ΦΥΣΙΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΕΧΝΙΚΟΝ ΠΥΡ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΠΥΡΩΔΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΜΦΡΟΝ ΕΜΦΥΤΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟ-ΕΡΓΟΝ Cicero (DE NATURA deorum 2,22 )
PHYSIS IS FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR EXISTENCE ,BY THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSCIOUS OF ον (=being) , THE MAIN MATTER FOR OUR INVESTIGATION, RE-SEARCH, OBSERVATION, V-OIDA, EX-PEIRAMATIZATION . THE WORD DERIVES FROM THE HELLENIC FORMS :
ΦΥΙΩ (AEOLIAN DIALECT ) , FUI (AEOLIC-DOREAN DIALECT or LATIN), BE-ON (OLD ENGLISH DIALECT) and BE (ENGLISH)
AND HAS MEANT THROUGH THE CENTURIES ,THE BIRTH OF AN EVENT IN TIME AND SPACE,THE GROWTH OF PARTICULAR SPECIES OF PLANTS (1), THE BLOWING OF THE WIND BY THE ADD OF S (PHYSIOO),AND THE DEPARTURE OF SOMEBODY BY THE TURN OF S TO Γ (ΦΥΓΙΩ). DURING THE PERIOD OF THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS TOOK ITS TODAY MEANING,AS IT IS DERIVED FROM THE SYNONYM "NATURAL", WHICH WAS INVENTED THE MID 15TH CENTURY AD (2). ΦΥΣΙΣ AS A VERBAL WRITTEN LOGOS ,IS DESCRIBING THE INTERNAL ONE,MEANS THE MATTER THAT IT SPRINGS UP, RISES UP, BECOMES, GENERATES, IS CULTIVATED ,BLOWS,DEVELOPS , CONSERVES,DISOLUTES ,REGENERATES ,IN SPEIRO-ED WAYS (ΣΠΕΙΡΩ ,SOW ), BY FOLLOWING THE NATURAL LAWS AND WAY.
ALL THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANTIQUITY AND LATER ON ,AROUND GRAEA ,HAVE WRITTEN ALMOST EVERYTHING ABOUT PHYSIS,IN ACCORDANCE TO OUR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE,FOR THE CYCLES WE HAVE RESEARCHED IN THE WORLD OF OUR SENSES (AESTHEISEIS). ACCORDING TO THE LEVELS OF THE CONSCIOUS OF THE ERA-EPOQUE (CHRONOS) WE WERE LIVING AND TO THE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC LOCALITY ,WE HAVE EXPLAINED IT IN SUCH A THOUSANDS WAYS AS VARIETIES OF FLOWERS ARE FLOURISHING AND DIE ,READY FOR THEIR REBIRTH ,MATURED ON THEIR TIME.
THE ANCIENT EUROPEANS ,AFRICANS,ASIANS,AMERICAN INDIANS AND INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS HAVE WRITTEN SO MANY ABOUT IT , THAT THEIR SACRED TEXTS ,DUE TO THEIR MULTI APPEARANCE AND MULTI EXPLANATIONS ,ARE DIFFICULT TO BE STUDIED ,EXCEPT IF WE DEVOTE OUR LIVES ON HOLY . THOSE ANCIENT PEOPLE TRIED TO INTERPRET THE SENSE OF PHYSIS,EITHER THROUGH A GEOCENTRIC - HELIAC PERSPECTIVE OR A SYN -PAN ONE. WE AS WE ARE BASED ON THE HOLISTIC POINT OF VIEW WE ARE OBLIGED TO BE FOCUSED ON THE TRIADIC ONE ,THIS OF GOD'S CREATION.
NOTES (1)^ Homer's text: ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας πόρε φάρμακον ἀργεϊφόντης ἐκ γαίης ἐρύσας, καί μοι φύσιν αὐτοῦ ἔδειξε. (So saying, Argeiphontes [=Hermes] gave me the herb, drawing it from the ground, and showed me its nature.) Odyssey 10.302-3 (ed. A.T. Murray).
(clicking on the title we will be directed to an IMF abouts article)
The Republic of Korea is honored to chair the Group of Twenty in 2010.
The G20 was established in 1999, in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, to bring together major advanced and emerging economies to stabilize the global financial market. Since its inception, the G20 has held annual Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meetings and discussed measures to promote the financial stability of the world and to achieve a sustainable economic growth and development.
To tackle the financial and economic crisis that spread across the globe in 2008, the G20 members were called upon to further strengthen international cooperation. Accordingly, the G20 Summits have been held in Washington in 2008, and in London and Pittsburgh in 2009. The concerted and decisive actions of the G20, with its balanced membership of developed and developing countries, helped the world deal effectively with the current financial and economic crisis. The G20 has already delivered a number of significant and concrete outcomes. It committed to implement the unprecedented and most coordinated expansionary macroeconomic policies, including the fiscal expansion of US$5 trillion and the unconventional monetary policy instruments; significantly enhance the financial regulations, notably by the establishment of the Financial Stability Board(FSB); and substantially strengthen the International Financial Institutions(IFIs), including the expansion of resources and the improvement of precautionary lending facilities of the IFIs. Reflecting on these achievements and recognizing that more needs to be done to ensure a strong, sustained and balanced global recovery, the G20 Leaders at Pittsburgh Summit designated the G20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation. In 2010, the June Summit will be held in Canada, and the November Summit will be held in the Republic of Korea.
