Tag Archives: Democracy

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: EVEN IF ENGLAND IS NOW FORCED INTO A GENERAL ELECTION WITH FIRST PAST THE POST IT WILL BE UNDEMOCRATIC.

23 Sunday Jun 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

 

(Five-minute read)

 

Here we go again.

The right person to lead the country is being selected without any democratic scrutiny by the people of England.

It is no wonder that Brexit is tearing the country apart when so many are denied a voice.

Millions of voters go without a say in crucial national decisions – excluded not only from government but from holding the government to account.

In 3 of the last 4 general elections IN ENGLAND at least 50% of votes went to losing candidates.

First past the post.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of first past the post system uk"

A seat won by a 40,000 vote majority has the same outcome as a seat won by a single vote: both elect just a single MP.

Parliament in allowing an internal election of a new Conservative leader to become the Priminister is not only failing to reflect the people it is supposed to represent it is a form of Populous Dictatorship.

A minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy.

The latest developments to vindicate a New Primister for the country (who will, in fact, represent the choice of hundred thousand or so Conservervate members out of which 60% are over 50 years of age)  isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for politics and society.

First Past the Post is completely undemocratic severing the link between votes and seats.

Bipolar politics is designed to promote argument, not thought.

So it’s not surprising that we are now witnessing the election of a New Priminister with an out of date spluttering system that is unable to represent its citizens or to negotiate England’s withdrawal from the European Union without a mandate that represents the country as a whole.

Its no wonder England has politicians who most of you didn’t vote for and don’t agree with have the power to govern the UK however they like.

Its no wonder we see the construction/ imposition of one ideology for a period, followed by another, quite different ideology.

Its no wonder we see both main parties cling to their roots with extraordinary tenacity, even when confronted with the obvious fact: the conditions in society giving rise to these ideologies have long gone.

But First Past the Post keeps them in business and allows them to continue to indulge their emotion-based policies – with taxation paying for this indulgence.

Unchallenged by a more competitive electoral system, the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ parties remain trapped in their histories and beliefs, seeking differentiation through adopting the opposite of the other.

First Past The Post has many hidden direct and indirect costs. These are unrecorded, unstated and considerable, in taxes, wasted economic capacity, and wealth appropriation. The costs of all of these zigzags are borne by taxation.

First past the post is a non- linear system a dazzlingly stupid way to organize a modern democracy. It provides the bare minimum of democracy, is unrepresentative for the majority, and distorts the allocation of power.

Finally, First Past The Post is the best electoral medium for preferential lobbying.

This scourge of democracy is near universal.

Its elimination can only be achieved through a complete redesign of systems of government.

 

 

It may be simple to write an “X” next to a chosen candidate, but it’s incredibly difficult to know what that vote will mean. Millions of voters are forced to try to vote tactically by anticipating the decisions of other voters.

PR makes sure the share of seats each party gets matches the share of votes they receive. If a party gets 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. Parliament would accurately represent the people’s range of views and perspectives.

The opposition to PR Says:

We need the strong government that only first past the post can give’ and, by inference, not the namby-pamby government from coalitions and other inadequacies.

Sounds good, does it not?

Flutters the spine?

Makes one stand up straight.

I would say that the voting population of England is intelligent, much more has to change in all of these systems, including the EU.

Systems of government with PR suffer from many of the same failures and poor performance as the UK’s First Past The Post but,

does not allow the lending of votes to one candidate in order to knock out another to become Primisister  

The unseen consequences are about to be seen.

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

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS ENGLAND NOW JUST LACKING ONE MORE INGREDIENT FOR CIVILIANS STRIFE.

13 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Nigel Farage., Northern Ireland., Social Media, The common good., The Euro, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

Three years of political disarray are now climaxing in a non-democratic election of a new prime minister.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "images of civil unrest"

In the present environment which has little or no social purpose, the fundamental problem is that a hung parliament is electing a new leader for the country without a mandate from the country as a whole.

It is absurd to be able to become a leader of a country just because your party is currently in power. Which can only lead to a General election that is going split the United?

All of this is driven by populous Social Media chatter which is trying to be heard under rules of an unwritten constitution based the Great Charter or Magna Carta libertatum written by a bunch of rich dudes with swords who got mad at their king.

Most of the 63 clauses of the Magna Carta were concerned with guaranteeing feudal law and benefited only the feudal nobility. The Church was granted its traditional freedom and privileges. A few clauses dealt with the rights of the middle class in the towns and relieved some economic inequities. But the ordinary freeman and peasant, who made up the vast bulk of England’s population, were scarcely mentioned.

The Magna Carta was not, therefore, a great democratic document, securing fundamental liberties for all. Instead, it was essentially a feudal charter assuring privileges to the aristocracy.

Since its inception 800 years ago, it has been used several times to restrain the power of the monarch. Although the more dated clauses have since been repealed, some remain enshrined in British law today, in particular, the right to a fair trial for all citizens.

Indeed the core principles of Magna Carta can also be found in a variety of legal documents today and are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Not bad for a document that lasted 10 days.

Still considered to be Britain’s “statute number one,” to understand the civil rights it provides and the foundation it laid for future use.

Modified several times over the centuries by ordinary laws issued by the parliament, it is still considered a valuable and fundamental document.

A document which Prime Minister David Cameron said ‘changed the world’.  Indeed! it did.

We feel nothing of the drama and shenanigans of those days of political fever.

I am not advocating here that this the reason that England could see civil unrest but it has set helped to set a class structure that is now divided and will be unable to unite whether England stays in or is attached or leaves the European Union.

That apart the fuse awaiting to be light, is the Northern Ireland backstop.

It is becoming more and more apparent that Brixit is no longer about whether is In or Out of the European Union rather it is about, an out of date voting systems First Past the post, that gives a limited voice to the population as a whole.Image associée

The Eatonmess is now an English breakfast.

