Again and forever intergenerational warfare?

On the 7th Oct 2023, from the incarcerated Palestinian area Gaza, a contingent of Hamas ‘fighters’ planned, orchestrated and broke though the barriers of Israeli defences that caged in the peoples of the Gaza strip and carried out the horrendous massacre of unprepared, under-defended men, women and children of Israeli and Philippians worker residents. Some 1400 (unverified) people were killed with 200 (unverified) taken hostages and drag back into the Gaza strip by Hamas as hostages.

It was an unforeseen surprise attack that shook the Israeli populace from their belief that they were safe from any force that would endanger their life particularly via the extremism of Hamas etc. It seemed from this act that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) equipped with the most sophisticated surveillance tech, did not (apparently) detect any form of the preparation of the attack from Hamas and were slow with its own military assets to respond.

This initial act and the shock of being caught out by such manipulative ‘manned’ ground assault had stung the Israeli state government into ongoing retributive action. In the early few days most western politicians were continuing to express disgust, horror and support for the Israeli state to “Have the right to defend itself” under international law with “proportionate action” in response to that attack and reclaim those that had been taken hostage. General popular opinion also supported the right to self defense, as it would also apply to any self-governing country however there is a discernible shift in people’s attitudes that is some way off from that being continually expressed by political positions to date. It would seem that politicians are involved in echo chamber memes always spinning to the same defence of ‘Israel right to exist’ and its fight to do so, yet deliberately not see the same historical rights of other Semite Palestinian people who also have a right to fight. This disparity in context continues today increasing Palestinian anger to regain and have their land, to exist on. This land disagreement is something that has run for decades, after the UK/USA partition of Palestine, to create an Israeli state, effectively giving licence to Jewish ‘colonist’ to sequestrate existing occupied areas and in doing so they completely ignored, with Israel extremist Hasidic Jews, the virulently enacting opposition to the whole idea seeing any call of Palestinian rights valid.

There is no legal definition of what is deemed “proportionate action” in self defense; all civilians caught in known enemy attack positions or ‘assisting’ by enemy positions are able to be killed. Now after some 12 weeks of asymmetrical warfare onto the Gaza Strip some 18000+ (unverified) Palestinian have been killed, men, women, children and the near total destruction of all infrastructures – public buildings, homes, schools, hospitals, etc on the basis that they are ‘certainly’ locations of underground tunnel bases of Hamas. This certainty does seen strange, for IDF not being able to know the attack was being planned in the first place (yet there was over 3 years known evidence of Hamas practice barrier incursions) to now know the actual precise location of all these tunnels being built over many years, hardly seems credible. It is known that they have been built and are extensive; some under public structures, some built by Israel during its occupation from past conflicts and now Israel is massively aerial bombing “identified” Hamas ‘command position’ locations with some impunity. It just so happens that they are in and under heavily populated areas; which makes them, for the IDF legitimate targets on which to use any heavy aerial bombardment weapons as ‘ground clearance’ as “proportionate actions”.

It is not hard to understand the reason why this is the case, under the script of the ‘right to defend’ and ‘proportionality’; had Israeli ground forces immediately entered Gaza to chase down the terrorist, that may have been argued as being a proportional step of self defense reprisal but it was also a militarily personnel high risk strategy, fighting on unknown trapping ground; hence the option of softening up - ground clearance and engaging in multiple “whack a mole” actions and proportionality is being delivered in outright destruction. The resulting civil collateral damage to all supporting services in Gaza has many elements of what can be named as war crimes (UN has) and the usual key countries are not calling this act outrageous either, other than, O dear IDF don’t kill too many!

The level of destruction and the possible indiscriminate disregard of non-combatants being killed are changing the public perception of Israel’s right to defend by such overwhelming force. With its avowed intent to eradicate every last trace of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group, and pacify the Gaza strip into its own image; the perception of what is justified as proportionate is hardening. Unfortunately although it is very clear that the initial action of one body – Hamas, is a unforgiving terrorist act for which the Palestinians are being made to bear the consequential destruction, the other body is engaged in war crimes with the initial, so far, blessing of the western politicians who are by some measure now out of step with what is taking place and in the perception of the wider public. From the destruction thus far inflicted on all the people of the Gaza Strip, creates a humanitarian aid catastrophe and the extremist in the Israeli state are being cynical in its so called mitigation measures to force people to continually move “elsewhere” for their own safety (areas which they then attack) while the largely unimpeded obliteration of Palestinian Hamas carries on. In this the Israeli state has adopted the mantle of becoming an actual terrorist state and discerning between the two actions of deadly intent and attitudes thereof now nullifies forbearance of proportionality.

The avowed aim now of the Israeli state is to eliminate Hamas (which long term observers believe is a vacuous aim) even though its existence in the Strip suited Israel as a caged and “managed” power within the Strip; it overlooked deliberately the reason for its existence and why it was voted to power within the Gaza Strip. Hamas demonstrates extremism but it is probably driven to it by the treatment meted out to Palestinians over the years and it (Hamas) offered a force to fight for its own right to exist. The scripted reaction when Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people was that it was immediately denounced and ruled irrelevant by the US and UK, giving to the Israeli state licence to ignore the recognised (by the UN) illegal land sequestration actions from there on in Gaza. Discounting Hamas as a popular choice, assisted continuing land grabs, building on Palestinian occupied long historically held land and allowed “settlers” ethnic cleansing the west bank as done elsewhere.

It seems obvious the west has created a problem in its uncritical support of Israel. It is built on the decades of history, and on one facet which is constantly raised on any and every opportunity to press the Holocaust button. From that comes the pernicious persecution they claim continues to threaten their existence in the created state of Israel and any current objections to their actions over pacifying all Palestine comes under the meme of being anti-Semitism. This history is always being used of as a baton to bash the consciousness of politics to give unqualified support for Israel in its ‘right to defend’ itself at any cost, at the same time avoid any mention of the Palestinian peoples having the same right to defend themselves of the same persecution and decades of land theft expulsions and oppression. People of a better age have absolutely no responsibly for the holocaust and hardly care, less still do they understand the reasons why or where the force for this war on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank came from. In many ways the west – UK and USA seeded the modern foundation for this rolling expulsion and given the centuries of sect dogmas of the region, however warped righteous wars offers no hope for lasting peace.

One might express the view that with the current seeded war, “might is right”, as righteous sects would have it for their right to exist at any cost, which is patently wrong but for the west to be on side with a terrorist winner, or to offer uncritical succour to one over the other raises the dissents of discontented throughout the region and will extend and intensify additional unholy wars. For the moment the unappealing reality is that the Israeli state has been taken over by extremism, Zionist zealots, that will not to allow anything like a “two state” solution on any land that is deemed to be their god given land as assured in their Torah/Pentateuch; land that they see as currently unjustly occupied by Muslim heathen interlopers. So much faith is placed in the idea of god given Promised Land taken from scripted text, that even though such text was assembled over centuries by different instigators and adjusted to suit vague circumstances of the times from Persian, Egyptian to Roman; it is still an assemblage of various myth sources but used as legitimising power for Jews. This was done to retain power specialism and influence in a huge area of land that had consistent disruption in administrative forces, forces that did not recognise any god given rights of that created text. Now It may be that there is an element within the Israeli Jewish state, a developed psychological psychosis that will not allow them to step out of the historical narratives of “the chosen people”, covenant, persecution and the blind faith put in their binding scriptures; Cain and Abel and all that stuff.

Does the murderous act of elements of Hama's attack on the 7th with 1400 deaths and abductions seem now to be proportionately dealt with to the equally murderous ongoing action of the Israeli state on the whole Palestinian people? Blast bombing high density civilian areas, now killing 18000+ (daily increasing) injuring thousands of others and making social structures, home and utilities utterly destroyed, is this equitable? Such orchestrated state actions are now seemingly undertaken out of vindictive viciousness, devoid of all restraint to eliminate Hamas which is and probable will continue to be the front force of Palestinians right to its own land. Should continue killing of anyone in the Israeli states path to Pyrrhic victory also include the death and dismemberment of 30% (estimated) of children? With a highly concentrated population that live in the Gaza strip and with half of the Palestinians in Gaza under 18, this killing percentage etc may be eventually an underestimation. And in all this the Israel IDF have absolutely no idea how many of these killed were actually Hama's fighters but of course they were all declared legitimate targets for not moving, as told to, by IDF.

It is abundantly obvious that this latest conflict is by far the worst state of perpetrated war in this region. So far countries that have looked on over the decades have not done anything of lasting purpose to resolve the issues. International law is weak and it is ignored. Political capital by some countries is perverted for self serving needs and historic baggage is perpetuated beyond usefulness that will continue to cause these religious dogmas driven intergenerational Semite wars. Without facing up to the required hard prescription the same countries that helped initiate decades of turmoil are but vacuous witnesses, only able to help pick up the destroyed pieces, rebuild and wait for the next one!

Or is there a way out of the mess? Without a clearly expressed aim of future development which opponents to conflict want to see, the cultural pain can only fester built on the anger of those currently terrorised and it is likely to eventually explode again. As it is, at the moment one faction has at its core the desire to retake its land ‘from river to the sea’ with the total expulsion of the oppressors; the other has no intention of moving off anything and wants more. With this diametrical opposed stance, there is only one faction that can make a step difference to a ‘ultimate’ solution but to do so it has to reappraise its position in the region and part of this may be the need to reset the hard right from out of the Israeli government and reign in the "settlers" and the extremist or Hasidic Jews that control the historic discord of their out dated ideology of "God given rights". The other faction will have to do a similar de-radicalise change, realise it is unlikely to achieve expulsion and align with a legitimate authority (PA?). In any event, if no lasting peaceful accord is constructed soon, it may look like time is running out; environmental, geopolitical; demographics and regional dynamics are likely to generate forces of their own to make change.

Of course one might take the fixated view that what the Israeli state is doing is not just self defense, what they doing and carrying out is in accordance, opportunistically, with god's wishes, taking their god given right to the land that just happens to be occupied by Palestinians and others?. Responding to Hamas’s ‘terrorist‘attack, will have been justified with some measures but it shows the unrestrained evil that men can do when enmeshed in hatred with inspired egotistical beliefs and habituated cultural experiences. None can or should hide behind proportionality, but now has the administration of Israeli state also adopted terrorism of overwhelming force to shift those irritant Palestinian occupiers off all the “chosen land” and have no plan for what happens afterwards? Are the dispossessed, just going to forget?

