone nowadays insists that participatory democracy, or social equality, can work in a small community or activist group, but cannot possibly ‘scale up’ to anything like a city, a region, or a nation-state.

But the evidence before our eyes, if we choose to look at it, suggests the opposite.

Popolourism or people power can take many forms depending on what kind of change you’re looking to achieve and who has the power to make that change happen — whether it’s a government, company, community or individual.

There are many ways to influence governments and politicians, all of which can shift laws, policies and regulations.

Governmental and political structures are complex and vary widely across the globe and local laws can restrict the ability of organisations to engage in politics but there is one universal power that we have not yet tapped into.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "purchasing power pictures"

That is the power of Purchase Power.

The social sector has focused for years on government as its mechanism for change, but it’s business that has the biggest potential impacts on the social and environmental crises of our time.

Some of the deepest challenges facing our democracy have to do with the interaction between money and politics.

Yet civically minded citizens have limited options: call your MP, join a one-off protest action, donate to our advocacy organization. Too often, the options posed don’t translate into tangible benefits for one’s own community.

By making every purchase a civic opportunity, we can put communities back behind the wheel of their own economic destiny.

If we really want to see change when we open up our wallets to purchase the necessities and extra goodies in our lives, we should be more conscious of what or who we are supporting.

Purchasing power is social impact power.

With purchasing power, we can help business leaders to deliver social benefits while also meeting their bottom line, creating local markets that reward those who do.

People, given a path that does not set them back economically, will make choices as consumers that do good for their world. And, just as important, business leaders will as well.

By pooling our purchasing power, people and communities can do more than gain access to services they want at lower cost; they can unlock the ability of business–and I believe, whole market sectors–to be drivers of social good.

I believe people and communities have a more powerful tool in where what, and when they use their purchasing power.  For creating social benefits they care about, one that requires no sacrifice but instead aligns with their own economic interest as consumers:

Collective purchasing power.

Just imagine if the money we routinely spend on food, clothes, gifts, and even indulgences were turned into an untapped superpower to force change.

We’re at a moment of crisis in Communities–especially low-income neighbourhoods–are no longer being meaningfully engaged by the global economy, income inequality has never been higher, and our expulsion of finite fossil fuels into the atmosphere has us all on a crash course for disaster.

Although no generation behaves the same as the last.

How can we jumpstart a new, clean economy that truly lifts up those who need it most?

As new technologies are created at a faster and faster pace – and as they are adopted at record speeds by markets – it’s fair to say that the future is coming at a breakneck speed.

The definition of wealth itself is taking on a new meaning, with millennials leading a charge towards sustainable investing rather than being entirely focused on monetary return.

Global warming is here.

Humanity has dallied so long that avoiding the worst impacts will now require extremely sharp emissions cuts and the hotter it gets, the harder it gets to adapt.

THE TECH TO PULL CARBON OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE IS STILL UNPROVEN.

The world has now amassed $247 trillion in debt, including $63 trillion borrowed by central governments: How we view money – and how that perception evolves over time – is an underlying factor that influences our future.

The population tidal wave in the coming decades will completely reshape the global economy. Rapid urbanization will translate into the growth of megacities, holding upwards of 50 million people.

While Amazon and Apple are worth over $1 trillion, Jeff Bezos has a $100+ billion fortune, and the current bull market is the longest in modern history at 10 years.

WITH MORE AND MORE PROFIT SEEKING ALGORITHMS THE FORCES BEHIND CHANGE ARE NOT ALWAYS EVIDENT TO THE NAKED EYE.

We now seem to be trapped in a trade paradox in which politicians give lip service to free trade, but often take action in the opposite direction.

Underrepresented populations have enormous influence as consumers.

Here are a few suggestions for conscious consumerisms.

Why not follow Bogota the Capital of a poor country and ban cars from our city centre on Sundays.

With the speed at which technology now moves, expect our energy infrastructure and delivery systems to evolve at an even more blistering pace than we’ve experienced before.

Why not allow and assist communities to set up there own solar farms.

Why not lobby Apple with there RECENTLY ANNOUNCED new credit card to allocate the cash back to charities.

Why not designate one day of the year as a world day of no online purchases.

Why not promote public asset ownership.

Why not apply a 0.05% world aid commission on all High-Frequency trading, on all Sovergen wealth fund accusations, on all foreign exchange transactions over 50,000 $, on all Lotto wins to create a perpetual World Aid fund.

Why not ask people outside Super Markets not to buy products that are housed in non-recyclable plastic.

There are many facets of change that will impact our shared future.