Can it be resolved?

Yes and No

It looks more and more like a serious political uprising will erupt when the magic ingredient are in place.

Economic backwardness the Northern Ireland backstop and a deal with Mr Donald Dump, a General election with Nigel Farage, could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

There is only one reasonable course and that is to abort articular 50.

In doing so in order to show genuine participation join the Euro.

So can there ever be a morally respectable case for using predictions of civil unrest as an argument against a proposed policy?  Undoubtedly.

I am afraid that Brexit goes much further than leaving the EU it is reverting to Nationalism due to among many other things the lack of Civic Education to impart an Identity, to the tabloid press and social media that is spreading a post-factual society where evidence and truths no longer matter where lie and truth have equal status.

The gaps between perception and reality must be addressed. One can see this when it comes to immigrants not just in the Uk but across Europe. Immigrants that get resident status should be spread throughout the country and not allowed to settle in certain regions.

Everybody must share in the countries wealth by issuing Citizens bonds. ( See the previous post)

More responsible politics, polarized societies are far less tolerant of Globalization.

This requires dropping the language of fear.

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

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: AS TRUE AS DAY FOLLOWS NIGHT THE TRUE MEMORIAL TO THE 75 ANNIVERSARY OF D DAY IS.

06 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by in 2019., 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Climate Change., Communication., Democracy, Donald Trump Presidency., England., European Commission., European Elections., Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., History., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The far-right., The Future, The new year 2109, The Obvious., The world to day., Trade Agreements., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, War, 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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

( Five minutes read and twenty minutes listen)

THE EUROPEAN UNION WAS BORN OUT OF WORLD WAR TWO ON THE 25/MARCH/ 1957 TEN YEARS AFTER IT ENDED TO CHAMPION PEACE.

By establishing a unified economic and monetary system, to promote inclusion and combat discrimination, to break down barriers to trade and borders, to encourage technological and scientific developments, to champion environmental protection.

Fifty-two years later even as it adapts to meet the evolving challenges of the modern world, with all its faults, it has delivery just that- Peace.

Let us all remember the price the world paid to agree with these shared values.

The lessons of World War II — on whose ashes the United Nations was also founded emphasizing that remembrance is a debt owed to those who had lost their lives in World War II.Slide 3 of 18: Navy, Army and Merchant Marine servicemen in New York read the Daily News on June 6 for information about the D-Day invasion.

(By the end of the war, the total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Civilians deaths totalled 50 to 55 million. Military deaths from all causes totalled 21 to 25 million.)

However, the ideals and spirit that inspired the creation of the United Nations and the EU remain to be transformed into reality.

It is still necessary to remember the causes and overcome the legacies of the Second World War.

To reject and condemn any attempts to rewrite history or undertake attempts to glorify Nazism or any type of fascism.

Today, tolerance and restraint continued to be considered in world policy as signs of weakness and the use of violence and sanctions were praised; the world could therefore not say that the Second World War had been properly remembered.

Indeed it is our duty to revere and preserve and reform both the United Nations and the European Union because too much was paid for them, and too much is now at stake for succeeding generations.

So here below for all the Donald Trumps, Brexiteers, and Populous is a Speech that tells the TRUTH. 

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

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : EVERY THING ON EARTH IS LINKED

28 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Democracy, Environment, Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Space Exploration., Sustaniability, Technology., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

We live in a world where consumerism is more important than needs.

It overshadows all of our human activities moving desires to the forefront of any aspirations of democracy.

One can ask how has this happened?

The answer is staring us in the face there is no need to look further than free-market capitalism which has married itself to democracy.

Edward Bernay’s its creator (with the help of President Roosevelt, and his uncle Fraud applied the propaganda of war to the propaganda of peace) at the World Fair in 1893 consecrated the marriage of passive consumerism with the market by Public relations, thus engineering the consent of the masses.

As a result of to this day, we are unable to make decisions on a rational base.

So what!Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of how things on earth are linked"

Just look at the state of the world today. The fourth Industrial revolution.

It makes for dismal reading.

There have been over 250 major wars in the world since World War II.

There are over 35 major conflicts going on in the world today.

There are approximately 30,000 nuclear warheads in the world today.

Current global military spending is approximately $800 billion per year; more than the total annual income of the poorest 45% of the global population.

An estimated 27 million people are enslaved around the world, including an estimated

20 million people held in bonded labour1 billion people – 1/3rd of the world’s labour force, is unemployed or underemployed. At least 700,000 people annually, and up to 2 million, mostly women and children, are victims of human trafficking worldwide (a modern form of slavery.) About 246 million, or 1 out of 6, children ages 5 to 17 worldwide are involved in child labour.

Worldwide, a quarter of all women are raped during their lifetime.

Torture occurred in 125 countries.

There are over 45 million refugees and internally displaced people in the world.

800 million people lack access to basic healthcare. 17 million people, including 11 million children, die every year from easily preventable diseases and malnutrition.

800 million people are hungry or malnourished. Nearly 160 million children are malnourished worldwide. 11 million people die every year from hunger and malnutrition.

2.4 billion people lack access to proper sanitation.

Over 100 million people live in slums.

275 million children never attend or complete primary school education. 870 million of the world’s adults are illiterate.

The richest 1% of the world’s people earned as much income as the bottom 57%.

The wealth of the world’s 7.1 million millionaires ($27 trillion) equals the total combined annual income of the entire planet.

Africa alone spends four times more on repaying its debts than it spends on health care.

Half of the forests that originally covered 46% of the Earth’s land surface are gone.

Between 10 and 20 per cent of all species will be driven to extinction in the next 20 to 50 years. Up to 47% of the world’s plant species are at risk of extinction.

60% of the world’s coral reefs will be gone.

Desertification and land degradation threaten nearly one-quarter of the land surface of the globe. Over 250 million people are directly affected by desertification, and one billion people are at risk.