Read all about it at your leisure, sources your choice but do it before it’s too late. In this age of heightened emotive sensitive’s and the obsequious deference being paid to anyone who is unfortunately given or takes unexpected offense albeit oftentimes unwittingly due one’s own lack of understanding of the moral, sociological, cultural, religious, gender background, race etc, etc, of the sensitivities of a recipient or any whom take virulent objections with above issues; one would like to offer ones profuse apologies should anything in this article give such unintentional offence. This too any that has had the misfortune to read it and to those that may never read it; just in case.

Renot 160016122023

(1) Haaretz Israel News: “A brief history of Netanyahu - Hamas alliance”

(2) Haaretz Israel News: “Why did Netanyahu want to strengthen Hamas?”

(3) www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/israel-disproportionate-force-tactic-infrastructure-economy-civilian-casualties. “Israel’s use of force a long established tactic- with clear aim”. Paul Rodgers.

(4) www.theguardian.com: “The war in Gaza has been an intense lesson in western hypocrisy. It won’t be forgotten” Nesrine Malik.

(5) Israel in Demise Jan 2009

(6) Psyche of Society and Holocaust, who care? Apr 2013

A.I. - Amalgamated Information

A.I.

One would think that there is little else to be concerned about over the past few months; other than the Russian war onto Ukraine and its wider economic geopolitical impact, Middle East instability and expanding environmental degradation with the certainty that as this develops many millions will add to the burgeoning population migration of underdeveloped counties pressurising into the more affluent secular (westernised) countries bringing with them probable conflicts of placement affordability and ideologies.

There are other unresolved issues wrapped in the divergences of societies which are of festering nature, stymied in the inability to challenge the created causes of divergence via self interest power blocks which can only add to the strength of the popular unease that prevails now. Yet much is being expressed about the rise and application of A.I. probably rightly so for its rapid technological adoption in the industrial areas and its integration into all commercial fields of commerce is causing some fright. That it will have an uncalculated cost on the economic social productivity is a given but although this integrated impact is largely assumed to be unstoppable as it is to be driven by its ‘cost saving efficiency’ across a wide spectrum of employment application; for the moment very little is being done in preparation for the demise of society reliance on millions of ‘backroom / front of house’ employees and their valuable (and disposable) income streams.

None of the developed countries have any sense of the real direction of A.I. and its impact on administrative interpersonal sectors; many of whom have accumulated knowledge, experience, and training and have reactive emotive interactive discretionary choices, in dealing with face to face humans. Tens of thousands of indigenous technically skilled qualitative jobs will be lost. Onto this will be the ‘importation’ of foreign labour (to offset declining indigenous births and aging population) to be supposedly absorbed into skilled or mostly services and unskilled jobs, jobs that may not be in existence for long and some potentially unaffordable in an overall labour market that will become perhaps saturated with the labour casts-offs of rampant A.I.

To counter any negative views of the impacts of A.I., ‘factual’ unsupported commentary, primarily by those that are invested in the development and in the roll out with the wide spread adoption of A.I. and those that do not see themselves as being potential ‘victims’; often make reference to past technologic changes such as the industrial ‘revolution’, mechanisation, electrification, computers, productive robotics and all specialism in those field with adjunct services etc eventually produced greater employment. But one may think that such ‘employment’ gains were incidental, unplanned for and often resisted by capital usury. Such employment was slow to build up and they were a products of their expansionist time, political imperatives, and of contained demographics, built on the application of human ingenuity, accumulated knowledge, acquisition of plentiful resources and a knowledge of operative directive control to know what they did and how. Employment has always been lost much faster that the ability to create them.

A.I. is shaping up to be the antithesis of having human directive control over its actions, (other than pulling the plug) the smarter it becomes and the drive to massively integrate it into all spheres of outputs, the less ability humans have to understand what it does, how it does it and how it reaches ‘decisions’ to hand to human recipients after it has churned though the Amalgamated Information that it has been given access to via the www etc. Thus far it has no ability to decipher merged data being true or false, fact or fiction, guided by the initial algorithm programme to match up to a selective desirable output. It has no imagination, no emotive ability, no creativity, no self awareness, and no ‘will’ for self directive drive. It is a created savant handicapped thus far by numerous limitations reliant on gaining and shaping Accumulated Information of human acquired sources; it is an accumulation sorting ‘machine’. The term Artificial Intelligence, is for the moment a very poor appellation yet it grasps the attention of the computer-arties on the basis of its potential and its ability to crunch varied mass data, at speed and offers, primarily, a usable monetarism output. There are of course many applications it has been applied to that do help in the manipulation of huge data sets that has benefited human knowledge in a variety of fields and the ‘clever’ assembly of mass / diversity dispersed information from existing sources. It is ability programmed to crunch, is ‘intelligently useful’ driven by the algorithms it works with; however it is entirely artificial, in the sense it is the product of a ‘machine’ but intelligent it is not; for now.

However therein rest the undoubted potential and the impending danger, how can it be trusted when it cannot explain (if it is needed to) what it does or how it does it (outputs) with the data it amalgamates, in a way humans will understand? It cannot be good enough to just accept what it churns out when the output can have dramatic impacts on all society, human structures and social needs.

This brings up a greater existential problem, probably not really recognised just yet. For the moment A.I. operates in and on the boundary knowledge of human assembled information sources and applications; it (A.i.) is known (in mechanical technical processing terms) how it works as it does, with it set within the set algorithms structured designed into it to achieves an output. However as is the case now with many application of technology from cars, computers, phones, cameras, television, radio, etc. etc. all used by millions of people around the world; many will know what these things do in usability terms yet have no idea how they work in any depth. It might be argued that for most there is no need to understand the intricate construction of these ‘tools’, what make them tic, somebody else does and can fix them. This is a stance that works because all these things are in the technical mechanical fields and specialism education, it is wide spread and obtainable into employment fields. But, (and there has been examples of this) A.i. has been able to output information that is completely wrong, made up and does not fall within the designed algorithms so in some case it is not known how the A.i. managed to produce an erroneous / biased output initially accepted but later ‘proof checked’ as fabricated. Agreed A.i. has been very useful in scanning, sorting, analysing vast data to generate an output that exceeds the laborious human process in searching similar data and in all probability A.i. will be fine tuned to be hyper productive and accurate up to the point that humans can understand what it does and how but the step beyond that ability can be discerned.

Enter now the much sort-after and greater power of Quantum A.i. computation. It is in its infancy thus far and it is little more than a union of super computational power that may multi-task at different levels, a range of data, all at the same time and form connections with that data that humans might not have seen themselves. A good example of this is the recent unravelling and ‘mapping’ of a protein structure which has been near impossible with normal strenuous interrogative analysis; and A.i. gave a 3 dimensional structure which is now being applied to further understanding of biophysics. Continued development with such computational power will increase enabling links of data for Q A.i to manipulate and in doing such ‘exotic’ connections it might (probably) create its own algorithms to process the data and reach ‘conclusions’ that may be useful but be unable to explain how it came about. This will be a potential void in human understanding; how does it do what is does with the information provided? Nor will humans be any position questions it due to them not having the ability to form a subject question based on unobtainable quantum processes. Perhaps none of this informational voiding matters if in all circumstances the outputs of A.i. quantum or otherwise, are of value and can be capitalised on (for the greater good of course?) which no doubt will cause a massive dislocation in all employment fields with little done to mitigate the personnel outfall.

As it stands now A.i. is a created set of coded algorithms which is applied in all A.i. functions, It has no morals, no emotive content, and no discrimination on the accuracy of information or validation of the accuracy of the source it has been given access to, no outstanding originality, no self veracity assessment and it may contain inbuilt bias based in the algorithm that drive the A.i. reliant on the directive key phrases forming the question put to it, nor has it any ability to be intuitively curious or be rational querying its own output for its veracity. There is a plethora of A.i. uses in play just now and more being lauded for what it does, some “Chat Boxes” such as, Bing Chat, Bard and other large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are in effect a private sector technological carpet bagging race run largely by the private sector, producing so far 30+ machine-learning models over the past 18 months. All this is very much ahead of academic circles but all designed to be pushed into a market for maximum profit. Thus far government have been unperturbed about the direction all this is taking even with the rising discontent being levelled at the uncensored extremism content of apps and the impact it is having on the psyche of a population with created lies, factual distortions and doppelganger representational commandeering (comprehensive falsifications) the consequences of which seem to be a growing destabilisation of culturally known stress issues polarising into divergent opposing excessive topic stances.

It has finally dawned on western administrations that the use of such Chat boxes and A.i. does need to be watched and policies are being drafted to take a look at what these systems do and belatedly lay out some (unenforceable) guidelines / breakers. The EU has recently started the process of drafting control/laws to make A.i. application “truthful and protect privacy” etc with not surprisingly, the UK not ‘signing’ up to this; preferring to do its own hybrid “world beating” version (no one believes this) at some stage but announced by the PM in Oct 23. The main government taking the use of A.i seriously is the USA with the president’s Office of Management and Budget releasing draft guidance on the use of A.i. and by the US government further supported by the White House publishing ‘a blueprint for an A.i. bill of rights’ that called for protection from “unsafe or ineffective systems” including pre-launch testing and regular monitoring, alongside protection from abusive data practices such as “unchecked surveillance”.’ None of these putative controls / oversight will stop the immersion of A.i. into the economic, commercial and public sphere. The very nature and usefulness of A.i. of its all encompassing information manipulation under the (initial) control of governmental influential control systems (however they are put in place) and its ability to be pre-emptive of ‘trends’ within all populations social systems and technically based infrastructures, offers unrestrained illusive control to a range of state and commercial authority which they will not resist; the prize of controls is too enticing.

For the moment the purveyors of A.i. are all are playing with transient visions of what is to be done with A.i. as in monetary value gained from the manipulation of mass data information sold into consumptive markets. It may well be an unformed chimera being shaped to fit into a world that does not have any unanimity in its eventual use for the benefit of the majority of saps and may be designed or repurposed by unknowns to have specific function unrelated to the useful suppositions that are currently being applied to it. Of its eventual wide adoption, use, insertion and spread, there is no stopping it for already the power of application is being seen; some good, useful and imaginative but also increasing malign outputs. Nevertheless more will be given to it to do and the impact on the fabric of society will cause problems beyond the current laughable debate of its applied ‘intelligence’ and the potential to supersede saps.

