Loading Notifications...

Is Global Planning good for us ?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 LeeWood 20 Jun 2020

Anyone here work for global planning ?

How many of us are aware of global planning - where does it come from, who are the key players, how is information disseminated, and what are the pressures are for nations to accept ??

The United Nations seems to be a key player, as does the OECD. What is the UK's part in this ? The UK has brexited but if it is still part of some global scheme how does this impact us - is it democratic ? How do these schemes feed into the 'new normal' ?

Agenda 2030 & Sustainable Development Goals - SDGs:

'The 17 Global Goals for Sustainable Development (the Goals) will shape the world’s approach to growth and sustainable development until 2030.' 

(many web references)

MEGA trends: natural resources, demographics, economy etc handy infographics in this OECD pdf -

https://www.oecd.org/sti/Megatrends%20affecting%20science,%20technology%20and%20innovation.pdf

ID2020: Digital Identity systems - may be used to record vaccine history - but could eventually be an element of cashless trading

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/immunity-certificates-if-we-must-have-them-we-must-do-it-right--id2020-alliance-releases-white-paper-301044459.html

10
In reply to LeeWood:

What??

 SteveX 20 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

In English please.

 seankenny 20 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

You do realise the SDGs are mainly for the development of poor countries? They're the follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals which was a 15 year plan to reduce hunger, poverty, maternal mortality, etc.

In reply to SteveX:

> In English please.

I think it is something to do with lizards!

 Doug 21 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I don't work on 'global planning' but was aware of all but the last of your points. Would you rather there was no international cooperation ?

In reply to Doug:

> I don't work on 'global planning'  ?

Wondering if this is about marketing of footballs?

 LeeWood 21 Jun 2020
In reply to Doug:

> I don't work on 'global planning' but was aware of all but the last of your points. Would you rather there was no international cooperation ?

We need to be aware of global influence wherever it comes from. Many themes are currently diffusing from these sources to steer the UK's destiny. It's not just the UK either.

> I think it is something to do with lizards!

And no - whats happening is blatant on-the-table discussion in progress.

 ClimberEd 21 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

It's not really like a local planning development plan though where someone might build a housing estate next to your field, is it?! i.e something concrete

It's a bunch of wishy washy high level 'goals' that are broadly 'help the poorest/neediest in the world be less poor/needy' create by organisations such as the UN which has less teeth than a newborn baby. Hardly objectionable. 

Nothing to get any knickers in a twist over.

1
 seankenny 21 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Can you explain how countries working together to, say, eradicate extreme poverty is “steering the UK’s destiny”?
 

The tone of your post is very suspicious. It sounds like you have only just discovered this stuff and don’t really understand it, which is fair enough. But not everything is a global plot to remove democracy.

In reply to LeeWood:

> We need to be aware of global influence wherever it comes from. Many themes are currently diffusing from these sources to steer the UK's destiny. It's not just the UK either.

What are you asking?We have been a UN key member since it's foundation in 1945. Ditto OECD. This their is hardly a revelation. Read their websites or any newspaper website to see what they do and how it's organised

In reply to LeeWood:

> We need to be aware of global influence wherever it comes from. Many themes are currently diffusing from these sources to steer the UK's destiny.

Do a one year MA in international relations and you'll get the hang of how ineffectual the UN and the OECD is in shaping the "destiny" of states! You've been reading more weird conspiracy theory websites again haven't you? Is it still all Bill Gates behind it?

​​​​

 LeeWood 21 Jun 2020
In reply to TobyA:

>  Is it still all Bill Gates behind it?

I had no intention to bring up BG again but since you have - it is worth noting he has strong role in steering all of the H8 (health 8) - namely WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, BMGF, UNAIDS, UNPFA, 'World Bank', 'Global Fund'

9
 LeeWood 21 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> What are you asking?

What I'm asking is to know your opinions. Mine are partially formed and you can help me to better understand

6
 seankenny 21 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> >  Is it still all Bill Gates behind it?

> I had no intention to bring up BG again but since you have - it is worth noting he has strong role in steering all of the H8 (health 8) - namely WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, BMGF, UNAIDS, UNPFA, 'World Bank', 'Global Fund'


He must be a very busy man.

In reply to LeeWood:

> What I'm asking is to know your opinions. Mine are partially formed and you can help me to better understand

Well my view is that there are some problems so big only a global approach is sufficient. Climate change, many aspects of health, peacekeeping etc. Therefore we need bodies like the UN which do an excellent job despite limited resources and very difficult politics, including attempts from many angles to undermine them.

 LeeWood 22 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> He must be a very busy man.