Global warming is expected to increase the Earth’s temperature by 3C (5.4F) in the next 100 years, without reaching a tipping point – resulting in multiple adverse effects on the environment and human society, including widespread species loss, ecosystem damage, flooding of populated human settlements, and increased natural disasters.

All of this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The scale and nature of the world’s problems demand a full response; and the need for more unification and intensification of efforts to solve the world’s most serious and pervasive problems.

What are we doing about it since 1893?

Poured trillions in to aid to created debt.

Manufactured a financial crash.

In each country, the tendency is to blame “our” history, “our” populists, “our” media, “our” institutions, “our” lousy politicians.

When we discuss “politics”, we refer to what goes on inside sovereign states; everything else is “foreign affairs” or “international relations” – even in this era of global financial and technological integration.

its inability to withstand countervailing 21st-century forces, and its calamitous loss of influence over human circumstance.

Turning products into environmental false benefits with the loss of control over money flows.

Watching on as democracy being digitised. After decades of globalisation, our political system has become obsolete by introducing anxious volatility into the bastion of European stability.

Allowing unregulated algorithms to plunder the world for profit.

Turn a blind eye 65 million refugees – a “new normal”

Even if we wanted to restore what we once had, that moment is gone.

But to acknowledge this is to acknowledge not just the end of politics itself the end of life. Global capital and technology will rule us without any kind of democratic consultation, as naturally and indubitably as the rising oceans.

If we wish to rediscover a sense of political purpose in our era of global finance, big data, mass migration and ecological upheaval, we have to imagine political forms capable of operating at that same scale.

There is every reason to believe that the next stage of the techno-financial revolution will be even more disastrous for national political authority.

Big data companies (Google, Facebook etc) have already assumed many functions previously associated with the state, from cartography to surveillance.

With them taking over the management of all life and resources – this is a more likely vision for the future than any fantasy of a return to social democracy.

The assault on political authority is not a merely “economic” or “technological” event. It is an epochal upheaval.

What if anything can be done.

It is clear to me and by now should be clear to all of us that Capitalism is going underground.  Today’s great engines of wealth creation are distributed in such a way as to elude national taxation systems (94% of Apple’s cash reserves are held offshore; this $250bn is greater than the combined foreign reserves of the British government and the Bank of England), which is diminishing all nation-states, materially and symbolically.

It is clear to me that the nation state’s rigid monopoly on political life is becoming increasingly unviable.

It is clear to me that oppressed national minorities must be given a legal mechanism to appeal over the heads of their own governments.

It is clear to me that the United Nations is effectively a gossip shope with vetos and is in needs of reform.

It is clear to me we need to find new conceptions of citizenship. Why, because the essential horizons of life on this planet are already determined at birth.(see previous posts)

It is clear to me that if democracy is supposed to give voters some control over their own conditions, for instance, should a US election not involve most people on earth?

It is clear to me that we are spending trillion trying to get off the earth when we should be spending trillions to try to stay on what is left of the earth.

It is clear to me that everything is linked. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of how things on earth are linked"

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of how things on earth are linked"

It is time to think about how that capacity might be built.

It is time to wake up, to be conscious and take the needed steps to make a change. Stop pretending like you don’t know. Stop thinking its not going to happen in your lifetime. It will affect you and most of all your children and grandchildren. Do you still want to remain passive or pretend it’s not your problem?

What is clear to you?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words so I leave you with this video.

On viewing it.

It is beyone clear that our future generations will not thank us for their inheritance.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WILL POPULISM BE THE ULTIMATE STRESS TEST OF REPRESENTATIVE POLITICS.

19 Sunday May 2019

Posted by in 2019., Democracy, European Elections 2019, European Union., Humanity., Inequality, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The far-right., The new year 2109, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

Is democracy unravelled in the face of nationalism, racism, violence and populism? It seems even with the publicly supported compromise between countries and political parties are unable to cooperate to deliver anything.

If one takes a look at the world today 9/11 and the “war on terror” helped bring the idea of a “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the west to the forefront of political debate leaving all the rest in the dustbin of democracy.

As a result in the last few years, a new kind of far-right activism has emerged.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of far right"

This new activism, comprised largely of online anger and offline protest, crosses borders, yet is heavily nationalist and growing.

In Britain, its icons tend to be entrepreneurial social media personalities, celebrities of a sort, who use their following to exert pressure on mainstream politics.

Nobody in England embodies the dynamics of this new movement more than Mr Fraieg with his tutor in the USA Mr Dump who both gave support to Yaxley-Lennon better known as Tommy Robinson. ( The founder of the founder and former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) now the voice of UKIP which was founded by Nigel Farage, has today more than 950,000 followers.)

We all know that Data-driven algorithms exert great influence on the political world by analyzing our voting potential.  By logging what we do, where we do it, how we do it, with whom we do it, – Facebook- Twitter – Social Media, TV, U Tube, Google.

The marketplace of ideas, with the best arguments, no longer win out.

Even more worrying is the extent to which it is “normalising” extreme right-wing ideas and ideologies helping to form governments rooted in racism and fear of others – with anti-establishment crusader, online propagandists attracting large amounts of the wrong type of money and attention.

Throwing its opponents into a fierce disagreement about how to respond with the potential to have quite dangerous and dire consequences.

Indeed, one of the goals of right-wing extremists has always been to appear “normal”.

But all of this is not inevitable, and it can be stopped if we recognise that keeping the far right out of power is only one part of the problem.

We need a better understanding of what “free speech” is and is not.

There is still no public control or oversight of what we should regard as our platforms.

The logical consequence of free speech at any cost is that someone will soon be successful in rallying together enough impressionable voters to form an electable far-right party.

It has happened before and it will happen again.

The accusation of betrayal by the elites is central to the way that far-right movements operate with single-issue campaigns mostly conducted via social media without any commitment to wider political action.