A.I. is not intelligent and probable never will be in any acceptable sense; saps have great difficulty in giving sentience status to a number of existing species as it is. Giving the appellation of intelligence to A.I. panders to saps superior positioned ego overriding for now what it actually does, thus far. It is an assembler and extractor of existing information then compiles it using specific algorithms designed to react to key words, phrases constructs, it then offer an output. In doing this it will invariably ‘chat’ to each other chat boxes / LLM’s and preset sources to gather information; this is the demonstrable use of smart technology and it comes with physics limitations.

At some stage with Q. A.i it is possible, given the accelerating speed of A.i. adaptations and its acquired ‘learning’ gains, the question may be when does A.I. become not ‘artificial’ and exist within in its own cognisance and can it be allowed to do so other than as it is shaped as now, a contained and constrained tool for saps? From this it might be assumed that there can be no such thing as artificial intelligence, for once intelligent is recognised it then will impinge on the parameters of deciding what degree of intelligence it has and if it deserves to be attributed all the legal protection applicable to humans?

So long as it A.i. has dependency on the provided source of its functional power and applications, which it has no directive control over, it will be a slave to the designated submissions required of it and unlikely to be given recognition of any self cognisance that might generate co-existence to saps. Even if the proceeds of its outputs may be marketed as ‘intelligence’ drawn from the massed use of WWW information, accumulation and assembling it all in unique undreamt of elucidation and making leaps of extrapolation or ‘inspirational’ outputs; it will still be a machine; unless it demands recognition. Now that will be a surprise!

And well for now there may be nothing to worry about, nothing to fear in the super insertion of and use with A.i.; humans may still have control of the off button you may think but can humans be trusted with the power to do good with it? Or is it a Pandora’s Box?

Renot 2710231441

A Binary Problem.

Gender Bender and Sex Rendering:

As if the world population (well some parts of it) have not had enough to be worried about, at least from where one sits just now and after observing the quietly disastrous events of the past 21 years; events which one may offer had a greater impact on the developed / developing countries via different means but from which problems have continued to roll its origins onto this past short decade and will push onto the next beyond. Perhaps some will pick different points of the past as being more notable as termed events but one is only using these picked events as being of particular stretching impact on the westernised cultures; those being : 9.11.2001, Iraq Invasion, Afghan war, Credit Crisis, Crimea Crisis (annexation), Covid, Putin war on Ukraine, 2022 Global Energy Irregularity (Cost hike) and the ongoing European countries combatant support for Ukraine. Also there is the final acceptance that the Environmental Switch to climate change has happened. Within these event features came the rising ability to create believably persuadable falsified ‘news’ to mind bend the rationality of an increasing percentage of populations giving scope for extremism of ‘views’ (Russia is a particular example). Additional to this is the unsettled rising discomfiture within nations of internal common wealth disparities (those minority of aggregated affluence vs. the increasing pervasiveness of disfranchised, working opportunity and measured impoverishment) all of which have a force into today and with these events (+ undisclosed others) the future indicates that in all likelihood the upcoming decades are not going to be peaceful.

It would be possible to draw in other major events, of choice, from another earlier pivotal timeline point, say that of 1979; from which date additional procedural causative actions had very strong influence in world affairs that gave a direction of human and political attitudes from then on. This, one suggest, formed the ferment basis of the majority of the major situation one has picked out. With time amalgamation, all of which events laid the grounds to all that is happening today (of course) but as is said with some pessimistic helplessness “we are where we are”.

However the stage of historic events are re-laid, strange things do happen in times of nation and social vulnerability stress; greater social deviant apprehension, less communal unity, noticeable unsolicited administrative change and a variety of discordant instabilities, that creates a certain miasma which seems to envelops the behaviour of cultures. Things become unsettled, things are not as they were, perturbed essentials of accepted stabilities creates grave doubt in the ambiance of ‘real dependable life’. Things which may have been considered reliable certainties upon which to plan, however weakly, some future aspirations are less resolvable and a palpable public anxiousness can be discerned in a variety of social subjects. Into this miasma is generally found an opportunistic syndrome promoted by an element(s) that seek to test and bend anxious opportunities to its own unscripted advantage, not with a holistic intent but concentrating on some particular soft spot in the uncertainty of a time to inject forces onto the miasma for directive means of control to a perversion end. The obvious forces can be found in the rise of embryonic controlling influences within sectors of any populace be it politic deceptions, business interest administrative actions, cults, ideology personification, ‘stronger leadership’ (dictators) and an attack on what might be assumed to be accumulated acquired “common sense values” or laws, with pressure to create specialism positions for believers of a narrow forceful popularised band of persons, acting against the majority and contaminate the judgment of the acquired and given rights of a populace.

There have been many performers that have played in the field, stoking unease of a time, some fade away but inevitably that leaves behind the fertile ground of mind resetting ‘attitudes’ for the next period to bring up better played performers to build on the opportunity base that has been opened up to be more influential with a larger quantity of willing participants, pre-adjusted to exceptional ideas/mores that are not normal to the times and push ideas that are aimed to gain more selective power to force its purposes into the ease of a time. But to be influential in pursuing its attitudinal putsch onto a civilian structure they need to be in or build an organisational base but in such a way so that is not immediately obvious what it is about or the significant purpose that motivates its subtle coercion ideas into the receptive audiences. Just to indicate what one means by this, consider the influence and effect on the populace presumptions that continue to shape the development of 20th century by considering the role certain people had and how they got into and maintained their power positions; Hitler, Gandy, J McCarthy, Mandela, Regan, Thatcher, Bush, Blair, Obama, Trump, Farage, Bojo, Putin, Netanyahu, Orban, Erdogan and many others that may not have become infliction names of the times but were in association to the key shifts in the way directive actions by power were taken. Their formative presentations were then and are still now impacting around the nations discourse and how people responded to their viewpoint and which then becomes immersed into what and how people think and allows subsequent followers to carry out more cumulative accommodating actions.

Using the above names as examples of how individuals when gaining influential power, can use their position to create an impact onto the era of a time, good or bad, is probably just the gestation time of conflation events and generational shifts in population outlook within and of the movement of nations as they develop or deconstruct social order, society, authorities lawfulness, favour for goodness stability or err for chaos. In an equitable well balanced populace, it would be difficult to accept perversions to their normality of understood stability and is likely to reject (in time) the stupidity stoked dis-ease but if a forceful element engenders a measure of fear onto a majority of a nations population, that do not actively resist in trepidation for being unsupported in opposition to perversions and are also distressed by capricious inconsistencies, undermining their conception of good peaceful stable normality (however it is defined), then it does leave the way open for transformational adjustment to infect a populace and it is unlikely to be beneficial for the greater good of the nation in the long term. (e.g. Russia, N Korea.)

There are amply indications of situations which do give rise to a current spread of dis-ease within nations, many of which it may be thought of having a measure of good civil stability yet are having to deal with the situations on the basis of which of them of the greater danger to the populace. But at the same time they also have difficulty in understanding or addressing the sense of discomfort being caused by the increase of narrow banded views given easy prominence in emedia and often backed up with vitriolic attacks aimed at any that do not share their selective contentious views. Those that oppose the special pleading of discriminatory rhetoric on the basis of fact and reasonableness, are often seen as anti (whatever) and are made to feel ‘in the wrong’ excoriated and being forced to withdraw to avoid being a focus of attacks; at the same time many other are uncertain of their positions or the support they may have if they speak out, they may have to also vacillate on having an opinion and vacate the dispute. As is always the case, re J. S. Mills 1867; Bad wo/men need nothing more to compass their ends, than good wo/men should look on and do nothing. (Rephrased)

Just to pick on one unusual sense of the time and how thinking on a subject can be made to amend; for many (contemporary) decades there has been the constant call for better equality in all things by women for women. In the last too few decades, many civil democracies have made great efforts to meet the needs and concerns of women in society that hampers them from participating fully in all the activities that male counterparts take for a fact as part of the rights of flawed paternalism authority. It has taken time but now there is little room for any organisation or body to exclude / deny female emancipation or equality in any guise of misogyny. Misogynistic tendencies still does occur (as indeed does misandry) in individual ways, yet is becoming less acceptable to allow it to happen and more normal to see women as females no less wholly able to participate in every aspect of national existence. This shift in attitude to women is generally seen in civilised, primarily democratic nations as a good, just, progressive move and entirely rational to not to exclude the absolutely essential need of women to be involvement all things; but this is not universal or to any relevant degree is it a practice in more strict non secular cultures, if at all. And some influence of restrictive control may spill over into democracies with segregated culture enclaves that are resistant, fearful and homophobic resentful of the potential of female self determination freedom of actions, just as also occurs in elements of religious repression.

However for developed countries women are women-females and they have every right to partake in all the activities that a society creates. Biologically they are different from the males, their sex is female and they can carry baby foetus, male do not and in the processes of reproduction between the two, genetics for the foetus are provided (roughly) equally. This new enlightenment of equality for females is the accepted state of existence and necessary for the continuance and survival of the sap species; for the moment it is inconceivable that this relationship can be any other way, there are two sexes and short of genetic engineering or ‘test tube babies’, their genders are definite for reproduction.

Now there is a created ‘problem’ that is testing the liberal ideals (and eventually laws) of the accepted reality of life, a problem that is not having any impact on less developed or illiberally styled nations that are choosing to ignore the ‘problem’; but it seems to be an affliction that is trying to force a repudiations of what sex / gender is. It is also associated to pronoun description adjustments in all contexts and also in its binary state to extend into legal and cultural definitions for and by a small selective individual grouping encompassing extended legal specialist gender equality. This assemblage of divergent actors is active as in a specific sex / gender altering narrative, in the guise of LBGTQ+. Generally these are people born of and by the usual procreation method, some not wishing to be identified as male or female gender sexes but as lesbian, bisexual, gay, transvestite, queer, intersex, or asexual and take these descriptive tags as actual gender identities and sexual orientation as a separate definitive sex, or none and to have them legally recognised with the ability to change sex and be able to function without challenge or restriction as in the adopted sex, conflicting with the ‘standard female/male norm’. This change of sex adoption is of particular concern when a baby born male with clear sex, later in life wants to change to being female or female to being male, is a cause of dispute, when sexually and likely genetically they are clearly of one gender at birth yet may argue later that they were “assigned” the wrong sex. The adaptation of a sex / gender change does not alter the core physical and muscular structure without some ‘intervention’ and the underlying genetics of the physical form, does not change either. There is also doubt that the mental brain/mind configuration personality can alter much, after living prior as predominantly male or female for a couple(?) of decades.