Not just one man but the power of his foundation - BMGF. Here are the raw facts - straight from their own page:

Current number of foundation employees: 1,489
Total grant payments since inception (through Q4 2018): $50.1 billion (2)
Total 2018 Direct Grantee Support: $5.0 billion (3)
Total 2017 Direct Grantee Support: $4.7 billion (3)
Foundation Trust Endowment: $46.8 billion (4)

BMGF not only exercises control and influence through the H8, but through billions of dollars contributed to NGO's in all sectors (> 6000 by one report) and media incl The Guardian & BBC. 

Every critical academic commentator has arrived at the same conclusion: BG appears to be make a substantial contribution to world aid and global development, however the networked power and influence of BMGF has silenced critical examination.

The latter clearly poses question over the former. In making their doings inscrutable - it has become impossible to judge net benefit to 'the common man'. 

7
 LeeWood 22 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Therefore we need bodies like the UN which do an excellent job despite limited resources

This is a worry - in having limited resources, the UN & WHO open themselves to charity or foundation contributions which steer direction which is ultimately commercial

4
 LeeWood 22 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> Can you explain how countries working together to, say, eradicate extreme poverty is “steering the UK’s destiny”?

As I see it in the media, the SDGs are not just for developing countries. Even if they were, it needs cooperation across the world - eg. to eradicate deaths by starvation.

This report documents and forecasts pandemic trends and impact - and so far the SDGs aren't fairing well. More poverty, more inequality. 

Q: Even once travel and work restrictions are lifted, a new normal will likely emerge, the report shows, reshaping human interactions, trade, and globalization. The pandemic and its aftermath will also likely accelerate the shift to digitalization and automation.

https://www.devex.com/news/covid-19-will-push-130-million-into-poverty-by-2030-un-report-shows-97232

As the pandemic exacerbates issues of poverty, inequality and democracy it will lead to further unrest and the need for greater control, NB. not just abroad. Immigrant pressure will increase. 

Apparently, this is where hi-tech solutions will come into their own. 

2
In reply to LeeWood:

We’ve been here before.  I still don’t understand what you have against Bill Gates.  As far as I can see, he really is a clever guy who made a huge amount of money developing and selling technology which people (including you) seem to have found pretty useful, and who is now in the process of giving away most of his wealth in the most beneficial ways he can think of.

What’s not like? Seriously.  Give me one bit of concrete evidence of him being even a little bit evil.

 jkarran 22 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> We need to be aware of global influence wherever it comes from. Many themes are currently diffusing from these sources to steer the UK's destiny. It's not just the UK either.

What is 'global influence' to you? What you're talking about are imperfect tools for international cooperation, forums in which we are actively engaged and hold significant if diminishing sway.

edit: my mistake, sorry. It's all about Bill Gates. As you were...

Britain can't live in splendid isolation, it never ever has but with far less than half our limited land cultivated and 60M to feed we'd be killing each other with nailed chair legs for the scraps of the last shipments within a week. Nor can we ever again rule the world with gunboats and redcoats.

jk

Post edited at 10:03
In reply to LeeWood:

And while we're at it, you (and Paul Mitchell) could do worse than to invest half an hour in listening to this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000k2mj

 LeeWood 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> And while we're at it, you (and Paul Mitchell) could do worse than to invest half an hour in listening to this:

I've listened to this broadcast. Should I call it out as a smoke-screen or a red herring ? Probably a mixture of the two. Because health is just one issue. In context, physical health, mental health and the health of the planet all need evaluation.

For anyone who wants the bigger perspective - here is an extract from

https://whatis5g.info/

Nine ways 5G and the IoT will harm humans, the environment, and Earth

Health – The robust and growing independent science shows harms to our health from microwave radiation

Privacy – The invasion of our privacy from the collection and mining of our digital data

Cyber Security -The fast growing and devastating cyber security risks

Environment – The harms to wildlife, particularly bees, butterflies and other pollinators

Energy – The huge energy consumption to produce and power a wireless Internet of Things

Brains and Humanity – The effects on our brains and humanity from humans increasingly inhabiting the cyber world

E-Waste – The astronomical e-waste that will be generated from connecting virtually every “thing” to the Internet

Conflict Minerals – 5G and the IoT will vastly grow our dependence on conflict minerals, which have brought about the death of close to 6 million people

Ethics — Ethical issues arising from the IoT.  New human rights laws are being being considered; how should humans relate to robots and AI?  The blurring of what was once a clear delineation between technology and humans

9
 Harry Jarvis 23 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Notwithstanding the veracity of those claims, how would you propose dealing with those issues listed without a strong element of global planning? 