For many years, far-right views were outside the acceptable bounds of debate and should be denied a platform.

But the breaking down of these boundaries presents a dilemma: what does the anti-fascist principle of “no platform” mean when a far-right activist has their own independent platform anyway?

The majority of their supporters, have no formal political affiliation and answered to no party hierarchy.

The ideas of extreme right-wing movements are dangerous, as they are not institutional actors.

While only a few years ago such groups would have been widely reviled, in today’s more populist atmosphere, such views are now more mainstream, sideling voters from the political movements that were originally created for their benefit.

For me Far Right is a slippery term and one that people should rarely if ever, apply to their own politics. In everyday use, it describes a range of extreme nationalist activity.

For instance: Stephen Bannon, a white nationalist who has said the west is at the start of a civilisational war with Islam.

Luckily different currents within the far right do not always get on and may also see one another as enemies.

So far it is not a cohesive movement. Their various aims are profoundly undemocratic: A majoritarianism defined by race, ethnicity or religion, and the violent exclusion of internal and external enemies.

The best defence is a political movement that has anti-racism at its core and seeks to give people greater democratic control over the way their society is organised and run.

However in recent years, pushed by the election of Donald Trump in the US, and political changes in Europe, we have seen the breaking down of the taboo that kept far-right political ideas largely outside mainstream culture.

This can be rectified. It is mostly the result of technological change, which can be fixed by regulating social media companies.

In order to win political power, for any group, it should first be necessary to push for wider cultural acceptance of the ideas that underpinned their movements.

This is not to say that the claims being made by activists and the views of people who might support the far right should be ignored – either in political debate or in everyday life.

But the question is how these issues are presented, and how they are challenged: who is speaking, and why, matters as much as whether or not an issue is in the news.

Big media organisations must be aware that legitimisation of the far right is not acceptable. They cannot normalise nor be seen to give permission to what are, in truth, hateful ideas and ideologies.

They are most effective when unaffiliated and unaccountable, disavowed by politicians and commentators who echo his views but wish to look respectable.

But the greater danger is in the cumulative effect of the various types of far-right activism – political parties, websites, social media personalities, funding and coordination from wealthy US thinktanks and entrepreneurs – on the political mainstream.

The problem is that ordinary joe soap is becoming more and more detached from the political area paying more and more taxes in order to live a decent life while feeling shut out of the system.

With the views of the far right how taking advantage of wider political failures all fueled by food banks, benefits cuts, homeless, job insecurity, pension erosion shifting the mainstream debate in its favour. Its public messages are focusing on popular fears about identity and economic security.

IE: Europe is overrun by Muslim immigrants; liberal elites have allowed all this to happen.

So far no alternative vision has won out.

Simply pointing out their factual mistakes is insufficient they must be challenged, locally and internationally, before it starts to do serious damage.

Why?

Because we are mechanistically sleepwalking towards an inability to effectively confront problems such as Brexit, Inequality and Climate Change.

There is only one way to get the voters to engage with the modern world and that is not by voting every five years as an expression of free will. 

It is offering the citizens of a country to own some of its prosperity by:

ISSUING CITIZENS GUARANTEED (NON-TRANSFERABLE BONDS.)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of bonds certificate"

These bonds could be bought for as little as a Dollar to as much as?

They could mature in as little as a year or?

They could be inherited but not sold.

They could be for every environmental, health, or whatever project that is not for profit for profit sake.

They will engage people in the direction of a country countermanding

negativity, allowing all citizens no matter what their political views,

creed, or colour to take pride in their nation.

They will countermand inequality and stop the rise of the far right.

THEY WOULD IF ADOPTED BY DIEM 25 FORFILL MOST IF NOT ALL OF ITS POLITICAL ASPERATION FOR EUROPE.

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

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : IS BREXIT SHOWING UP A DECREPIT POLITICAL SYSTEM IN ENGLAND.

20 Sunday Jan 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

Without a written constitution Britain can only understand itself through the prism of the royal family and this will become more and more apparent if there is a no deal Brexit.

For better or worse I am sure long after Brexit there will be many a written appraisals both false and otherwise as to why it happened in the first place.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture voting poll"

The whole process is now boiling down to what value or power does a vote have in a country with a constitutional monarchy and a parliament in a system of first past the post which suppresses the true majority vote.   

Therefore the term “the government” can be used to refer to all politicians who have been appointed by the monarch. 

That means it is a country governed by a king or a queen who accepts the advice of a parliamentary and democracy which has been elected by the people.

All members of the government belong to the same political party. They are  collective responsibility. (That is, every member of the government, however junior, shares the responsibility for every policy made by the government.)

The Queen appears to have a great deal of power, in reality, she has very little.

The Prime Minister, on the other hand, appears not to have much power but in reality has a very great deal indeed.

But this is not quite true. 

The position of a British Prime Minister (PM) is in direct contrast to that of the monarch.

For the evidence of written law only, the Queen has almost absolute power, and it all seems very undemocratic.

Every autumn, at the state opening of Parliament, Elizabeth II, who became Queen in 1952, makes a speech. In it, she says what “my government” intends to do in the coming year. And indeed, it is her government – not the people’s. 

As far as the law is concerned, she can choose anybody she likes to run the government for her. 

If she gets fed up with her ministers, she can just dismiss them they are all “servants of the Crown”.

Furthermore, nothing the parliament has decided can become law until she has agreed to it.

The Queen also has a special relationship with the Prime Minister, retaining the right to appoint and also meeting with him or her on a regular basis.

There are often mentioned three roles of the monarch.

First, the monarch is the personal embodiment of the government of the country. This means that people can be as critical as they like about the real government, and can argue that it should be thrown out, without being accused of being unpatriotic.

Second, it is argued that the monarch could act as a final check on a government that was becoming dictatorial.

Third, the monarch has to play a very practical role as being a figurehead and representing the country.