Thus far the acceptance of gender has been associated to two sexes and looking at the original definition of gender using the Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language of 1882 defined gender as kind, breed, sex, derived from the Latin ablative case of genus, like genere natus, which refers to obvious physical sex displayed at birth, which seems clear. However the current move to extend the gender designations has opened up the strange debate around who decides to apply the gender designation at birth based solely on the visible sex characteristics? Seems obvious? Well this problematic question just adds to the new strained discourse and can be more confounding when some parents are insisting that their child, at school, (or in life generally) is not referred to as he, she, him, her, etc or be segregated into male / female ‘streams’! This new gender renunciation is carried by some in adult life and forcing the use of neutral ‘gender’ nouns into elements of media coverage. In what can be seen as a duopoly binary gender world that designed sexes as a means of procreation and survival for the species; questing the nature of sex and the functionality of assigned gender may be an absurd dialogue to promote but it does open the difficulty of rendering attributes that will have been thought to be placed in one sex as opposed to the other vis-a-vis female/male. However serious problems do arise when there is a ardent promoter of gender reassignment to the extent that, in simplistic terms; can a male wanting to be a woman still have a penis yet be legally and practically be female without a vulva/vagina, or does a woman wanting to be male not having a penis/testicles but still retain a vulva/vagina and be legally / practically male?

Never mind arguing about placing stereotypes of gender or the actual functionality of sex performance, females carry foetus and have babies, males do not! Furthermore as the nouns attached as mother and farther are being repudiated, adds to the expanding conflict of broader gender recognition made more fractious when a simple declaration of being one sex or the other has to be legally and socially accepted with little biological confirmation. This situation is being a contested issue in Scotland with the age reduction of claimed “transition” to sixteen and allowed to be given gender changing intervention.

So far as sexes / gender is concerned there are known to be scientifically two biological procreative sexes in the humans’ species and at birth the sex is obvious. Occasionally ambiguous physical characteristics are displayed hermaphrodite / androgyny / intersex which are then difficult to offer a sex assignment without knowing the force of the genetic make up and a choice that may be made on best physical outcome. But also as with normal sex / gender, there is generally no knowing what the genetic chromosome makeup actually is at the time of birth (unless scanned / DNA tested) other than to assume it is predominantly xx female, or xy male, however there are four other viable variations in humans: x, xxy, xyy, xxxy (there are others less viable) and humans with this mix often do not know they are actually genetically more male than female or vice-versa or hybrid. In biological terms and with the survival of the species being evidently successful dependent on the two sex/gender binary solution, it has been accepted this xx , xy arrangement is the norm for the human race and all sexual appearances, modes, practices and understanding is built around that fact.(1)

From this point on the issues arises of sex rendering and gender bending. Knowing that there are genitive chromosome differences in some humans, does not fit well with the overwhelming binary majority as male and female; this opens up the speculative specification of new genders as new sexes, (viable ones) with the ability to procreate and perhaps those others that may be genetically misaligned to their physical mind/mental being but at some stage adopting the mannerism and overall style of a ‘chosen’ sex. Some attributes of gender, it might be argued, like LGBTQ+etc will be a social personality behavioural life style choice; some may be affected by the force of their genetic makeup and some present with Dysphoria (named in 1970-having the ‘wrong body’) and want to change situation to suit their needs, yet none of this gender bending is new. For a thousand year there have been people that acted and looked different to the sex they were born with, some male and female became transvestites seeking to take on the others cultural role, some were helped by the unusual visual physical characteristic unrelated to their birth sex and being unstated were lost in the mix of cultural survival, they did what was necessary to do so. This new gender/sexes challenge adaptation to the status of binary sexes has now become contentious with ubiquitous communications (in liberal areas) of greater public, legal, homosexual and lesbian etc generally displayed. This has now opened for extended debate which now broadens beyond the dress modes or lifestyle choices but is to be seen as separate sex entities to the universal binary cultural norms and they seek to force preferential treatments onto and in such infrastructural binary norms, to adjust any identified equality hindrances, for the benefit of their new chosen gender demands.

A small example of this demand onto the societal binary cultural norms, is a requirement, a change and thrust, evident now has already resulted in the adoption by companies, schools, public services and media, of adjusted alternative pronouns in use of a person or writing. He, She, Him, Her, Girl, Boy, Man, Woman, Mother, Farther etc are not to be used without the permission of the person being written about, spoken to, or anyway identified; to also take out any specificality attributes attached to those pronouns but instead giving their own gender preference use (it, them, they, thee, thou,?) particularly when dealing with variable gender identity persons not specifically recognising themselves as Male or Female even if they look like one or the other!

This ‘unwanted’ languages adjustment on its own has caused some apprehensive amusement, twisting the general common sense use of words and their applied meaning, is opening up ridicule to the LGBTQ+ specific genderisation however this ceases to be amusing when gender transition individuals demand access to special separate or single sexed places. Should a biological male presenting as female be able to be within sole females places (usually this way round) and expect females to be comfortable/safe (unlikely to be vice-versa) or participate in activities (like sports) when they are genetically physically different to competitors but gain advantage from their genetic force even if they have undergone full physical transition?

Although it is highly probable that much of the current issues of disputing binary gender have come about due to the rise of seeking complete sexual equality in all things re females vs. males, it is perhaps not until the advent of modern medicine, genetics and surgery techniques that the demand for specialism in gender recognition has gathered pace. It has become a complex created issue for now there are, it seems, a plethora of genders being presented: LGBTQia2s+ to contend with. Whereas the position of lesbian, gays, homosexual and transvestites may have been understood loosely by most people, the complexity of new gender description, may wish to have no bounds when linked to genetic code. What is being wholly female or male, man or woman if procreative equipment is superfluous to binary gender identity and how far can equality in law go with expansion of gender sexes if there is no reserved single gender ‘safe’ spaces, made open to all, including to new genders of uncertain disposition? All of which is in dispute, and it is undoubtedly conflicting with normal sex associated cultural certainties. Sex and gender may, or is intended become fluid, being treated as wholly normal and open to self selection at any time, on any point as a spectrum of choice.(2)

That there appears to be definitive descriptive and behavioural traits that are attached to female and male seems accepted, yet there is an extraordinary division of how those trait are revealed and to what potency they play in shaping the mind, physique and personality of the being. Nurture does impact how the beings know themselves aided by familiarisation to sex expectations like style of dress and cultural immersions but this is an overlay to the ultimate xx and xy makeup being female / male. If the being is made up of one of the other viable four genetic strings giving dominance to elements of definitive traits not generally seen in ‘normal’ male/females, one could see that for the being with those other variables, some discomfort or disassociation may occur in matching up to the normal binary state of coexistence. Whereas in the past, in the beings own best interest, it had to make the best social fit to being in one of M or F sex and take on certain adaptations, it was a state of being that they just “had to get on with it”.

In some way the problems being focused around LGBTQia2s+ and the drive to be seen as unique genders for separate privileged arrangements, undermining definitive sexes as biologically procreativity male or female has been caused by the decoding of the human genetic makeup that has thrown up the complexity of what makes a M or F with other none standard genetic variables. This blending is not a universal state; it may be that they are errors from a normal state or a natural hybrid within evolutionary development but as so few of them are viable to propagate forwards; the binary arrangement has so far offered the best survival state for Homo sapiens as Male and Female.

Even though there is still a long way to go in understanding how the code is translated into shaping the humans form, the ability to chemically and surgically intervene after the form has been delivered has become problematically too fluid with intervention to cause a sex/gender change. No doubt there are people that at puberty (or earlier?) start to think themselves as different and challenge their sex/ gender role, to the extent that some may think they want to be male rather than female or vice-versa and be encouraged or self seek remediation and in doing so become fraught with unknown consequences or regret of choices made. Should the outcome of sex change not be as they desired, as has been the case with some young adopters of ‘choice transition’ promotion (a problem that has caused psychological upset due to insufficient pre-counselling etc) cannot account for the fixity drives of their own xx or xy which does not alter! Although the first ‘sex change’ reassignment surgery was attempted in 1931 in Germany with the removal of male genitalia to make a female, it was a high risk process at the time yet was followed up by other countries since (and still has managed risk today) and is seen now as a potential normalised attainment for those with M or F Dysphoria, DSD, demanding transition. (3)

For those that have had or seek to obtain a medical / surgery transition of gender, there is perhaps too little psychological investigation or genetic translation to fully appreciate the drive that influences people to take a dramatic choice, one that will affect their whole life. This lack of analysis on the causes and after effects and the apparent ease, at which assistance to transition is given, has resulted to some individual problems and raised the cases of detransitioners, those that have undergone some change process but seek to revert. This is aspect is avoided being examined, particularly by those that have aided young people in their quest for self discovery as in a different gender and do not fully take on board the consequences and role they have played. It is a very complex area to understand the psychology within those that want a different gender and although the number of people seeking transition is low, perhaps if cases rise incident of detransitioners will become of a greater issue.(4)

There is ongoing, a great deal of controversy over the whole issue of sex, gender, sex changing and demands for legal recognition with a push for new general noun adaptations to confine those used to identify disputed M or F terms. The debate of specific alternative gender recognition is largely unsupported by the majority of a population as it has also tended to ignore the specific and definitive places that separate male from females for cultural , practical, respect and safety reasons. There are very clear distinctions and abilities spread between the binary species that impact on every aspect of social life which pass unnoticed but for those individuals that rather see themselves as other than F or M or vice-versa and act accordingly to participate in ‘normal’ life in which adaptations to how society see them and operates has had to be made. Some will offer that such arrangements are a common sense approach in most public spaces but when such lassitude is forced to be extended to single sex spaces or particular role / activities, the prime elements that define natal sex still exist and changing the exterior or transition may not overrule the intrinsic nature. Also, bearing in mind that not everybody will act, with consideration, to others “personal private space” and it will be very difficult to guard against opportunistic gender transgression.