In reply to LeeWood:

> I've listened to this broadcast. Should I call it out as a smoke-screen or a red herring ? Probably a mixture of the two. Because health is just one issue. In context, physical health, mental health and the health of the planet all need evaluation.

I've no idea what you mean by the 'health of the planet' but, you're right, it completely fails to deal with the ecological effects of 5G but I'm sure you can explain them to us. 

 It does explicitly deal with the physical and mental health issue in quite a sympathetic way.  It explains how 5G really can make people feel physically ill - if that's what they believe is happening to them (even when it's switched off).  It also calls out a number of blatant charlatans (clue, that's anyone who insists on having PHD all in upper case after their name on all occasions) who very much have a large financial interest in as many people being made to feel ill in this way as possible. 

There really is a sinister, shadowy world you should be afraid of, and it's made up of the sort of people who  want you to believe in bollocks like the 5G health conspiracy so they can make money out of you.  Either that or they are semi-educated or mentally unwell people who need disciples to bolster their sad fantasy worlds.

Oh, and if you missed the bit where it deals with the "robust and growing independent science shows harms to our health from microwave radiation" then you didn't really listen to any of it.  Scan through again for the bit about the claims that the WHO believes this (it doesn't). 

Post edited at 10:33
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I listened to that yesterday, it was really good wasn't it? It actually felt more like Analysis than File on Four - which sometimes lapse into the realms of Moneybox or Watchdog when dealing with less serious issues. But that FoF was really good. All those crazy scientists! Or scientist that went crazy perhaps?

In reply to TobyA:

I was listening while chopping firewood.  I found parts of it quite motivating.

 LeeWood 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> There really is a sinister, shadowy world you should be afraid of, and it's made up of the sort of people who  want you to believe in bollocks like the 5G health conspiracy so they can make money out of you

You said it ! If there was one coherent line of truth which emerges from that talk - it was - beware people who want to make money out of you - €300 for a fake USB key ?? Wow

But on the other side of the argument no attempt was made to clarify why the world planners want to force 5G on us. Strange. The prediction is $13 TRILLION by 2035. That is some commercial pressure right ? Not forgetting all the capital risked on rocket fuel to launch thos satellites.

One foundation premise for inspecting all events, political trends and propositions is - follow the money. What part did / will play the role of vested interests ? Because more often than not the neo-liberal ideology does not work in favour of the individual. Nor of the environment.

5
 Lemony 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> What’s not like? Seriously.  Give me one bit of concrete evidence of him being even a little bit evil.

Oh come on, is no one going to?

https://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clippy-300x169.jpg

 LeeWood 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Notwithstanding the veracity of those claims, how would you propose dealing with those issues listed without a strong element of global planning? 

BIG assumption there - 5G is coming so how do we manage it ! Which governments were consulted and what democratic vote was there for it in the 1st place ? How about we just dismiss it ?

3
 Harry Jarvis 23 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> BIG assumption there - 5G is coming so how do we manage it ! Which governments were consulted and what democratic vote was there for it in the 1st place ? How about we just dismiss it ?

What strange notions. Which pieces of technology have been voted on? Were microchips voted for? Was the internet voted for? Was html voted for? And yet here you are using them all. 

 LeeWood 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> What strange notions. Which pieces of technology have been voted on? Were microchips voted for? Was the internet voted for? Was html voted for? And yet here you are using them all. 

Noteworthy. We've been in training ! Accept all as it comes along. There could be a different threshold of investment with this one though, and thus bigger stakes at play.

4
In reply to LeeWood:

> Not forgetting all the capital risked on rocket fuel to launch thos satellites.

Which satellites are these...?

5G is a terrestrial mobile system. As are the previous Gs...

 LeeWood 23 Jun 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Not forgetting all the capital risked on rocket fuel to launch thos satellites.

> Which satellites are these...?

Checkout Starlink & SpaceX. A 'constellation' of satellites - already > 1,500. Valued at start $10 billion. So, someone's gonna want returns on this investment !

China & India may also be creating independent constellations. The whole is in itself just one more worry about 5G - as expressed by Space exploration / observation community

1
In reply to LeeWood:

I'm aware of both of those. But that's not what is meant by '5G'.

5G is the fifth generation terrestrial mobile phone technology. How else would idiots be able to set fire to the base stations...?

https://www.ericsson.com/en/5g/what-is-5g

Post edited at 22:00
 Eric9Points 23 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

So what?

$10 BN isn't a great deal of money in the grand scheme of things.

As an example, every year 1/4 of the world's population buys a new phone, usually a smartphone. Over 1.5 billion phones a year. Multiply by the cost of a phone and you'll see $10 BN isn't a lot in comparison.