The Prime Minister will talk about “requesting” a dissolution of Parliament when he or she wants to hold an election, but it would be normally impossible for the monarch to refuse this “request”.

So, in reality, the Queen cannot actually stop the government from going ahead with any of its politics.

The sovereign reigns but does not rule. 

Britain is almost alone among modern states in that it does not have ‘a written constitution’.

There are rules, regulations, principles and procedures for the running of the country – but there is no formal document that could be called the Constitution of the United Kingdom or which can be appealed to as the highest law of the land.

However, because Social media power is moving more and more to the people these rules are now changing. 

Keeping the above in mind a popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government.

How much truth is there behind that claim?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body.

It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”.

It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

The truth is that the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons have allowed it to do so.

Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’.

A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament.

The problem in Britain is that the Commission President does not feel very democratic. But in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed.

Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet is ‘directly elected’.

Formally, in House of Commons elections, they do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties.

Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government.

This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him).  But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states).

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be.

This is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

So at the risk of repeating the previous post on the subject of Brexit here is in my view the main contributions.

Most if not all reasons for Brexit can be put down to social changes over the past 50 years.

The loss of empire and of world power status, a weaker sense of collective British identity (devolution as both cause and consequence), an increase in immigration, first from the newer Commonwealth countries and now from new EU states, and the growth of multiculturalism and changes in the balance of the population ( the decline of manual work, the increase in the number of women in the workforce and rising numbers of the elderly) and the Forth Industrial technological revolution exposing the have and have nots.

Resulting in Society becoming more individualistic split between the south-east versus the rest divide in terms of economic wealth and opportunity.

London has gained greatly from the globalising economy, while the north remains heavily dependent on public spending on jobs and economic activity.

Can the mess be resolved without Constitutional changes, without a Backstop, without the Union breaking up, without a general election, without a peoples vote?

It would be foolish for the government to marginalise groups and to pursue a top-down style of policy-making when faced with the truly huge task of deciding what to do about the massive amount of EU legislation that will remain in place on day one of Brexit, albeit as British law.

Interest groups, above all, know best which EU laws are working well, which are not, and which are no longer needed.

Thus, Brexit should usher in a return to governance, a return to the European Union to engage in reforms that are needed.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture voting poll"

To honour the Good Friday agreement an international treaty. 

There are no large trading blocks lining up to do trade deals. 

There is no such thing as a Sovereign nation in the Forth industrial revolution.  

Just think of what else you could have done with all that time and money, including the £4bn you are spending to guard against the entirely avoidable and self-inflicted calamity of a no-deal crash-out from the EU.

Surely you can already see that Brexit is doing the opposite from being Great Britain, to turning your gaze ever more inward, shrinking your horizons – and yourselves.

It remains disturbing to see the media held captive by Brexit.

If news bulletins, front pages and social media feeds were your guides, you’d think climate change had gone away, quietly resolved while we were obsessing over the Northern Ireland backstop. Not so. It barely made a ripple, but last week came word that the oceans are warming at a rate some 40% faster than previously understood.

How many episodes of this show are there going to be before you realize the capabilities of your decrepit political system?

In reality, it is of course very different. if no action is taken to change the timing of withdrawal under Article 50, Britain will go its Brexit way with no deal.

God save the Queen.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE FOR DEMOCRACY IN THIS AGE OF TECHNOLOGY.

15 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by in Democracy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Three-minute read)

These days how is the will of the people manifested and defined? Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of vote"

There are two sides to this argument.

Firstly, social movements and groups devoted to progressive issues and social change use technology to improve democracy.

The other side of the argument is that new advances in technology can be
distinguished from the media that preceded it as it is relatively cheap, easy to use, difficult to control and interactive.

Technology does not only divide the haves and the have-nots but also is important to facilitate democratic transitions by creating a more open political culture.

As a result, there is the problem re-striking a balance between state, market and societal control of IT, where the state and society emphasise the equality of access, while the market emphasises efficient development of technology and production.

As the capabilities of technology increase, so does our dependency on it.

Nowadays, we find yourself looking at our iPhone almost every ten minutes.

So what leverage does technology have on our democratic proceeds or institutions?

Without physical human interaction, we fall subject to potentially losing our sense of real connection. We’ll become desensitized, numb, and oblivious to the social cues that we would have witnessed had only the conversation been made in-person.

Is the democratic system more to do with how the app works?

Is digital technology leading us into a new dark age?

Will it be thanks to technology, politicians are no longer essential to

the formation of organized society?

Look at initiatives like Democracy. Earth, Asgardia, and Artisanopolis are envisioning new forms of society in which the people govern themselves.

These societies could have economies that are powered by Bitcoin, governing documents that are drafted through peer-to-peer networks, and decisions that are recorded via blockchains. They needn’t apply declarations written centuries ago to today’s unique landscape — they can start from the ground up.

These are the technology incubator of a new democracy.

But are technology and democracy compatible?

 Illustrative: A hacker in action. (BeeBright; iStock by Getty Images)

Social media manipulation of elections.

Politics has become far more emotional, as a result of our total

immersion in information at the cost of a more rational view of things.

Voter data mining, online polling, electronic voting booths, and, of course, twitter, facebook and emails.

All these communications have left the door wide open for misinformation to seep into the public consciousness, clouding what was already complicated and leaving many unsure of where to look for the truth…or what the truth even looks like.

Brexit being the current prime example, which is turning into a power struggle camouflaged in democracy called the will of the people.   

The average citizen will need to work even harder to separate fact from fiction on the internet over the course of the next four months of Brexit.

“We the People” online petition.  People no longer need to wait for an issue to bubble over before taking action.

It’s probably too early to reach a conclusion about the correlation between
technology and democracy but it is evident that technology can shape challenges in the political, social, military and economic environment of the political system.

In essence, if democracy is impacted by technology by way of a systematic
the application of knowledge to resources to produce goods and services, it will enhance stability and equality.