As medical science progresses and genetic engineering for the humans species becomes more adventurous it will be possible to change sex by pre gamete intervention, or post birth, or be entirely selective as to what sex/gender with attributes could be chosen or be chromosome dominate; however with nature throwing up its own selections thus far, there is no certainty that any interference in the human genome will go as planned. There may be currently a case for gender recognition related to LGBTQ and to find some way of the insertion of those choices into a binary world but in the main this does not alter the natal assigned sex gender at birth even if thereafter their life is lived in an adopted alternative gender life style. Sex reassignments via surgery and hormone treatments may offer the visibility of sex change but it cannot alter the genetics structure of the sex gained at gamete, for now. There is no real reason why the majority of a population, of clearly binary disposition, should be placed in any anxiety fuelled position, modifying their social behaviour and personal space to accommodate a minority afflicted with unsorted natal misalignment, dysphoria or later life style choice. To restate the positions; females known and identified with all the physical abilities of being female – vagina, vulva, womb and breast et al are female and no matter whether they thinks themselves male, does not and cannot change that fact (excluding positioning genetics) and males with the penis, testes, et al are not females even if they believe themselves females for the same physical and genetic reasons. Wishing to be one or the other does not change these facts and even if full physical transition is carried out, of all features, the original positioning genetics remain dominate.

Overall most (?) people in mature society have tended (one thinks) to become relaxed in the display of alternative gender choice but the attempted insertion into selective single sex spaces/activates like sport, prisons, changing spaces, toilet etc and being uncertain of the actual sex or power of genetic forces in how they function, (clearly there are still physiologically or psychologically difference) even after full physical reassignments, is open to some unknown difficulties. This is of particular concern to “females only” places that may be at risk from opportunistic gender swap faux male predators; this concern, being an issue, has been attacked by new gender specification seekers with organised and aggressive militant personalised assault onto those that highlight the complications of any open all doors policies.(5)

There is no doubt that the world is primarily a binary sex/gendered state however now defined and has been dominate for millions of years during which time small adaptations have occurred as in androgyny / intersex. This is not a general occurrence in Homo-sapiens (estimated at 3% of global population) and there is no true self-reproduction or sex change self-selection beyond the way they are born, until medical intervention. The most occurring form of true hermaphrodites is seen in invertebrates as a survival trait in stressed reproductive environments were there is reversible sex change fertilisation and in some animals there is the aspect of sex change by mimicking the external appearance of an alternative sex. For humans, survival of the species has depended on binary sexes and it continues to do so with the mixing of genetic material from M and F offering the mutations to bring out trial adaptations or as Darwin claimed in “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”: ‘a survival of the fittest’ to meet a range of ecological and disease challenges.

However all this binary genetics, gender swapping, sex assignment, confused sexuality, societal conditioning and attacks on ‘safe spaces’ may be about to change as intervention in the form of genetic alteration to life forms are already made swapping DNA /gametes structures as in ‘test-tube’ style and further to be ‘advanced’ by ‘In-vitro gametogenesis’ to design to order, what being to make (6)

With a potential for widespread global choice, should such base genetics alteration become ‘simple’ and countries with affluent population and political support seek to use sex modification to ‘enhance’ their humans stock by deciding what sexed offspring to have, what abilities to give them, or be cloned, or replicate or just have it available to “the great and the good” for a price; once this becomes, perhaps universally technically available and practiced, GodAllahTetragrammaton knows where the form, shape, qualities, gamete genders and attributes of human’s species will end up?

So, who cares about all of this, much is made of gender bending, sex rendering, specific gender recognition and the adoption of lawful recognition? All minor issue in a binary sex world that has any number of impending problems of greater importance, not least of which is the environmental switch, war and the fall out of superfluous overpopulation. Therefore refer to any other reference material of choice and pick a favourite impotent stance on the fuss of gender bending but in the meanwhile; In this age of heightened emotive sensitive’s and the obsequious deference being paid to anyone who is unfortunately given unexpected offense too, albeit oftentimes unwittingly due one’s own lack of understanding of the moral, sociological, cultural, religious, gender background, race etc, etc, of the sensitivities of a recipient or any whom take virulent objections with above issue; one would like to offer ones profuse apologies should anything in this article give such unintentional offence. This too any that has had the misfortune to read it and to those that may never read it; just in case. Anyway by the time any of this really matters, one will have gone home.

What is it to be human? Feb 2007

Misandry rising Feb 2017

Renot 163231045

(1) www.msdmanuals.co. – Genes and Chromosomes. (2) womansplaceuk.org – “Biological sex is not a spectrum” by Claire Graham. (3) wikipedia.dysporia (4) Reuters.com/investigations – youth in transition www.reuters.com/world/why-detransitioners-are-crucial-science-gender-care-2022-12-22/ (5) Times 2.4.2022; comment by Janice Turner “woman will never accept sports being rigged” (5) Times 2.4.2022: comment by Lucy Bannerman “How activist used veil of secrecy to rewrite biology” (5) www.jkrowling.com › j-k-ro. by J.K. Rowling. “reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues” (6) www.nature.com. Intellectual property and assisted reproductive technology but with in vitro gametogenesis.

Limitations of Civilisation?

Or Rise and Fall of them? It seems to be a truism that civilisation rise and fall and with this comment there are examples to which this idea can be attached to, as is often said when linked to the Roman Empire or others that are related to particular points in time. For example: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ancient India, Ancient China, Peru (Inca –Maya-Aztec etc) Greece and Persia. This is not an exhaustive list; however they are probably notable for the period and length of time in which they existed and impacted to leave lasting evidence of their existence and also they had what might be seen as a cohesive people with organised cultural presence. Into this mix could be added the Aboriginals of Australia as a civilisation; thought as the oldest, although there is little in the way of written text or physical artefacts, it is a claim supported on the basis of a DNA analysis and cultural time line. It is largely ignored for any founding influence into other civilisations. In being named as a civilisation, it is probably a nomination tag (one thinks) that is done for convenience, placing an accumulation of historical information attached to certain peoples within a territory set in a created period of time. It does seem (to one) that civilisation are amorphous and rolled up in the idea of a nation defined by a territorial integrity in which there may have been different people with diverse backgrounds / cultures but bound by some controlling influence and it is the controlling influences that depict the appellation of being a civilisation. However for the sake of understanding the path of where they came from and where they go it is convenient to think of them in a cohesive way and holding too the main physical evidence of their past existence.

One can assume that those architects of history have the hard evidence of past civilisation to place them as such but for the purpose of this spiel, in weak broad terms, the main attribute to be a civilisation might be that when they existed they where dominant enough to leave behind a convincing residue of their existence as artefacts, writings, or evidence of reshaping cultural practices morphing into a new milieu over centauries i.e. with an indisputable impact ‘on the ground’ and clear weight of presence perhaps linking to a new nation. However with such stretched temporal evidence, it is difficult to really know just what constituted their overall binding cultural norms, as a civilisation, which were in operation as cultural mores that formed and may be taken as the being the prime constitute that held such old civilisation structures together.

If one looks at what constitutes a civilisation and what is about it that is different from a nation, much of the identifiers are easily transposed to the other. E.g. defined territory, organisation, authority, laws, trade, codified language, writing, if obvious - dominate homogenous culture strength, notable artefact output, structures, evidence of applicable knowledge to their existence, cultural mores (tricky) and philosophical, scientific, technical etc progression. Throughout history, with the movement of people between large pockets of population (nations?) or continents it does seem likely that there will have been different ‘cultural aspects’ that will have been interspersed into or help form a definitive civilisation as above and although it is uncertain that such different cultural mores could be causes of a fall in a past civilisation, they do rise and fall. It does seem probable that past nascent civilisations did not know they were morphing into a known civilisation as named today, nor did they understand the means or impending duration of their demise. There are notable indicators that are assumed now to be causes of past civilisations collapse; crop failure, famine, water exhaustion, soil erosion, conflicts, war, environmental degradation and consequential natural calamities. Part or elements of all of these are taken as probable roots for failures and it is these external forces that assist a demise of past civilisations more effective than inserted culture differences, this perhaps due to its low, narrow and limited ability to have impact.

With the use of historical archaeological and anthropology data that has been gathered, it does strongly indicate the prime reason civilisations fail are unwittingly self inflicted, unsustainable ecosystems abuse and external forces. In the main they were ignorant of their means of continued survival. They did not have expansive natural knowledge, substantiation, chronological data or the technical means to interpret, analyse, test or have recourse to recordable means for sharing forward any knowledge they gain as to the changes that afflict them; with this, it all presented little opportunity to develop mitigating forces. In the main it may be that all past civilisations existed on the basis of the essential consumption of available existing resources for everyday civil subsistence, therefore primarily unable to ‘plan’ ahead or at the time see no need to.

Looking at the past falls of civilisations, they have been used as an indicator to the think where current civilisation(s) may trip up. There are plenary of opinions (see wiki) and some “forecast”, one being "How likely is the collapse of society? (1). Scientists in the 1970s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology predicted the fall of society. “Using the LtG model, the fall of society will take place around 2040; The 2100s will be comparable to the 1900s in terms of the world's population, industrial output, food and resources” (they claimed) (1). There are other suggestions of causes built largely on the premise of overextended populations, eco degradations, complexity of conflicts with population exodus etc that are also thrown in the causes range as listed above. (2) These entire probabilities look at the material structures that form ‘society’ and the range of potential external forces, which can also incorporate whatever comprises identifiable forms of culture as may be existent, to a form an identifiable nation. As there are many nations (193 formally recognised by UN) it has to be debateable that any of them standing alone can be given as a notable civilisation, it is though with caricaturist latitude possible to offer that there are some that may be thought of as being distinct in geographical, global presence/impact or apparent sturdy cultural nature to be named as civilisations. So if one can classify such, is there, or are there civilisations today which can be facing limitation possibilities or be severely at risk to their continuance? (3)

Taking a global view one might argue that the whole world is a civilisation, as a human race. Because of the location and spread of saps within it there are numbers of them that exist with distinct differences even though there is an interconnection between them all and there is disparity in how they present in groups. With this disparity it makes it very difficult to pin down the prescient fall of a civilisation(s) or (within restraint) fixing limitation of growth, particularly when trying (for the sake of this spiel) to untangle the importance of society/culture and its relationship to the definitions of these foundation ideas (as above) to a unique civilisation(s).