People are developing 5g for the same reasons that people developed diesel locomotives or the gas turbine, they are better at doing something than the thing that came before. It's human nature to improve on something and if there is money to be made from doing so then people will make a serious effort. 

There isn't a shadowy cabal (that's the right word isn't it) dreaming up these things, just geeks in big companies thinking up ideas and telling their bosses "hey, I know a way of making X even better". It's just capitalism.

 LeeWood 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> There isn't a shadowy cabal (that's the right word isn't it) dreaming up these things, just geeks in big companies thinking up ideas and telling their bosses "hey, I know a way of making X even better". It's just capitalism.

It's just capitalism. Exactly the problem. Obselescence in hitech equipment has accelerated in the last decade and the 5G step-change will pose one more opportunity for the world to follow-the-fashion and upgrade. More conflict materials, more e-waste.

Either there is a shadowy cabal OR it's *just* capitalism. Both are criminal. Whichever pespective you favour pandemic handling in the UK (and many others) has been criminal. And finally capitalism cares nothing for the environment - which will soon lead us into a real existential threat if unchecked.

So, can we rely on world planning to sort this out ? 

1
 seankenny 23 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> So, can we rely on world planning to sort this out ? 

Your faith in planners shows a touching need for people to be in control, whether angles or devils. Hate to break this to you, but everyone else is making it up as they go along. It's all a messy, chaotic free-for-all. Stuff happens, often by acciden.  They haven't been softening you up for something new, they've just been doing the next obvious looking thing. Equally, they are not going to ride in and change everything overnight.

Still, you seem very frightened. How about reading stuff, some actual books not the bonkers corners of the internet you probably spend a lot of time in. That shit is bad for your health and makes you dumb.

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> Still, you seem very frightened. How about reading stuff, some actual books not the bonkers corners of the internet you probably spend a lot of time in. That shit is bad for your health and makes you dumb.

Good advice! I believe I've just found something. Naomi Klein 'No is Not Enough' - resumé:

No Is Not Enough reveals, among other things, that the disorientation we're feeling is deliberate. That around the world, shock political tactics are being used to generate crisis after crisis, designed to force through policies that will destroy people, the environment, the economy and our security. That extremism isn't a freak event - it's a toxic cocktail of our times.

https://guardianbookshop.com/no-is-not-enough-9780141986791.html

 GrahamD 24 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

5G is not a step change. It's an evolution of the cellular network that has been happening since it became obvious that people wanted mobile data and wanted wide availability.

You could just as easily branded most of 5G features as 4G evolution (spectrum reframing, MIMO enhancement etc )and be technically accurate, but it's not a good sales pitch.

In reply to GrahamD:

> 5G is not a step change. It's an evolution of the cellular network that has been happening since it became obvious that people wanted mobile data and wanted wide availability.

> You could just as easily branded most of 5G features as 4G evolution (spectrum reframing, MIMO enhancement etc )and be technically accurate, but it's not a good sales pitch.


Spot on.  The only difference between 5G and 4G is that 5G is IP-based end to end, whereas 4G uses other protocols to carry 5G and is less efficient.  4&5G both use the same frequencies at present, 5G is built to use higher frequencies as well, but if 5G hadn't been invented 4G would use them anyway.

In reply to TobyA:

> Do a one year MA in international relations and you'll get the hang of how ineffectual the UN and the OECD is in shaping the "destiny" of states! You've been reading more weird conspiracy theory websites again haven't you? Is it still all Bill Gates behind it?

The OECD (and EU) are certainly having an effect in the world of offshore finance with regard to their labelling of jurisdictions as 'harmful' or not​.  Slowly but surely investors are moving away from 'harmful' jurisdictions because of this.  Institutional investors are under more and more pressure to invest responsibly these days.

 seankenny 24 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Good advice! I believe I've just found something. Naomi Klein 'No is Not Enough' - resumé:

> No Is Not Enough reveals, among other things, that the disorientation we're feeling is deliberate. That around the world, shock political tactics are being used to generate crisis after crisis, designed to force through policies that will destroy people, the environment, the economy and our security. That extremism isn't a freak event - it's a toxic cocktail of our times.


Well, Klein does have some truth or at least understanding issues herself, but what she's saying is that certain political groups use certain types of tactics to achieve their ends. This isn't the same as the great conspiracy/secret behind-the-scenes control that you're talking about.

Now, can you explain to me why the "Health 8" includes the World Bank? And also why if no one is reporting how terrible the Bill Gates Foundation is, a quick search on it brought up a couple of articles in The Lancet, which as you know is one of the world's foremost medical journals? That's not very secret is it?