Therefore, it can shape challenges in the environment of a democratic political system.

There is no doubting as technology advances, humans will increasingly delegate responsibility to intelligent machines able to make their own decisions.

This entails considering various ways of adjusting the organisational structures that are relevant for economic productivity, political participation and cultural diversity in line with preferred social scenarios; and the cultural.

As far as technology is concerned, any definitive claim whether it is utopian or a Luddite when it comes to democracy can only succumb to technological
determinism.

Finally, the technology could in future greatly benefit society if its advancement is harmonious with national democratic imperatives and if it is intended to serve the needs of the people.

The goal for the future will be to somehow bridge the theoretical possibilities
with technological capability.

This involves creating information technologies that reduce the threat and
vulnerabilities and encourage environmentally sustainable applications of IT.

The most obvious problem is that information and communication technology companies will have little incentive to develop new products to meet the needs of people who cannot use or afford their existing services.

Thankfully, we have no shortage of ways to discuss the topic.

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

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HAVE WE ALL LOST OUR HEADS OR IS IT THAT VERY FEW OF US GIVE A SHIT ABOUT DEMOCRACY.

28 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Democracy, Elections/ Voting, Facebook, Fake News., Freedom, Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Technology, The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( Twenty-minute read)

This post has many contradictions, as I am delving into an area with so many unknowns that are developing as we read.

You could say that there many more pressing problems in the world than technological development which will always be far beyond our ability to respond to it in any democratic manner.    Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of losing your head"

If we are to place our trust in artificial intelligence, it is going to require a high degree of transparency.

As citizens, we must know how and in which context our data is used, and we must feel confident that data storage is carried out in a safe and secure manner.

We should also have insight into the basis on which artificial intelligence acts, so that we may better understand the implications and dilemmas we will have to relate to in the future. Here, it is crucial that we handle the ethical dilemmas jointly – and contribute to the creation of the common framework for a world not owned by Apple. Microsoft etc.

But how do we create a wide interest in contributing?

How do we ensure that it is not just the technologically initiated who create the framework on behalf of society as a whole?

The next century beginning on January 1, 2101.

It might seem miles away and most if not all of us will have departed this world, long before it arrives, however – if we want Liberal democracy to survive or for that matter, the earth itself we need to put aside our smartphones and start defending our common values.

To do this it is important to remember the past and to keep it in mind so that as individuals and as a society we can grow and flourish.

As Emersons said:

“Society is a joint stock company in which the members agree for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. ”

The current age with its AI technology is far from achieving this rather with Machine learning and Data mining and algorithms it is just the beginning of undermining our own social foundation.

The problem is the opacity of the power of the algorithms, which means that it isn’t easy to determine when algorithmic governance stops serving the common good and instead becomes the servant of the powers that are creating a parallel form of governing alongside the more familiar tools of legislation and policy- setting.

In the coming years, vast fields of human life will be governed by digital code both invisible and unintelligible to human beings with significant political power placed beyond individual resistance and legal challenge.

Soon it will not be easy to determine when algorithmic governance stops serving the common good and instead becomes the servant of greed and inequality.

Once we all have digital ID numbers, it will become impossible to challenge one’s designation.

We are starting to see the use algorithms not only in the assisting of the election of idiots like D Trump but we are allowing Social media platforms to rip apart the institutions that are supposed to stabilise our political volatile world.

Why is this happing?  Because our current democratic world is not working.

It seems unwilling to deal with the problems facing earth while its citizens are being gerrymandered by technology into populist short-term thinking.

As we watch the decline of mainstream parties the role of money in politics that once shaped government is no longer effective. For the last few decades, we see countries driven by growth at all costs with parties and governments responsive primarily to elites or narrow groups of voters rather than broad cross-sections of the population.

If we stopped and properly analyzed that past we would realize that our economy was strongest not when untethered free market capitalism was free to reign but when our government had pushed for massive social reforms which “artificially” (as some would say) supported the lower and middle class.

It was this, not the free market which allowed for Capitalism for profit to reign supreme in the past and if we are to ignore that then we can never hope to move forwards for we will forever be stuck solving the problems of the past not to mention the future.

The result is that citizens feel disregarded and disempowered with little or no respect for politicians that show a tumbling and marked deterioration in their capacity to inspire or the power they can exert in a shrinking sphere of influence due to social media.

I say: by ignoring the past we pass up valuable opportunities to learn more about what should be done to solve problems now.

This is the basis for historic achievements such as human rights and the rule of law, however, we on the threshold of not be able to reconcile these rights with the revolution promised by the fourth Industrial revolution.

Due to lack of access to data and any world regulations as to what can be done with data, there is a high probability that data collection collected on one pretext will be used entirely for a different purpose.

Take Denmark which is now distributing benefits by using algorithms that are undermining its democracy. They don’t fully appreciate the risks involved in enhancing the welfare state through AI applications.

Liberalism is the premise of the belief that coercive powers of public authorities should use in service of individuals freedom and that they should be constrained by laws controlling their scope, limits, and discretion.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

Therefore, new systemic set-ups are required that can support the agility needed in a digital age.

The fourth industrial revolution does not stop just because we are not ready
to support it.

We must instead get ready. Get ready for a time of driverless cars and artificial intelligence that complements us as human beings, and augmented reality that connects the digital world with our physical one.

But actual legislation is difficult to imagine at the present time because we
simply cannot regulate something of which we do not know the extent… The fear is that we are doing something wrong because the market is so volatile and immature.

So for the moment instead of legislation, we should be putting in place policy frameworks and certifications as a means of regulating the area:

Accountability is a basic aspect when working on new technology of which we do not yet know the extent, the consequences or the full potential.

Accountability for technological development implies that we discuss solutions,
opportunities and engage in the conflicts and disagreements that will naturally follow in the aftermath – even if we do not know the destination of our train.