For community-driven economic transformation, someone has to pay for all of this change, and it is still going to be us in the form of targeted advertising.

So let advertising in all its forms Pay.

The wealth landscape is not all just about billionaires and massive companies – it is changing in other interesting ways as well.

The full impact of Millennials purchasing power and brand preferences will come into full effect in 2020 when their purchasing power is projected to reach $1.4 trillion.

Eventually, our descendants will be unrecognizable.

In our consumer culture what will have an immediate beneficial effect is a bottom-up approach through purchasing power which hurts the bottom line.

Finally. I am not the first or will I be the last to recognise the above.

Portable Purchasing Power

Today’s mobile advertising industry is growing exponentially. More devices

mean more sales, more opportunities to force change with what, where, and

how you buy.

Image associée

The world we want is in our hands. Buy the changes you want to see. 

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: FIRST-PAST-THE-POST-IS AN ARCHAIC SYSTEM. MOST OF THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON.

25 Monday Mar 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: FIRST-PAST-THE-POST-IS AN ARCHAIC SYSTEM. MOST OF THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Three-minute read)

In or out England is now facing an uncertain constitutional future.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "First-past-the-post is a voting system that consistently and unpredictably skews election results in ways few can predict until the votes have been counted."

There is no doubt that the language of Brexit has contributed ( see the previous post) but the voting system has also made a major contribution.

First-past-the-post is a voting system that consistently and unpredictably skews election results in ways few can predict until the votes have been counted.

First Past the Post’s is an old colonial voting system?

Canada, the U.S. and the UK are the last countries hanging on to first-past-the-post – and even the UK uses proportional systems for its devolved assemblies.

One of the most common laments about electoral reform is that politicians will never change the system that elected them.

More than half of Uk voters live in constituencies where the result is a foregone conclusion. Living in a “safe seat” makes voting feel especially futile.

In most elections with first-past-the-post, about half the voters cast a ballot which elects no-one and has no impact on the election result.

It certainly does not encourage people to turn out and vote.

With Brexit. The adhesive that binds parties together under first past the post is diluting

When one party has 100% of the power with 39% of the vote, there’s no need to take anyone else’s views into account – even when voters want them to do just that.

With proportional representation, no matter what party you support or where you live, your vote counts. Politicians know they must pay attention to every voter and every riding!

With proportional representation, parties must work together. Cooperation between parties in a coalition or other cooperative agreement – shared credit and shared accountability – becomes the norm.

With proportional representation, you vote for what you truly believe in.

Brexit is the first step in fixing politics at the centre, to reform the electoral system.

Politics, they say, “is dominated by the far-left and the far-right”.

Decision-making is easier for big parties when it rests with a small group of strategists whose main job is to cater to their party’s base of voters and make their party look good.

English two main parties have good reason to fear transition to proportional representation, but not necessarily for the reasons often cited.

Why?

Because proportional representation substantially increases the number of parties overall. It would challenge their monopoly on political power in Westminster.

It would reduce their ideology to an argument about their side being better than the other.

It would enable people to vote for parties that more closely represent their own views, without the fear that this party will not be accordingly represented in Parliament.

It takes us away from binary choices and towards a system that is based on power-sharing and compromise.

Look closely and what could be the embryonic beginnings of a new party are there but with the first past, the post electoral system makes it difficult for new parties to win seats in general elections.

Sometimes first-past-the-post even produces a “wrong winner” election – when one party receives more popular support, but another party gets to govern with a majority!

Bolstered by a two-party system that discourages fluidity of ideology and legitimises binary decision-making. This enables the two main parties to clash in a partisan manner that is unrepresentative of a diverse country and makes complex issues such as leaving the European Union more difficult to resolve.

Many proportional representation systems mean you’ll have more than one candidate of the same party to choose from.

This means voters can ensure the candidates from each party get elected, and those that aren’t responsive to voters aren’t re-elected.

Ask any Algorithm. The current event in English Parlement renders First Past the post wrong.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HAS THE LANGUAGE OF BRIXIT GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY?

24 Sunday Mar 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HAS THE LANGUAGE OF BRIXIT GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY?

Tags

, ,

 

( Five Minute read)

LANGUAGE IS the soundtracks of our lives.

Speaking only one language is still perceived as both the norm and the ideal for an allegedly well-functioning society.

Perhaps it is proving to be the opposite in the case of Brexit.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit language"

Language is more than just code by which we communicate, it is related to social and political knowledge, and access to power structures.

Up to now the myth of one nation, one national language, one national culture – which was at the heart of the ideal of the nation-state in the 19th and 20th centuries – perpetuates the master narrative of national homogeneity.