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

Why the World Bank is in the H8 ? It must be (or have been) contributing towards health care - as per the others, but I don't know more than that.

Do you mean that the Lancet was critical of BMGF ? That would be a normal healthy appraisal of their work. It's one thing to be critical, quite another to be damning - or assert that BMGF influence is too strong / dominant. As comes out in this document posted on the website of a doctor who supports the WHO but deplores the majority commercial steering:

http://www.peah.it/2017/05/4019/

Q: Collective activism to overturn philanthrocapitalism’s hold on global health is an urgent necessity.

Q: These conditions have resulted in extensive private, for-profit influence over global health activities and have blurred boundaries between public and private spheres, representing a grave threat to democratic global health governance and scientific independence.8

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> 5G is not a step change.

Well, 4G did not depend on satellite comms. 5G is set to increase speed and coverage globally - into every country even the developing ones.

If you don't consider this as a step change, then alternately you could say that it's part of a hi-tech step change, triggered by the pandemic. Even, a bedrock component - the other technologies which follow will depend on it.

https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/inside-the-hunt-for-new-5g-revenues-(hint-forget-phones)/d/d-id/755769

Q: "5G technology will expand the value of mobile networks to take on a much larger role than previous generations, empowering many new connected services across an array of world changing use cases," the association wrote. /Q

Including : Healthcare, Fixed wireless access, Unmanned aerial vehicles

Non-terrestrial networks with 5G, which include Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites and High-Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) systems

XR, including virtual reality and augmented reality, Cloud gaming

2
 Harry Jarvis 24 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

I've read a number of your posts. I have to confess, I have absolutely no idea what point, or points, you are trying to make. 

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> There really is a sinister, shadowy world you should be afraid of, and it's made up of the sort of people who  want you to believe in bollocks like the 5G health conspiracy so they can make money out of you.  Either that or they are semi-educated or mentally unwell people who need disciples to bolster their sad fantasy worlds.

Strong stuff ! However little you respect my views I am making an effort to keep it evidence-based.

The first part of that BBC talk discussed the conspiracy theory of 5G damage to male reproductivity - which IS definately falling, so- wouldn't it be reasonable to be suspicous of un-known environmental pollutants - in the face of uncertainty ??

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/24/toxic-america-sperm-counts-plastics-research

Q: Research suggests that sperm counts have dropped by half in the last 50 years or so and that a higher percentage are poor swimmers – slow, ungainly or beset by genetic flaws.

and the punchline

Q: “But we are not taking the needed steps to reverse it or even just to start to understand what is going on.”

1
In reply to LeeWood:

> Strong stuff ! However little you respect my views I am making an effort to keep it evidence-based.

To be honest, you confuse me by oscillating between some reasonable concerns and question and then locking onto some of the most implausible answers. 

> The first part of that BBC talk discussed the conspiracy theory of 5G damage to male reproductivity - which IS definately falling, so- wouldn't it be reasonable to be suspicous of un-known environmental pollutants - in the face of uncertainty ??

I think it's very sensible to suspicious of environmental pollutants and there is a lot of research on the drop in male fertility and a number of plausible causes, including plasticisers such as phthalates. 

But, as you often do, you are switching arguments.  There is zero reproducible evidence of any link, let alone a causal link, between 5G itself and human ill-health, beyond the nocebo effect of being told by disreputable sources that there is a link.

Get involved in some worthy cause, based on real evidence (there are plenty to choose from) rather wasting your time and causing yourself needless anxiety by tilting at windmills.     

 David Riley 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

>  who made a huge amount of money developing and selling technology

> What’s not like? Seriously.  Give me one bit of concrete evidence of him being even a little bit evil.

Purely answering your question, not referencing the rest of the thread.  I would suggest it could be considered a little bit evil to copy other people's technology and then use it to impose a 30 year monopoly on operating systems.  A monopoly is a bit evil and allowed him to take all that money without competitive ideas and proper incentive to advance the technology.  I am convinced computers would be very much different and better now had they not been backed into a corner in the 1980's.  It should never have been allowed to happen.

I applaud the altruism.

 jkarran 24 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> It's just capitalism. Exactly the problem. Obselescence in hitech equipment has accelerated in the last decade and the 5G step-change will pose one more opportunity for the world to follow-the-fashion and upgrade. More conflict materials, more e-waste.

So we have a problem stemming from the solutions we create to other problems. That's life. Luckilly we also have have solutions to those new problems, some of which are themselves 'capitalist': selling used near state of the art gear on into developing markets or recycling. Some of which are more regulatory requiring international cooperation: standards, peacekeeping forces, embargoes on product and materials funding wars. All imperfect so there's scope for improvement.