Others emphasize the fact that the accountability consists of people having control of the technology, and technology acts on the data fed to it. In other words, people are very much responsible for data being of the right quality to avoid so-called bias (distortions) in data and, thus, in the recommendations that artificial intelligence may contribute in what potentials may be released and of what challenges we should be aware of.

Thus, the goal has not been to identify a final result or a single truth that everyone may rally around.

Because the truth is that there are many attitudes toward artificial intelligence.

From how the area should be anchored politically to how to ensure that everyone enjoys the benefits of the technological development and what barriers may exist to this development.

From how the savings arising from increased automation and increased use of artificial intelligence are used to create value for the citizens:

From how to quickly decide on specific projects and ensuring rapid implementation?

Although EU legislation may be relevant, technology is a cross-border issue so international guidelines are equally important as many global companies are located in the US and China.

Finally, we have the problem of engagement.

None of us like our forefathers and all that came before them have any idea what the world is going to be like in the future but addictive technologies that have captured the attention and mind space of the youngest generation will formulate its foundations. 

The long-term effects of children growing up with screen time are not well understood but early signs are not encouraging: poor attention spans, anxiety, depression and lack of in-person social connections are some of the correlations already seen, as well as the small number of teens who become addicts and non-functioning adults.

All in all, digital life is now threatening our psychological, economic and political well-being. People’s cognitive capabilities will be challenged in multiple ways, including their capacity for analytical thinking, memory, creativity, reflection, and mental resilience.

The digital divide will become worse, and many will be unable to pay for all the conveniences. Convenience will be chosen over freedom. Perhaps.

The more the culture equates knowledge with data and social life with social media, the less time is spent on the path of wisdom, a path that always requires a good quotient of self-awareness.

We’ve reached a phase in which men (always men) believe that technology can solve all of our social problems. Increasingly social media is continuing to reduce people’s real communication skills and working knowledge. Major industries – energy, religion, environment, etc., are rotting from lack of new leadership.

Some of these technologies are already operating without a person’s knowledge or consent. People cannot opt out, advocate for themselves, or fix errors about themselves in proprietary algorithms.

So the platforms will necessarily compromise humanity, democracy and other essential values. The larger the companies grow, the more desperate and extractive they will have to become to grow still further. Facebook and Twitter have become heavily ingrained in the process of democracy their digital footprint is not limited to a readership or viewing area.

We will see a reduction of engagement with and caring for the environment as a result of increased interaction with online and digital devices.

The society-wide effects of ‘continuous partial attention’ and the tracking, analysis and corruption of the use of data trails are only beginning to be realized. Without tenacity, self-control and some modicum of intelligence about the agenda of social media, the interruption generation will miss out on the greatness that could be theirs.

Digital life will take people’s privacy and influence their opinions. People will be fed news and targeted information that they will believe since they will not access the information needed to make up their own minds.

Out of convenience, people will accept limitations of privacy and narrowed information resources. Countries or political entities will be the influencers of certain groups of people. People will become more divided, more paranoid as they eventually understand that they have no privacy and need to be careful of what they say, even in their own homes.

Understanding well-being in terms of human flourishing – which includes among other things the exercise of autonomous agency and the quality of human relationships – it seems to clear to me that the ongoing structuring of our lives by digital technologies will only continue to harm human well-being.

This is a psychological claim, as well as a moral one. Unless we are able to regulate our digital environments politically and personally, it is likely that our mental and moral health will be harmed by the agency-undermining, disempowering, individuality-threatening and exploitative effects of the late-capitalistic system marked by the attention-extracting global digital communication firms.

You see it everywhere. People with their heads down, more comfortable engaging with a miniature world-in-a-box than with the people around them.

At the same time, increasingly sophisticated technology for emotion and response manipulation is being developed. This includes devices such as Alexa and other virtual assistants designed to be seen as friends and confidants. Alexa is an Amazon interface – owned and controlled by a giant retailer: she’s designed, ultimately, to encourage you to shop, not to enhance your sense of well-being.

It remains to be seen whether any of the promises made by digital technology companies will be beneficial to mankind other than profit for profit sake. The ethics of software development and the idea that technology should be designed to enhance people’s well-being are both principles that should be stressed as part of any education in software design.

Proponents of an elusive work-life balance may argue that you can always switch off digital technology, the reality is that it is not being switched off – not because it cannot, but there is now a socio-cultural expectation to be always available and responding in real-time.

What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation.

The technological path we’re on and how to evaluate techno-social engineering of humans has to be challenged NOW not in the future.

Technology will be needed if we are to develop beyond a one plant species.

Conditions of modern life could be driving changes in the makeup of our genes. Our bodies and our brains may not be the same as those of our descendants.

Technology may well put an end to the brutal logic of natural selection with evolution becoming purely cultural.

This gives us good grounds for thinking that evolution (whether biological, memetic or technological) will continue to lead in desirable directions.

There is no genetic or evolutionary reason that we could not still be around to watch the sun die. Unlike ageing, extinction does not appear to be genetically programmed into any species.

Meanwhile there is gradual progress in neuroscience and artificial intelligence, and eventually, it will become possible to isolate individual cognitive modules and connect them up to modules from other uploaded minds…

Modules that conform to a common standard would be better able to communicate and cooperate with other modules and would, therefore, be economically more productive, creating pressure for standardization…

I think the next decade will be one of retrenchment and adjustment, while society sorts out how to deal with our perhaps over-optimistic construction of the digital experience.

The addictive nature of social media means the dis-benefits could be profound.

There is a reason the iPhone was initially called a ‘crack-phone.

There might be no niche for mental architectures of humankind.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of losing your head"

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: 2018 HAS BEEN A TURBULENT YEAR BUT ARE WE ON THE CUSP OF SOMETHING MUCH MORE DANGEROUS AND LONG -LASTING IN 2019.