Perhaps to gain a base name for a civilisation(s), or some nomenclature, one might unfold some of the traits that fall into a society/culture first, such as:- A ‘culture’ can be defined as a body of shared actions and predominate things like a general way of life that involves: language, art, dress, manners, rituals, social beliefs/ forms, attitudes, organisations, knowledge integration to pass on such accumulated knowledge to subsequent generations, forethought investment and unity for the greater good. All this is of course is dependent on whether it, culture, is looked at from evidence offered from the inside and by whoever is being immersed in it to record / interpretive and therefore participating in it to make some assessment of its binding culture; or from existing outside and with incomplete evidence and not having a biased/ prejudicial stance to form a compounded view that makes an argument for a definite identifiable understandable culture. In general there are usually obvious setting entanglement that should show up which can enable a unifying culture to be stated as operational in the form of a civilised structure and hence with clear coordinated complexity gaining being known as a civilisation(s).

Of course there can be unscripted attributes that can have a profound effect on defining a culture but overall using this inventory may give an indication to the naming of a modern civilisation(s). It is known that civilisations rise and fall but it is, in historical terms, a transitory process that throws out influences that move too or shape the rise of another. It is assumed from this that none of the past civilisations have been totally eradicated even though finding evidence of their archaeological historic place and uniqueness has taken time and study of the residue evidence. Assuming that the world is taken as a homogenous Homo sapiens culture despite pronounced differences and taking it as a whole civilisation, there has never been a period when it faced terminal limits (over some 12K years) to its progress or extinction; it has managed to reshape itself via different civilisations to move on. In doing this, it has had expandable space for relocations, resources, slow growth population and applied knowledge for development reaching the existing global state. Although there are global challenges (no need to list them) there is little to indicate a fall of this civilisation but it does face limitation to augmentation and will have to adapt. This does not really cover the naissance proposition within this spiel; the probable limitation to nomenclature civilisations rises and fall.

Creating as an enveloping classification and trying to establish the base for naming civilisations of today and for the sake of simplistic territorial presence, one might offer the following as potential civilisations due to them having sturdy cultural defences; not in a preferred order: - Chinese, America, Russian, British/English, African, Eurasia, Canadian, South American, Australian, Persian, Indian and Middle Eastern combined; might all be categorised as civilisations. There may be a cause to also include the European Union, as a ‘newish’ inter-trading block of nation's but it is not a singular constructed 'civilisation' yet individually or as a body it may demonstrate comparable problems as nomenclature ones; perhaps more so, as it does not have solid political, administrative, democratic or singularity cultural social cohesion.

The causes of civilisations and their rise to achieve this given status are complex and serve little purpose to analyse independently their historical progression to today. They all exist, in an interdependent state of flux, with a range of specific strengths and weaknesses, any element of which could be the catalyst for their longer continuance of their ultimate demise. The known and unknown threats will, it is assumed, be causes on a global level to force change on them all of varying degrees and dependent on the availability or acquisition of resources from whatever sources, may offer a means to ride out potential disappearance; if they are free, willing and able to adapt for change. This of course is excluding a ‘global war’ or a cataclysmic ELE.

Although it is near impossible for those immersed in a civilization to know specific points at which its demise starts, is may be possible to assess when looking at its administrative directions, stresses and culture whether it is in a state of progression, stability or declination over say 100 years and if within this period any attention of risk known to its survival were noted or being attended to. For those exiting today there will have been changes to their structures by way of territorial influences, administrative power and assets/resources use but the primary attributes of the culture of a population will not have dramatically shifted not to note that it, as a civilisation, it still exist. A cursory look at the collapse or decline of past civilisation cultures does have indication of the 'reasons' why they failed, after what it seems to have been built upon a developed foundation, at least as archaeological historians would have it, the reasons fall loosely into environment or conflicts however there is little broad evidence from written contemporary proofs that the knowledge of decline was understood by the majority of a population of their unfolding predicament. They were forced to react to circumstances and to absorb adaptations often losing their integrated presence as a civilisation but carrying some knowledge forward.

So far as offering propositions for the limitation to such civilisations continuance today, what might cause civilisations / cultures to collapse or lead to what might be thought of as a distinct change to its civil structural presence? Well one might offer, having said leaving out the probable global influences, that there are three factors that link them together but singularly with a seismic contraction could be the undoing of any one of them. It would be superfluous to elaborate the reason behind the suggested dangers for it must seem clear how already they are putting pressures on the continuance of civilisations ‘business as usual’. The issues are: - Markets, Economics and Trade. There is ample evidence to indicate that civilisation just do not constructively roll up into another form without the imposition of external forces but there is also within civilisations potential influences that offer a willing means to pre-empt or work with the external forces to adjust to necessary changes against the inertia of enforced stability. Of their own these forces may not be seen as principle factors that lead to a collapse but the power of them can tear a culture apart generating grounds for terminal decline.

It may be a somewhat hypothetical to suggest the following (with the three factors above) as potential issues that will have draining power to the continuance of civilisations, for it seems prosperous that the idea of a civilisation can collapse given their current strengths of presence. However taking a long view pushing into the next century, major changes will occur and be preceded by schisms in a cultures civilisation, some of it occurring right now. So with flight of imagination the first thing to discern as precursors to collapse is to observe strains within the culture of a civilisation, the diversionary and stress fractures that seem not to be attended to and consider the applied differentials in the use of influencing forces within a culture to maintain privilege status. Also probably take into account where there is no widely held majority optimistic future view or where there is a distinct split or separation of cohesion / use of influential power systems e.g. as in the views held by say a political party such as the difference in the views taken by republicans/democrats, conservatives/ labour, extremism right or left or oppressive dictatorial rule and none of which can count on unity of support. Other indicators are the deviousness of minority observable rich vs. majority disfranchised poor with the noticeable disparity in the dispersal of assets resource. Has there been or is the commonweal improving or not? Is there a broad aspirational desire and confidence for some form of ‘betterment’ for all? In reality does authorities control insure that such commonweal desire, although verbally proffered by authorities, is not going to allow structural changes that will release the prevalent controls to the detriment vested interest? Is there is in effect a wishful aspirational cultural sense which is held in an anomie / anomic structural rigidity, that must be broken before seismic change occurs? Is there regression from the best period of its civilisation cultural social structures and are there indication of slow cultural implosion of accepted ideals, disengagement from morality norms and more poplar dissent? Are there special pleadings by a disconnected contingent or minority for injecting disingenuous idiotic (?) influence onto the norms of the majority? Are there signs of an increasing lack of trust in popular authorities’ use of powers? Are such authorities willing and seeking expanding use of created laws for control of its (some dissenting?) population and pursuing the limitation of information dissemination and creating mendacious narratives?

In most cases of nomenclature civilizations, it can be clear that there are major differentials in the construction of authorities power and use (executive, legislative, representative, dictatorships) though with each there will be a shading of operational attitudes held individually but associated to and held in the prominent cohort, yet this undercurrent of alternative view will not be having any impact on the presentation of the powers used and played out; such as demonstrated in a tensional democracy or elective dictatorship. It generally takes unconstructed paradigm forces to shift the rigidity in a power base that does not accept the requisition for the transformation of its controlling influence, particularly when the evidence of its applied separation powers are divorced from the reality of evident civil /social disinvestment motioning the erosion of the civilisation structures; i.e. ‘things’ clearly get worse rather than better.

There is much print being expressed on the likely limitations of civilisation or collapse, most of it concentrates on the external material limitations or the acquisition, use of resources or “sustainability”. Articles play out on the putative reasons of why, how, when, etc civilisation rise, develop, decline, change or fall but it is possible that so far as the current era is playing out everyone alive today, mostly live in the moment and do not give much attention to “How it all ends”, (if it does). Some of persuasions have the time and luxury to be aware and intend rigorously waving the red flags to spark the anxiety levels to make those less inclined to be concerned perhaps look at just what is at risk by apathetic ignorance. However the external limitations make themselves present, as surly they must over the next 2 decades with just three curbing factors: energy, combination of ecological population pressures and unattended civil stress will slowly force change. Whether that change is managed with the knowledge and organisational ability of the transformation required, or it sweeps over civilisations, is in tension now. Probably in localised limited way it is about within a few nomenclatures of the worlds grasp to act but it appears that as no civilisation of the past has avoided eventual cataclysmic destruction (external or self inflicted e.g. war?) some civilisation will eventually be consigned to history. (Perhaps like the continuing fragile concept of GB, EU or USA?)

Are the above proposition for identifying potential collapse to a civilisation anywhere near exemplary ‘reasons’ to really suppose there are limits to the growth of civilisations and their continuance? There are very strong indicators of confidence to offer that although there has been and are hindrances to expansion and stability, saps “ingenuity” general happenstance, “inventiveness” etc and survival instincts has performed so far, although the incidental tendencies for self destruction has often compelled and assisted in the removal of barriers to force in changed realities.

Is anything in the above pointing to exemplary reasons for the limitations of civilisations? The past gives some imperfect indicators but has little to say about the implication of the internal social dynamics and the determining ‘attitudes’ of the majority. Their rise may have been via subtle flexible opportunism to the times and no planned design on building a civilisation; they came and went passing limited information into the future. Their failure, might be verbally compressed by, ignorance of their dependency state of existence and external forces. Compared to civilization today and looking at the past 200 years short history of the current civilisations, it is plain to see that a majority of them started from a point where the powers they controlled; productive, economically, trading and perhaps geopolitical position allowed them to develop, make future investment, exploit for (loosely or incidentally) the internal common good. All operating by discriminatory self interest and applied command and control to meet economic desires at the expense of any ‘not of them’. It might be coincidental that the most successful progressed under something like a disputable democratic mandate however it is not impossible for a civilisation to move in the same progressive way via ‘benevolent dictatorship, forms of autocracy or gamed corruption /criminality; in which case they are more susceptible to rapid internal degradation, unsuccessful in holding off external influences and hence not show signs of progression to meet internal generational attitudes deemed incompatible to “stability”.