> Either there is a shadowy cabal OR it's *just* capitalism. Both are criminal. Whichever pespective you favour pandemic handling in the UK (and many others) has been criminal. And finally capitalism cares nothing for the environment - which will soon lead us into a real existential threat if unchecked.

The leaps of thought here lost me somewhat.

It's worth pointing out 'capitalism' isn't monolithic particularly where it exists within a regulatory framework not entirely crafted by and for the beneficiaries of extractive and exploitative industries. This is the world we live in, it's far from perfect and we're not moving uniformly in the right direction but there is increasingly money to be made in environmental and social good, value to be placed on natural asset untouched.

> So, can we rely on world planning to sort this out ? 

I hesitate to answer this since 'world planning' clearly means something quite specific to you that I don't understand but I don't see how we tackle the pressing global issues whether that be weapons proliferation, climate change, superpower conflict, pandemic disease etc etc without creating the spaces and tools within which groups with difficult histories and often competing interests atop those they have in common can find ways to cooperate. Do I think it'll be enough? No but I'm a pessimist, that's my cross to bear since I don't see better alternatives either, I just have to hope for brighter, better people than me finding their voice.

jk

 jkarran 24 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Well, 4G did not depend on satellite comms. 5G is set to increase speed and coverage globally - into every country even the developing ones.

> If you don't consider this as a step change, then alternately you could say that it's part of a hi-tech step change, triggered by the pandemic. Even, a bedrock component - the other technologies which follow will depend on it.

5G has got nothing to do with the pandemic. The pandemic is likely to leave lasting fingerprints on how we work and access services but as we have agency the changes that last will generally be the ones we support.

> Non-terrestrial networks with 5G, which include Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites and High-Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) systems

These exist today. Mobile voice and data has been provided to various difficult bits of the world, particularly in Africa from airborne platforms for years. So what, it's an alternative to installing masts that it becomes attractive where infrastructure and workforce security on the ground cannot be assured and energy must be provided periodically flying in fuel because of rough terrain.

jk

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> There is zero reproducible evidence of any link, let alone a causal link, between 5G itself and human ill-health

The logic of the Guardian article is un-mistakeable. 'We think it's plastics but we don't know.' IF they knew it really was plastics why wouldn't governments have taken steps to change the problem ? If on the one hand you say 'I don't know', you can't on the other say 'it's not that'.

If there was a problem with 5G we would never know because some scientist has declared it's 'more likely' to be plastics. So there's a handy ruse to cover up the truth. Or maybe not ? Clear the 1st problem and the truth of the other will be evident !

1
In reply to LeeWood:

> BIG assumption there - 5G is coming so how do we manage it ! Which governments were consulted and what democratic vote was there for it in the 1st place ? How about we just dismiss it ?

We fought hard to win the referenda on GSM, 3G, Edge and 4G. Blood will be spilt in the coming referendum on 5G acceptance.

What are you on? If you're not on something, I'd suggest that you should be on something.

Post edited at 17:53
In reply to LeeWood:

> If there was a problem with 5G we would never know because some scientist has declared it's 'more likely' to be plastics. So there's a handy ruse to cover up the truth. Or maybe not ? Clear the 1st problem and the truth of the other will be evident !

But it is more likely to be the plastics.  I'm not saying that some problem with 5G is completely impossible, but there is no evidence of it and no credible mechanism of which we are aware to explain how it might happen.

On the other hand, there is concrete evidence of the biological effects on feminising chemicals like phthalates in other animals, a credible biochemical mechanism by which it might happen and evidence that, under certain circumstances, people might be exposed to the risk from some plastics.

If you were going to choose an area to investigate further and propose ways in which we could reduce the risk, which would you choose?

Post edited at 17:58
 Eric9Points 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> But it is more likely to be the plastics.  I'm not saying that some problem with 5G is completely impossible

Especially as it's not operational in most of the world.

I heard that tight underpants, no seriously, cause problems with sperm production.

In reply to Eric9Points:

> I heard that tight underpants, no seriously, cause problems with sperm production.

And laptops used on the lap. Testicles are hanging outside the body for a good reason, they don't like it toasty.

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Especially as it's not operational in most of the world.

And that is at the heart of the problem - underlying public fear. The new 5G network is a first time event so no-one knows how it will impact health. The BBC talk focused on wifi tolerance - or not. 5G must use higher frequencies and / or greater power to deliver it's objectives.