22 Saturday Dec 2018

Posted by in Democracy, European Union.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

We need to get smart about improving our institutional defects.

Why?

Because it is becoming more and more difficult to discuss political opinions openly without being slandered as a racist or a sexist.

Because if we don’t we are looking at a form of unregulated direct democracy run by social media popularism with no long-term thinking.

You might think this is trivial compared to other world problems but if we are to have any chance to address climate change, immigration, inequality, and the like we need stable leadership now more than ever.

It is no wonder if you live in a country where you are mired in poverty and constant violence you could not be blamed for thinking that’s what democracy is.

You wouldn’t want it eighter.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of democracy"

In 2018 saw many elections worldwide where voters vote did not matter- Hungary, Russia, Venezuela. Poland the USA.

More voting does, not = freedom. If you are in any doubt just look at where Venezuela or Hungary are.

So can Democracy be restored or has too much damage been done?

Its worldwide acceptance today that Democracy is the best of imperfect options for managing society.

However, as people realize that democracy can go hand in hand with populism, isolationism, and even racism it strives to balance individual liberty with public order.

What we are witnessing is more and more begging on our TV screens for funds to save everything from whales to homeless people.

While Social Media is encouraging individual self-interest, non-corporation between countries, profit for profit sake, confusion, and downright madness. It is facilitating both pro-democracy and anti-protest, spreading false news and information to bye pass the gatekeeps giving rise to nationalist-populists who don’t seem inclined to prioritize strengthening democracy, their constituencies must at least appreciate having had the democratic opportunity to put them in power.

But have the very widespread democratic aspirations of people around the world declined?

I suspect not, but I am concerned that the structures and processes that enable fulfilment of those aspirations may be eroding and that there is a lack of international leadership in countering that erosion.

The inability in many countries to deliver broadly shared prosperity, the increased distance of the political class from everyday citizens and rampant corruption in many nations will be crucial as democratic and authoritarian leaders alike decide their trajectories.

There are, however, people on the streets yelling for increased equality in income, opportunity, and government efficacy.

These are the concepts at the very heart of well-functioning democracies.

Centrism.

It’s a decidedly wimpy and unexciting word and it often inspires derision as a kind of pallid purgatory for those afraid to take bold action or propound creative political ideas.

Centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.

Humans are not infinitely flexible or perfectible. They cannot use reason to transcend fully their basic impulses and prejudices.

Centrism, then, is defined by a number of assumptions and tendencies; it is not defined by policy dogmas.

Civilization is a brilliant achievement, and the centrist wishes to celebrate it. But such a celebration doesn’t require ignoring its flaws or discouraging innovations.

Societies and polities are incredibly complicated and our understanding of the way social systems and human nature interact is excruciatingly limited.

Ideas that require significant harm today to bring about a better tomorrow are particularly pernicious. Uncertainty about the future requires humility and a commitment to order and well-being in the here and now.

Although science cannot solve all social problems, it is the best instrument we have for measuring the success or failure of particular policies.

It is important, therefore, to protect vigilantly free speech and free inquiry so that the best ideas are rigorously debated in the public forum.

Political ideologies tend to blind people to the best policies.

One should not seek a “conservative” answer to poverty or a “liberal” answer to immigration.

Because humans are naturally tribal, factionalism is easy to create and dangerous for a broader cooperative union among dissimilar peoples.

It is useful to be sceptical of human nature in the broad sense but to be charitable to individuals, especially in the domain of public discourse. This charity encourages free and pleasant public debate and discourse; and, all things equal, free debate leads to the best solutions to complicated social problems.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of democracy"

2019 will see an election in the European Union and it is highly unlikely that any political party has a monopoly on truth.

However, Europe must seek the best answer.  to balance the will of the majority with the rights of the minority, so that the powerful many, cannot trample the few.

Why ?

Because warning signs are flashing red – Democracy is under threat.

THERE MUST BE REFORM NOT PROMISES in order to allow citizens to change previously made decisions.

Perhaps today’s problem resides in the erosion of the power democracies have to comply with this norm or promises. Yet this is a problem connected to the power of the sovereign state, rather than democracy.

The EU must prove to citizens that it can deliver tangible dividends in a consistent, transparent manner.

Democracy derives its attractiveness from its ability to absorb a wide variety of hopes, desires, and fears, which can include the desire to put strong men in power – Hilter

It’s reassuring to think authoritarian governments depart with their leaders.

It’s also wrong.

That government within the EU  are “social contract” between people and their rulers, which can be dissolved if rulers fail to promote the people’s welfare.

It will be its ability or inability to deliver both economically and politically, which will be fueling populism.

It’s not too long ago that the nations of Europe were led by monarchs, who exercised the divine right of kings and owed little or no consideration to the will of their subjects.

Democracy surely never had much appeal for “strongmen” who seem ascendant in various parts of the world.

History is on the side of the oppressed, not their oppressors.

Rising political polarization and populism signal dissatisfaction and if not addressed will divide the public into intolerant communities.

To counter all of this the EU should issue guaranteed peoples Bonds to allow its citizen member to invest in its future.

These bonds would allow its, citizens and businesses, to connect directly with rewards for doing so.

The Funds could be granted by an Independent, total transparent elected EU Citizens Organisation, independent from the EU budget, Commission or Parlement at a fixed rate of repayment into projects that encouraged sustainability, promoting environmental improvements, infrastructure, health, reduced cost of energy etc.

We cannot turn a blind eye to what I call Algorithms Democracy giving political power to the uninformed.

The larger point is either we are capable of self-rule or we are not.

The democratizing and decentralizing of information of the last few decades should improve our ability to engage in political discourse more effectively by loosening controls over who produces or provide information.

If it doesn’t, the fault will lie with ourselves.

It is as much up to us to use that freedom and resource carefully and responsibly, as it was up to the Athenian citizen to listen warily to the smooth-talking orators.

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