These attitudes silence the contributions that new multilingual citizens make to economic growth, social cohesion or artistic production.

A different approach is urgently needed, one that moves away from multilingualism as deficit and towards a recognition of linguistic and cultural diversity as a creative engine of civic participation and social well-being.

In an age where politicians and pressure groups alike act on the advice of communications consultants, it seems that a new term is introduced into the debate every few weeks and repeated ad infinitum, if not ad nauseam.

“People’s vote”, “leave means to leave”, “cliff-edge Brexit”, “managed no deal” “backstop” – shout the phrase of the day loud enough and often enough and voters might just remember it at the ballot box.

Rarely is there any space or inclination to look at what these slogans actually entail.

Like all these phrases, “a managed no deal” is not just meaningless spin. It may be a contradiction in terms, but it still has specific functions in the public discourse on Brexit. It serves to allay fears, allows for a positive variation on the journey metaphor and introduces a new option into the debate. Whether that option is realistic, however, is another question.

Linguistic relativity is the idea that language, which most people agree originates in and expresses human thought, can feedback to thinking, influencing thought in return.

The language that you hear gives you a vocabulary for discussing the world, and that vocabulary, by producing simulations, gives you habits of mind.

Encountering language about other groups of people can lead to a skewed view of reality. It may well be that having different words means having differently structured minds. But then, given that every mind on earth is unique and distinct, this is not really a game changer.

Language diversity has played a key role in shaping the interactions of human groups and the history of our species, and yet we know surprisingly little about the factors shaping this diversity.

“Hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “Norway plus”, “Canada plus” These metaphor have shaped much of the discussion on Brexit.

You could be forgiven for being confused about the options available for Britain as it leaves the EU. One phrase in particular, though, is worth investigating further: “a managed no-deal Brexit”.

On the face of it, it seems a contradiction in terms. After all, isn’t no deal about the UK crashing out of the EU or going over a cliff edge? How could such a sudden and disastrous event be managed?

There is more to the phrase “managed no deal” though.

If we look back at the Leave and Remain campaigns, both consistently sought to evoke the emotions of voters. Leave aimed to trigger both negative and positive feelings – frustration with being restricted by the EU, fear of uncontrolled immigration, and pride in a “Global Britain”. The Remain campaign appealed overwhelmingly to fears about the UK’s economic future outside of the EU.

Two-and-a-half years on, it is no deal that is being presented as a frightening prospect. And the way to overcome the fear of what could happen is to control or manage future events.

The notion of control was central to the Leave campaign.

After triggering fears about the perceived threat posed by immigrants, and frustration about a seeming lack of power as an EU member state, the same campaign provided the solution to such negative feelings: take back control of British laws, borders and money by leaving the EU.

The idea of managing a no-deal scenario follows a similar pattern, except that the fears that need to be quelled in this case have been evoked by those rejecting a no-deal scenario.

Today our species collectively speak over 7,000 distinct languages. 2,464 of these are endangered. Just 23 languages dominate among these 7,097 and are spoken by over half of the world’s population, one is related to the backstop Irish.

Undoubtedly, a wide variety of social and environmental factors and processes have contributed to the patterns in language diversity we see across the globe.

The degree to which different environmental, social and geographic variables correlate to language is evident to all with Brexit.

Why is it that humans speak so many languages? And why are they so unevenly spread across the planet?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit language"

The European Union is proud of its linguistic diversity, making translation a right. It is the largest translation organisation in the world. EU staff use English for most scientific publications, business channels and international relations. However, this is where the problem starts.

It would be quite ironic that the unofficial international language of business would not be official in the EU because of a lack of English-speaking volunteer countries. And there are only two: The Republic of Ireland and Malta. Ireland has already named Irish as its national language. What a turn of history it would be for the Irish to rescue the English language.

Brexit with have an undeniable effect on Europe as we know it. The social, financial and cultural impact it will have is hard to predict.

One thing we do know is, based on both speculation by EU officials and the regulations of the EU itself, is that the English language will be effect by Article 50. Unless a vote is carried out by the members of the European Union this could be the very end of the English language.

I leave you with- BEIDH TU ANN.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

 

 

THE BEADY SAYS: WE ARE WATCHING THE UNGOVERNABLE PASSION FOR WEALTH.

23 Saturday Mar 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY SAYS: WE ARE WATCHING THE UNGOVERNABLE PASSION FOR WEALTH.

Tags

, ,

 

(Two-minute read)

The UK is making a spectacular demonstration of how to make a fool of itself with the entire world looking on.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of britain foolish to leave the EU"

There is no doubt that a hard Brexit will cost the rest of us a lot – there’s no question about that – but it is nothing compared to what is waiting for England.