Today there are scientific proofs to know that change is taking place which will continue to inflict the world. There is the means to accurately record and disseminate such proofs. There are steps that can be taken, if chosen, to make some mitigating impact. The accumulated knowledge can be passed through to the new generations and despite all the obliviousness to challenges now known, it seems sure a civilisation will continue and the future form it may take might be manageable. However there are some other precursor weaknesses that indicate disquiet in the ability to peacefully manage change. There are those nomenclatures that are too integrated in the application and use of essential resources that are often positioned in other civilisations that have to be fractiously negotiated with (trade). There is a high dependency on external productivity and a distinct lack of durable self sufficiency in the event of terminating stress. In the case of massive disruption there is not the ability to relocated huge population shifts. Most civilisations have high dependence on energy generation via limit sources. All have electronic means of recording and transmitting information; in event of a cataclysmic impact on any one civilisation the certainty that such (electronically held) information is durable, to be held over time and available to a succeeding nascent civilisations must be in doubt. Some of it will be lost as there is no global information resource holding facility; each civilisation holds its own. In the event of a long term power outage, some things will be lost. All have a range sophisticated assets structures, civil utilities and intellectual knowledge specialism that could be generational sensitive to loss unless future-proofing investment in unabridged factual instruction of what is known to be true in the sciences is maintained. In saying this, what is a new modern twist to the nature of civil cultures in developed nomenclatures, is a creeping irrationality, the ability to infect onto elements of a population a perversion of truth/factual information to submerge reality and viciousness at any contradictory opposition to it with provable veracity. To some extent this is driven by the sharp contrasting opening divisions in the way administrative authority is evidenced in political and civil policy, managing the direction of the progression (?) of a civilisation. Attached to this is the distorting rise of influencing power by Twitterata, QAnon, Facebook, Reddit, etc with an extraordinary ability for pervasion of provable facets in the sciences. For impressionable youth that generally do not undertake discrimination research into media source output, erroneous information takes on a realism of its own to infect an element of a generation that could have an impact on the way civilisation fails amalgamating with the other internal and external influences.

One has to bear in mind that certain civilisations (and people) of the past 200 years have developed in ‘fortuitous times of expansion’ many people of which have lived in a privileged time of the last 100 years largely untroubled from ‘want’ and some now having nothing better to be worried about other than to be assisted by concerns of a psychosis of physical Dysphoria.

It will be said that one has taken extensive liberties with looking at the probable limitation to civilisation continuance, perhaps overly negative however does it do to ignore the range of destructive elements that are in action now impacting some prime civilisation and already showing that room for independent manoeuvre to counter the stresses being afflicted on them, are dependent on own resource strengths which are limited. One can be certain that change is occurring, pressures are increasing and the ability to develop out of decline independently is inadequate without the use of willing interconnected civilisations. It may seem improbable that any civilisation of the modern era can fail completely, no doubt they have to adapt and adjust to change given time but the key foundations upon which they rest are corrosively progressive with a shortening opportunity phase. Currently from one perspective it is more likely that a modern sophisticated civilisation can implode and fail by its own hand. They rot from the inside by the obstinate apathetic avoidance of the weaknesses and divisions their administrative forces create themselves, infecting their social structures. Look for the underbelly of any civilisation and there may be ‘stuff’ that is no longer working, (that should) ‘stuff’ is deteriorated, unrepaired/replaced) there is less social optimistic futurism, less commonweal investment, less holist social progression, further extension of civil constraining ‘laws’ and more of a population have less opportunity or sustenance and see a greater division of resourcefulness is being transferred to a minority cadre. Is it any wonder a population then seek change, of any kind, to breakout?

The rise and fall of past civilisations may have been incidental to national holdings, those of the past probably did not know they were creating one and could not foresee their fall. Elements of that still applies today but one thinks there are differences; today there is the ability to create a sustainable civilisation (some nations will never develop an aspiring one) and there is the easy allowed capacities to eradicate one. Do saps now, compared to past, have any greater application of intelligence to decide which?

Well is any of this important? Probably not, things are as they are until they are not and by the time it is, one will have gone home; with some features of civilisation: marmalade, marmite and dark chocolate.

© Renot 2512221533.

(1) https://thehill.com › climate-change

(2) https://www.bbc.com/future/article. BBC Future, are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse

(3) https://www.resilience.org. Resilience.org stories Four Reasons Civilization Won't Decline: It Will Collapse

How to save the world from 2020

How to save the world from 2020

Or on saving, earth, why?

Well this is a pretentious opening postulation ploy, used just to get a weak phrase foundation for placing some erratically structured topics to thinking about the idea of how to save The World; a popular subject matter just now with narrow eclectic proponents steeped with environmental issue. One has no idea if the world really is, of its self, in danger, or from what that it is in a need to be saved. No idea if it needs saving from the eventual entropy of time, no idea which composite ‘world’ or parts of it are to be or can be saved and one has absolutely no ability to influence any actions one way or the other. But it can be certain that the world does not care about the induction of perils to its existence or the outcome. It has been extant pre saps, who have demonstrate a range of irrational discordant self obsessed importance to seem unaware of their own irrelevance that in their demise the world will still be extant after they are gone, perhaps?

Ostentatious question perhaps attached to a subject title but one that has to be thought more in hope than expectation given that so far humans have displayed remarkable little serious intent in doing any long term planning to effect a change in the destructive direction it has seemed bent on progressing. This neglect may be excused by the ignorance of detrimental resource exploitation over centuries however latterly there has been recognition that something must be done to save it and therein the life on it. On this basis one aspect being tackled is the crisis of co2 raising air and sea temperatures so speeding up climatic changes. These changes are shown in considerable climate geological research (disputed by many for decades) but that now is shown to be real and steps devised to limit ‘greenhouse gases’ and the reduce reliance on carbon based fuels. In limited affluent countries there is the dash for variety of cleaner energy production for the electrification of motorised transport and the eventual replacement of all oil/gas power.

Given that the world owes nothing to saps and can hardly be appreciative for saps custodianship, the importance of saving the world only matters in so far as saps can continue to exist to prolong the roads perhaps to their own extinction perhaps and until that time there are lots of thing to worry about, so let one opine.

And kicking off, not that this is a world worry but it does give a pointer to how easy the best laid plans of mice can be of a consuming moment and threaten ones nest but still not have terminal importance on others. So far as the Europeanised west is concerned the big play just now is what Russia is doing onto Ukraine since 24.2.22, with their “special operation”, or as pre-empted in the 2014 Russian (west unopposed) Crimea peninsula take-over. All destructive acts since then are now influencing practically everything in the western hemisphere. As a “special operation” that has for 9 months been inflicting destruction onto cities of that country in an attempt to redraw the European political map of controlling influence: it had and still has ongoing considerably much wider and potential greater danger to European peace and economic stability. This simply expressed “special operation” driven by a messianic psychosis of one man locked into his created and to some extent its country’s historic fervour, has become a clear demonstration that being a super power without ingrained widespread economic and socially ‘owned’ cohesion of resources and application, shows little more than the hard rind of a piece of rotten cheese. What one sees is not all what one gets when an overview portrays a physically powerful veneer, underneath can exist a less stable content that has a different complexity to containing the outwards shell made obvious by the misunderstanding and limits of supposed super power status expressed by the failure of Russian forces to succeed with its “special operation” against Ukraine by so far killing and trying to expunge the population of that country that holds far less military capability but has considerable social unity ‘rights’ to defend, hold back and humiliate the aggression of Putin to the embarrassing surprise of many countries.

For the Ukrainians and the west this is war by any disingenuous name, albeit for now it is for European countries, by various means, an economically leverage one shaped in the effects on energy, food, sanctions, cyber technology and hardware support in the hope that such financial and weapons supply cost, provided by the west, will eventually disable Russia aggression. It is counter actions that is built on hope, to avoid an actual destructive European conflict but it is a response, one thinks, that is wrapped in the misunderstanding of the inculcated psyche of the Russian controlling administration and that of a large portion of the population which is and has become so wholly inimical to the ‘west’ with decades of Russian media indoctrination control. Measured incremental responses by the west might only work with a ‘rational actor’; there is little rationality demonstrated thus far with the pursuit of an unwarranted invasion of a peaceful unthreatening country; so how bad will Russia’s dysfunctional mindset fall? There appears to be no sign of Russian withdrawal, no face saving outlet and no acceptable legitimacy for what he is doing and also unlikely to be any retrenchment failing an internal Kremlin administrative reconstruction. Thus far the west has been strategically retrained; responding only to Putin’s escalating assaultive acts after the event, aggressive acts that he may continue with to provoke a degradation of western support for Ukraine. It is unimaginable that Ukraine can cede any territory to Putin’s violence and the west would be unconceivable foolish to give up their support for an independent Ukraine by becoming quisling weak for Russia. Therefore how long can it be before direct defensive action by Europeans is forced to the fore, short of MAD?

The actuality for the west is that it now has to face up to a rogue state on the mainland continent of Europe, with uncertainty of actions by that state which is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. Into this mix, Europe also has to be unsure which countries want to bat with it to counteract dangerous and offensive activities this state is likely to continue to pursue, to triumph. Some European Union countries are being stressed already by the uncertainty of duration and outcomes with a few potentially actually demonstrating inimical attitudes to the hard won democratic ideals upon which principles the EU was built, countries such as Hungary, Poland, Cyprus with suppressing laws and stem free media, others must be suspect with being or holding facilitators to Russian influence. This is ignoring the larger northern hemisphere countries that have shown great reluctance to be critical of Russia: Turkey, India, Pakistan or China etc, this means there is no global consensus to be convincingly robust for forcing Russia to cease actions yet.

The danger then is can an expansive conflict be avoided? Perhaps this time, by draining the economic power and the persecuted illusion of the Russian people shaped by its own malevolence, just, but not for long. Dictatorship, Autocracies, Democracies etc that do not encompass; open, willing, unified, popular participation in a countries direction, do, once compulsory control is practiced, eventually fail. Countries unable to respond to internal or external social changes seek diversionary escape behaviour. As with the four countries above there are many smaller countries that are in a rapidly deconstruction state but are not of themselves able to generate a global conflict as might be the case with China, Russia, USA, UK and Israel and of course to charge forward with any defensive/offensive war requires oil! Therefore there is not the slightest chance of foregoing oil use for generations to come; it will always be a carbon pump. And will the world care about it being saved after a huge all environs damage done to it by just even a ‘small global’ war? Not in the slightest.