Furthermore, the projections of our sci-fi future are based around IoT in which many things will be all connected up to such a network. So the vision is not just talking about ONE smartphone and the (relatively) remote antenna, we're talking about a proliferation of such elements all strafing our work-zone, play-zone, social-zone etc.

Back in 1980 I did a 6wk vacation job for Marconi Space & Defence Systems in StAlbans. I was completely green - no expectations, and there were no flashing lights to con me. But one day I developed a spectacular headache working in a certain lab-space (and no, I don't get 'random' headaches) .

Only afterwards did I discover that someone in another part of that lab had been testing a leaky microwave comms setup. The manager denied that there was any link (what else would he do ?) and I took the afternoon off to recover.

I can't tell you that I was exposed to 5G frequencies but they were microwaves. No other cause was available in my environment on that occasion. I'm with Newton - cause and effect - action and reaction. 

edit: and I was never again asked to work in such close proximity to any waveguide trials !

Post edited at 19:38
2
In reply to LeeWood:

> I'm with Newton - cause and effect - action and reaction. 

So am I, but what you're describing isn't cause, it's correlation.  If it happened every time the apparatus was working (and not when it wasn't) and it happened to other people too, then you'd be on to something.  

Even if you are right (and that's a big if), what was the energy and proximity of the microwave source in that lab, and what is the exposure to a working 5G network signal?

In reply to LeeWood:

> The new 5G network is a first time event so no-one knows how it will impact health. 

No it isn't. As it is rolled out at the moment, it is using the same frequencies as 4G. As has been pointed out to you on many occasions.

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Even if you are right (and that's a big if), what was the energy and proximity of the microwave source in that lab, and what is the exposure to a working 5G network signal?

All valid points. But I think we have consensus - at some combination of power (proximity) and frequency, and not forgetting compound - multiple signal factors - there will be a physiological impact. You wouldn't stick your head in a microwave oven ...

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> it's far from perfect and we're not moving uniformly in the right direction but there is increasingly money to be made in environmental and social good, value to be placed on natural asset untouched.

This is at the heart of the problem - the capitalist always looks to deal with problems *if a profit can be made* in the process. Unfortunately many environmental issues will never be resolved in this manner (or fast enough), ditto humanitarian issues. They may be 'resolved' but if all is profit driven then life - natural, human or environment factors are de-prioritised.

Fortunately there are other ways out. Capitalism is not bound to compound former mistakes with a new generation of profit based strategies. This can only happen through a change of government - which in the UK - looks feasible given the shocking mess they've made of pandemic management.

 LeeWood 24 Jun 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> No it isn't. As it is rolled out at the moment, it is using the same frequencies as 4G. As has been pointed out to you on many occasions.

OK but it will evolve. If wikipedia is correct the base frequency(s) will rise - f1 up to 6GHz and f2 up to 24 GHz  Q: The higher the frequency, the greater the ability to support high data-transfer speeds

Time to buy an alu-lined cod-piece with a grounding strap ;) 

 jkarran 24 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Sadly the Conservatives almost certainly form UK government's until at least 2024, Johnson probably gets untill 2023 unless he walks. There's a very high risk they keep winning beyond that too. How exactly do you think they could be ousted any sooner?

Jk

Post edited at 23:30
 LeeWood 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> I've read a number of your posts. I have to confess, I have absolutely no idea what point, or points, you are trying to make. 

I can't blame you for getting lost in this - me too ! What I set out to talk about was the chicken and egg scenario getting scrambled (!) post / past pandemic. ie. From where and in what timing were the new normal changes anticipated and promoted.

Here's an article from OpenDemocracy which discusses the surveillance issues. 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/pandemic-border/bio-surveillance-invisible-borders-and-dangerous-after-effects-covid-19-measures/

Q: Questions of volitional versus coerced use of such technologies—and their architectures—will have to be debated. The answers may come to serve as a new fault line between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Once put into operation, however, it may prove difficult to return the genie of bio-surveillance back to the bottle, as it provides governments unprecedented technological “see-all” eyes to monitor and track everyone’s mobility everywhere.

Q: Even prior to the current crisis, the European Union funded a pilot project, entitled iBorderCtrl designed to help protect its borders /Q

This initiative is clearly accelerated by the pandemic - and will rely on a better comms network - 'for the greater greater security of all' .

1
In reply to LeeWood:

This forum really needs an 'ignore member' facility...

In reply to LeeWood:

> OK but it will evolve. If wikipedia is correct the base frequency(s) will rise - f1 up to 6GHz and f2 up to 24 GHz  Q: The higher the frequency, the greater the ability to support high data-transfer speeds

> Time to buy an alu-lined cod-piece with a grounding strap ;) 

Those frequencies are already in use though, for TV and other comms.  Operators will only use them if they have to because their ability to penetrate things like walls, leafy trees and rain is utter rubbish.