If the UK manages to agree on the Withdrawal the paper it is written on it won’t be worth toilet paper within 24 hours.

Why?

Because there will be a New European Commission and a General Election in the UK.

First, the trucks will be jammed all the way to Wales, because the borders are back. Then the fuel will run out at filling stations and medicines will run out in pharmacies. And once all the Polish plumbers have gone home, there will be nobody to call when the EU blocks the toilet.

Then the  Russians will realise they have invested far too much money in the English real estate market and will be incensed because their investments are going down the toilet.

It doesn’t work to declare the government a kind of foreign power, whose rise can’t really be explained, we have all seen that before.

Unfortunately, in a democracy, any government that has come into office without its leader elected by the people ( An expression of the will of the people) is doomed

This is why England needs a representative democracy not first past the post.

Almost everyone who I have heard talking about Brexit belong to the British establishment, meaning they went to an outrageously expensive private school and completed their studies at Cambridge or Oxford. What in the name of God do they teach them? It certainly can’t be skills that prepare them for the real world.

Put your hand on heart, what does it tell us about a country when a man like Johnson is regarded as one of the clearest-thinking minds in the circle of power?

The disadvantage of being intelligent is that it hurts when you act stupid.

For a nation, the problem begins when the level of stupidity at the top is unusually high because the smarter people have thrown in the towel.

This is generally the point at which decline becomes inevitable.

There is a solution to all of this. Scrap leaving for five years. Get properly involved with the European project. Archive the reforms you want to see. Then leave if you wish.

Take a retrospective look at what Politicians have said about Brexit.

I quote ” THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO WITH THE EU SHOULD BE ONE OF THE EASIEST IN HUMAN HISTORY”  Liam Fox

The most hyperbolic prediction of all time.

There are more than two million Brits already live in another EU member state.

All are welcome the more the merry.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WE ARE ALL NOW LIVING IN A WORLD INCAPABLE OF COLLECTIVE SHAME.

22 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WE ARE ALL NOW LIVING IN A WORLD INCAPABLE OF COLLECTIVE SHAME.

(Fourteen-minute read)

If something is described as shame, it is disappointing or not satisfactory:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of shame"

I am sure most of us would agree that we all live in a world bombarded by Media which is desensitising our feelings of shame, guilt, and compassion.

Feelings are wholly and solely experienced only by you. They only exist at the moment they arise.

Shame is a nonmoral emotion, meaning that it involves the nonmoral or “aesthetic” facet of one’s self-esteem, which is concerned with the self’s adequacy with respect to its own wishes or aspirations.

However, a flaw of character can elicit guilt rather than shame.

However, in guilt, it is the moral facet of one’s self-esteem – the facet concerned with the responsible harmfulness or beneficialness of the self’s behaviour, attitudes, and dispositions – that suffers a blow, not national guilt.

Shame and guilt have much in common:

They are self-conscious emotions, implying self-reflection and self-evaluation they involve negative self-evaluations and feelings of distress elicited by one’s perceived failures or transgressions. However shame and guilt are distinguishable from each other, and their differences matter in a world that is driven by algorithms.

Why because guilt often plays the role of the “ugly” and anti-social emotion endowed with the power to violate norms and thwart others’ goals, and willing (or inclined) to do so.

But perhaps the worst meta-feeling is increasingly the most common: feeling good about feeling bad.

How morally disoriented can one get?

Think of all we’ve witnessed in the past few weeks alone, examples ranging from the outrageous to the ridiculous – Brexit, (The political and moral choices that England continues to make in response to the identity positioning by their historical legacy is becoming one of the great unfolding stories of our time.) to the suffering of thousands in Africa.

These days there’s no collective meaning attached to our feelings other than things like Red Nose Day and world charities begging to our pockets. Much of the social strife that we’re experiencing today is the result of meta-feelings that are moralizing mobs on both the political right and left who see themselves as victimized.

They think they’re important because they say something about us, about the world, and about our relationship with it.

But they say none of these things.

Sometimes you hurt for a good reason. Sometimes for a bad reason. And sometimes no reason at all. The hurt itself is neutral. The reason is separate.

We are now the powerful absurd who are supposed to be connected than ever before, yet we somehow feel more isolated.

How has society changed to cause this to be a more prevalent problem?

Is it because we can order our groceries online.

One of the main reasons is that we are removed from nature.