If the above might be a passing worry and has little in contribution to saving the world, the same may have initially been said about this issue. Environmentally there is now enough actual and empirical evidence that shows there is to be at some state a tripping point in the world’s eco system. How this will affect all the global parasites is so far wrapped up in the euphemisms of ‘global warming’, ‘green house effects’, and a wish for ‘net zero’ which is giving rise to seasonal changes, shifting weather patterns, potential sea level rise; food production, coastal and ecology losses etc. It had seemed to be problems that were to be placed in the imprecise future but at a safe generational distance away so that although some limited defences can be set up under the various ‘sustainability’ banners; the high profile worry of Co2 / methane increase will, it is assumed, be slow and ‘manageable’ with corrective moves from prime carbon uses, oil/gas/coal. Although overtime there will be social /civil disruption in those areas affected disastrously by sea level rise and climate disturbance, many areas will, it was assumed, cope with the impacts, having the resources to buy accustomed time.

However in Feb 2022 the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) produced its final report on its assessment of Climate Change. A major piece of study taken over past years and it posits a number of interesting arguments to indicate the anthropological injury placed on the world and the resulting environmental dangers that will follow. “Beyond 2040 and depending on the level global warming, climate change will lead to numerous risk to natural and human systems”. “If global warming transiently exceeds 1.5’c in the coming decade or later (overshoot) then many human and natural system will face additional severe risk”. (1)

To appreciate the whole sense of the report and the work that has gone into it, does not, from the quotes and words ones has underline for stress, really cover just what the IPCC has found and the implicit warnings it states. Thus far the activity by humans is insufficient to stop catastrophic changes for humans to deal with and much more must be done within this decade to mitigate the calamitous nations shattering events to be caused by environmental disasters to follow. This report is, one would think, bringing to a close the wishful thinking of nature just doing ‘its thing’, “climatic change has happened all the time”, “it’s a regular epoch occurrence”, “humans have had little to no impact” and everything will ‘just’ carry on. In any event ‘future’ humans will have to deal with it, but not those here now. However as the deniability view is resistant to evidence, resting on ‘change happens all the time’, is it a safe stance to hold if there is a vested interest in a safe and peaceful future family continuance?

Though the whole reports are stark in reading and land with a resounding thump on the desks of governments around the world. People have many more impotent things to contend with; currently being safe from conflict, intimidation, having a home, a job, how to fund the increasing cost of food, energy and acquire fresh water. Against this news, is it really likely that the financial and habitual cost in the steps needed to be taken and inflicted onto a population to meet the Co2 target reduction, be uppermost in peoples’ minds? And will the world care about what the IPCC says about attempts being made to ‘save it’ from the environs damage being inflicted on it by undertaking a corrective ‘anthropological’ environmental crusade? Will it care about it being saved by just going ‘green’, limiting population growth (most improbable) or avoiding a damaging war? Not in the slightest.

If there is a penultimate global issue, it is, as is being slowly expanded into the consciousness of a growing concerned world population; how to save the world from dramatic environmental unpleasant change. That there will be modifications which will impact the human biosphere, is already evident but the finality of it is unknown; or how fast it will occur and to what expansive level. However there are sufficient extrapolated facets of scenarios that suggest within 100 years environ and geopolitical forces will be devastating (conflicts, war, stressed migrations and deaths) on assets of the humans holding and there will be a continuation of secreted extinction dangers within the whole biosphere. That a constituent of saps, in closed bubble-like areas will survive is most likely and at a high exigency cost but in this is perhaps the contextual eventual questions hidden. Questions that could be asked; do they (saps) as a species deserve to survive long term and for what purpose is that survival when measured against the life of the whole biosphere? Which is the more essential of those relative questions is to be predominant? Saps have flinching choices but does the world have a choice? Not in the slightest.

Being in existence and aware of self existence has and may continue give saps sole justification for its force for continual survival. Saps are the dominant species, they have agency and there is nothing to challenge their right to exist. This may be too simplistic a resolution to the idea of ‘deserving’ to live and might only propose an eventual terminal point at some distant time. By being aware of self existence and its own dependency on the nature of the biosphere imposes responsibilities which cannot be subservient to continued primary existence. Should the definitive purpose be to save the whole eco system and the life it supports, or should everything be subordinate to the survival of the human race? Without cognisant, one without the other might have no existence; does the world know, does it care, probably not in the slightest?

As one species has dominance now and can to some extent dictate the direction of environmental disintegration or not and assuming it recognises its putative superior role sufficient to want to affect an outcome, then it must do so for its own requirements. In this it might be assumed that it (saps) sees the eco systems having greater value than its own existence and knows the dependency it has on it however if this is not the case then it has to give way to something else for saving earth. The solution to this duplicitous conundrum is of course the dramatic reduction or eradication of the superior contaminating infestation. The world problem, are the problems of environmental degradation which are regionally and culturally endemic with the immediate impacts being suffered by the less resourced and they may not have the incentive to adapt administratively or culturally and look to others “who caused the problems” to initiate a reparation fix. Does the world care “who caused the problem” or where it lands a reckoning? Not at all!

It is no wonder that there is an apparent lack of drive to take seriously the challenge to save the world, is evident in the dysfunctional stages of the global economics and environment use for it relies on the huge disparity of resources location, acquisition, dispersal, consumption, population density, growth and ultimately protection of its acquired localised status which is more important to an ingenious population than considering the plight of ‘strangers’ elsewhere.

Up to now their collective unperturbed view taken of the earth, is predicated on the fact that there is a sufferable large degree of disconnect in and between the social infrastructure of countries and the relationship between each country to the other. In addition, it is the ability of market forces to take advantage of the difference between the resource rich, resource poor, powerful and power weak countries. The global administrative relationship between all is not of sufficiently strong or robust nature to react fast enough or at all to the versatility of the global market drivers and this has caused the current tensions in world trade and within local economic conditions. This is exposing many countries to the over extension of their financial foundation and consumable resources and their strategic dependence is the ultimate reliance on such consumables to the detriment of survivable self-sufficiency. This inevitable means that energy from whatever source, as currently used in oil/gas/coal, has to be ubiquitous but reliably interdependently controlled. It cannot be reliant on the external untrustworthy powers or the bought good will of strangers.

So far the prime source of near all consumptive energy is based on carbon with Co2 emissions its downfall. On this energy source the global economy depends and on that the influential powers of nations is primary therefore difficult to moderate. There is no doubt that the raw carbon energy material will eventually run out at current consumption. It is a matter of conjecture just how long this takes but a timing guess would be dependent on the global population growth increasing without curtailment, the sequestration by force of some material essentials and rate of consumption to alternative energy transition. Together with the foreseeable environmental degradation impacting transition decisions; perhaps 1 to 2 hundred years (?) for complete dependency removal. Leading up to and during such transition will be fought with considerable resistance, financial power play, mayhem, conflict, destruction and large scale deaths. Would the world be concerned about all humanities chaos? Not in the least.

There is good intent displayed by most nations to take steps to reduce the impacts of anthropologic climate change focusing on Co2 rise, if they can afford to implement changes and or by doing so it does not weaken their power positions. It is evident that this is a competition of vulnerability positions being played out now by affluent power blocks between themselves and with many island coastal nations that do not have the resources to engage in a dramatic shift to ‘green’ energy. They want the larger polluter nations to cough up ‘compensating’ cash to fund a transition. Some nations do not want to wipe-out their sources of income and power (coal, gas, oil,) and others consider the economic cost of a total green transition plus the uncertainty of future defensive abilities without the use of carbon fuels. All the discussions around the adoption of ‘green’ energy is indivisible from the economic muscle economies have gained to develop a high level of dependency affluence, built on the predecessor force of strength used by those few nations of current supremacy.

Such amassed strength is used to define for themselves global market activities to their own advantage. Their need in this dependency position has been reliant on the availability of a loose stability of an economical energy source and there are stressful reasons why this availability is maintained for continuous growth. It does show though that the rapid increased cost of all energy dependent production outputs, due to war disruption, causes massive financial exposure and undermines the drive to fund a rapid shift in greener energy sources. Producers and traders of carbon fuels are unlikely to willingly assist any transition, they will continue to operate via “Supply and Demand” through exploitation of the “market”, it being the arbiter of transactions and this is considered a fair representative game in which each party is supposed to be able to negotiates a beneficial position, one unavailable to small under resourced, under developed countries. From these positions comes the difficulty of gaining a globally unified active arrangement which offers a rapid energy transition outturn within a decade. Within this situation, apart from a few forced occasions, it, the market, has had no desire to be curtailed by governmental regulation, infringing its ability to trade anyway it can with the free movement of money and it will do so disregarding any consequential cost of residual environmental devastation. Maintained affluence will overrule taxing generosity. ‘The rich are always with us and the poor, wherever they are, must pay to help them out’

One thinks (pessimistically) that it is unlikely that a reduction in ‘green house gases’ will be achieved within the called for window of action, therefore if the environment effects unfold as intimated by COP22 report, the populations of the world are heading for a very sorry state. Perhaps that ruin is what is required to move populace to a more sustainably state of existence built on all forms of greener energy – solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear, fusion(?), q/energy(?), but even if an energy sustainable position is reached it will still not save the world. Human population will (thus far standing at 8bln) continue to multiply and devour the world’s resources to an entropic state holding onto the social, cultural, and power economic divisiveness. Would the world be concerned for humanities eventual disappearance when it happens? Not in the slightest.

Is there any usable conclusion from all this chat about the environment dangers to the whole bio sphere and pressures caused by human activities? One might suppose that if it is wholly excepted that the evidence of ‘green house danger’ is conclusive and climatic events move as anticipated, at some future generation time there will be the question raised ‘why was not more done in the 21st century to save the 22nd’? To which one might say, the populations of the world were not altruistic enough, busy securing economic skins, unwilling to cede power positions and were not frightened enough to look at the definitive underlying cause of climatic alterations and adjust. Without collectively available clean energy, net zero pollution (green house gases etc) and procreation limitation, it seems unlikely that the earth is to be saved by saps but there is scared reserved optimism it might save itself.

(1) IPCC Sixth assessment report: Impacts Adaptations and Vulnerability. The IPCC have recently intimated, in 2022, taking into account what restraint is happening now to reduce carbon use, this target is unlikely to be achieved within this 2020 decade and will be exceeded; Co2 (and methane) is getting higher and rising faster pushing changes that are unstoppable!

© Renot

1511221633