In reply to LeeWood:

> All valid points. But I think we have consensus - at some combination of power (proximity) and frequency, and not forgetting compound - multiple signal factors - there will be a physiological impact. You wouldn't stick your head in a microwave oven ...


You wouldn't stick your head in a microwave because it's emitting 1kW of radiation which will bounce around inside the cavity until your head has absorbed all of it.  What's the amount of power your phone emits and how much of that power can beabsorbed by the part of your body next to it?  How much power is required to cause damage?

 wbo2 25 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Got a WiFi router Lee? 

Anything with Bluetooth? 

The Tasmanian tiger died out about the same time as radio gained in use.. doesn't mean they're connected.  Ditto sparrows and colour TV

In reply to Toerag:

> You wouldn't stick your head in a microwave because it's emitting 1kW of radiation which will bounce around inside the cavity until your head has absorbed all of it.  What's the amount of power your phone emits and how much of that power can beabsorbed by the part of your body next to it?  How much power is required to cause damage?

His argument is a bit like saying he wouldn't drop a grain of sand on his head because dropping a large chunk of sandstone would hurt.

In reply to LeeWood:

> All valid points. But I think we have consensus - at some combination of power (proximity) and frequency, and not forgetting compound - multiple signal factors - there will be a physiological impact. You wouldn't stick your head in a microwave oven ...

That's like saying you'll never take a warm bath because you've seen what happens to teabags.

 LeeWood 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> His argument is a bit like saying he wouldn't drop a grain of sand on his head because dropping a large chunk of sandstone would hurt.

Good analogy. But would you hide from a sand-storm - or take cover ?!

1
 Hooo 25 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Ah, but that's where you're going wrong, you're misunderstanding the magnitudes involved. 5G and other data networks are a few dust motes floating by, compared to the "sandstorm" of a microwave oven.

In reply to LeeWood:

> This is at the heart of the problem - the capitalist always looks to deal with problems *if a profit can be made* in the process. Unfortunately many environmental issues will never be resolved in this manner (or fast enough), ditto humanitarian issues. They may be 'resolved' but if all is profit driven then life - natural, human or environment factors are de-prioritised.

> Fortunately there are other ways out. Capitalism is not bound to compound former mistakes with a new generation of profit based strategies. This can only happen through a change of government - which in the UK - looks feasible given the shocking mess they've made of pandemic management.

Not much chance of the injustices of capitalism being resolved by a change of the UK government when that change of government is led by The Knight and member of the Trilateral Commission.

I think the key thrust of your argument is correct, there does need to be better democracy at all levels but in particular it is lacking at the international level where the decisions that are taken are shielded from democratic oversight because democracy, such as it is, takes place at national level.

 jimtitt 26 Jun 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

There are a lot of Chinese, beware of what you wish.

In reply to jimtitt:

I doubt the values of the average Chinese person differ too much from the values of the average Brit (and if they do then so be it). I'd rather decisions taken internationally were taken with regard to the wishes of billions of people than have them taken hidden behind closed doors based on the interests of who knows who?

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> I doubt the values of the average Chinese person differ too much from the values of the average Brit

The values they are allowed to vote for might, though...

> I'd rather decisions taken internationally were taken with regard to the wishes of billions of people than have them taken hidden behind closed doors based on the interests of who knows who?

As we know to our cost, the 'wishes of the people' are determined behind closed doors by who knows who...

Post edited at 12:26
In reply to captain paranoia:

True on both counts. That's why I hope you'll note that I said that there needs to be better democracy at all levels.

Democracy entails more than just the right to vote once every 4-5 years. 

Post edited at 12:56
 jkarran 26 Jun 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> ... I'd rather decisions taken internationally were taken with regard to the wishes of billions of people than have them taken hidden behind closed doors based on the interests of who knows who?

That's fine but in reality it just shifts the decision over what billions of people should think when asked behind the exact same closed doors.

jk

 malk 26 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

some sort of global government maybe the only answer to climate change?

interesting thoughts from Brian Eno on women's hour this morning..

 LeeWood 26 Jun 2020
In reply to malk:

> some sort of global government maybe the only answer to climate change?

Fair enough - so long as its a true country representation free from capitalist persuasion. There's a lot which can (and has been) be done at a national level but such things as taxing aviation fuel are long overdue and would certainly need global agreement.  

> interesting thoughts from Brian Eno on women's hour this morning..

Such as ?

 malk 27 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

> Such as ?

the harm of macho leadership: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000k9r3


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.