We have little or no understanding of the effects of climate other than seeing forest fires, massive flooding on our TV sets (which are only the beginning of the natural disaster to come) along with pictures of the starving, devastation by wars, and terrorism not to mention inequality reflected in shanty squaller.

The internet is not a lifeforce, devouring our lives to feed itself. It is merely a technological innovation, albeit one on which much of our economic, political, and cultural lives depend.

As we have seen in New Zeland there are some of us inhabit, for instance, queer radical insane spaces promoted by racism prejudices and propaganda across Social Media that collectivity can take on toxic and damaging roles and lead to the damnation and ruination of people.

If we were to dissect and see social media more clearly, to see where all the tentacles really come from, to ask simple questions like, “Who is telling us to look in this direction?”, we might see it for what it is: an apparatus made up of many moving parts, all of whose effects can be traced in very material renditions of power and commerce for profit.

We ignore social media at our peril, but can we use it as tools and not let it define us?

Is it time to stop thinking through the forced collectivities of social media and start thinking about the possibility of unbelonging instead?

Can we think outside of the endless sense of timelessness forced upon us by hours of internet life and instead think ourselves into a time of actual history and movements forward?

Can we think about society not in terms of collectivities forged in endless solidarity in public but as the work we put in to create a better world?

We must push back against the screaming online hordes and simply stated, “We understand the anger, but we will first discuss the matter as properly outraged citizens, as people who belong, as people with feelings.

Unfortunately, Social interaction without collective feeling is meaningless.

To achieve change shame has to be scaled up from the individual to an audience that shames governments, corporations and banks.

Social media has brought us all closer together in communication.

Sometimes that’s a good thing. But when it comes to online shaming, it’s a bad thing. People get humiliated on Twitter, savaged in public forums and women get rape and death threats.

There’s something about the anonymity of social media has people who probably seem perfectly nice in person, posting vicious, scathing, humiliating comments online.

I am not talking here about Guilt which is an internally generated sense of moral obligation not to repeat past transgressions, like the extermination of a helpless minority within one’s own society.

Nor am I talking about shame, which is externally generated, driven by the “shaming look” of others.

Therein lies a key difference: For guilt, it’s the awareness of the deed and its meaning; For shame, it’s whether others know.

For example, a major identity issue for young Germans is how to deal with the notion of collective guilt or collective shame for the crimes of the Third Reich. While honour-shame cultures have moral codes, their vulnerability to the fear of shame can readily lead to a jettisoning of any moral concerns.

Yet here we are, ironically living in a perpetual outrage cycle that moves so fast, we forget yesterday’s controversy today because a new one has supplanted it.

As a culture, we seem to have divested ourselves of shame — real shame.

Online “communities” tend to resemble ever-shape-shifting amoebae, breaking and dividing into multiple pieces that in turn drift towards new clusters of organisms.

Social media is a disparate set of effects brought about by collusion between corporations, but its mythology occludes those mechanisms of power and currency by installing instead origin stories and tall tales, legends about how “the whole world” was watching.

It’s impossible to overstate what we’re losing.

Shame is crucial in well-functioning societies. It’s an evolutionary adaptation that keeps us cooperating, considerate, and safe.

Feelings are important. But they’re important not for the reasons we think they are.

The internet should be considered simply as a tool, not a substitute for justice or organising?

Long may we continue to expose the various structures through which it and its denizens exert power, sometimes for good but often not.

The internet is a technology, and yet most of our interactions on it are mediated by unfeeling algorithms stripped away or sense of humanity in the most seemingly innocuous ways when we participate in frenzied modes of expulsion.

You might say that we were once sophisticated enough to fake it if we didn’t feel it.

How we use social media is marginalised populations.

The way individuals deal with their nations’ history is closely linked with emotional experiences. 

If both collective guilt and shame can initiate reparative attitudes, the question then arises as to what may mediate the link between each and reparation.

The feelings of personal distress arising from perceptions of illegitimate ingroup superiority rather than empathic concern for the other are the critical antecedents of collective guilt.

Finally, the type of empathy may also be an important factor.

As is well known, empathy can have both cognitive and affective components.

Guilt may be associated with an increased tendency to put oneself in the shoes of the victim group.

It might still be too early to expect much emotional empathy from
the perpetrator group.

It is perhaps indicative of the extreme political sensitivity

And all of this unfolding in a somewhat surreality landscape with our brains doing mental acrobatics to avoid any discomfort.

It is my view that if we are to tackle the effects of the fourth Industrial technological revolution and climate change and address the mistakes of the last industrial revolution we must find a new way to facilitate non-confrontational politics.

There is no shame in the realisation that coming together to make a world worthy of all.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