Building on past achievements and close cooperation among members, the G20 will double its efforts in 2010 to help the world make a successful transition from global recovery to stronger, more sustainable and balanced growth.
We look forward to working closely with our Troika colleagues, the UK and France, and drawing on valuable experiences of other G20 members. The Republic of Korea will spare no effort to ensure success in 2010. SOURCE http://www.g20.org/index.aspx
THE GLOBAL OLIGARCHIC FORCES WHICH ARE GOVERNING OUR SPHAERA (WORLD) ARE PUSHING EUROPE,BY USING THE UNKNOWN-KNOWN MARKET POWERS .
NOBODY CARES ABOUT WHY THEY AREN'T STRIKING THE POUND STERLING FOR THEIR PROFITING,WHEN ALL ECONOMIC CYCLES KNOW THAT UK ECONOMY ISN'T WELL POSITIONED AND RECOVERY IS FAR WORSE THAN EUROZONE ???
THEY BEGAN WITH ASIA SOME YEARS AGO ,THEN THEY PROCEEDED TO THEIR MOTHERLAND USA AND AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE HOUSE BUBBLE (APART FROM OTHER BUBBLES BEFORE ) AND THEIR BLACKMAIL FOR THE BANK SECTOR NOT ONLY IN USA BUT IN EU ALSO,THEY PERSISTENTLY STAYING IN INTERNAL EUROZONE MARKET.
THEY GOT GREECE VERY EASILY UNDER THEIR CONTROL ,USING IT AS THE PARADIGM(IMF IS MAINLY BASED ON PRIVATE STAKEHOLDERS ,BUT NOBODY GIVES THE END USERS AS NATURAL PERSONS AND NAMES,APART FROM BANKS AND INSTITUTIONS).
THEY ARE PROCEEDING WITH IRELAND ,AFTER THEY GOT FROM THAT COUNTRY WHATEVER THEY COULD ,BY PROMISING AN ENDLESS ECONOMIC MIRACLE ,BEING LOW TAXED BY THE ACTUAL SHAREHOLDERS OF THIS TIGER STATE ,THE CITIZENS.
THEY ARE READY FOR PORTUGAL,SPAIN,ITALY,BELGIUM FROM THE SO CALLED DEBT STRONG ECONOMIES (THEY LEAVE FOR THE END FRANCE ,GERMANY ).
WE DON'T MENTION AT ALL THE ECONOMIES OF
HUNGARY,ROMANIA,BULGARIA'S AND OTHERS APART FROM THE ICELAND'S AND ARABIC PENINSULA'S EXPERIMENTS.
EU IS THE MAIN GLOBAL FEEDER AND CONSUMER FOR A LOT OF ECONOMIES BUT NOT A MAIN SUPPLIER.
THE POLITICIANS WHO HAVE BEEN RAISED TO BE GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS,
THROUGH A LONG HIERARCHICAL PROCEDURE ,LIKE COMMUNISTIC REGIMES DID AND STILL DO ,
WHY THEY HAVEN'T SPOKEN AT ALL TO THE PEOPLE ,FOR THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ABOUT THE CREDIT POLICIES WHICH ALL PARTIES WERE FOLLOWING FOR THE LAST 30-40 YEARS ?
WHY THEY HAVE ACCEPTED AT EARLY 70'S (EVEN IF DECISIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM 30'S) TO PUT ASIDE THE GOLD,AN ANCIENT GOLDEN RULE FOR ALMOST 3000 YEARS ?
WHY THE POLITICIANS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACIES AND COMMUNISTIC REGIMES SUDDENLY HAVE REMEMBERED CORRUPTION,WHICH WAS THE ETHICAL BASIS FOR THE GLOBALIZATION TO PUT ON ITS HANDS OVER THE CITIZENS FORTUNES ?
WHY THEY DON'T PROCEED TO AN APOCALYPSE OF THE MAIN KEY PERSONS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMARKABLE LOSSES and GAINS DURING THE CRISES ,WHICH NOW CITIZENS ARE CALLED TO PAY THEM,THROUGH THE BANK COLLAPSE COVERING ,WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHO IS GOING TO BE PAID AGAIN,AS AN END HUMAN BEING BENEFICIARY?
WHY NOBODY OF THEM ,ESPECIALLY TO OUR EUROPE TELLS TO THE PUBLIC ANALYTICALLY ABOUT OUR 27 NATIONS DEBTS (WHICH WE KNOW ALREADY AND AT PREVIOUS POSTS WE HAVE PUBLISHED SOME),SO WE THE EUROPEANS TO KNOW WHAT IS THE SUM OF OUR TOTAL EUROPEAN DEBT AND TO WHOM EXACTLY OUR CITIZENS OWE THESE MONEY?
ALL THESE POLITICIANS ,WHO ARE GOVERNING US FROM DIFFERENT POSITIONS,
FOR THE LAST 30-40 YEARS
HAVE THEY EVER THOUGHT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY,WHEN THEY FOLLOW THE OPINIONS OF THE FEW,SUPPORTED BY A WELL CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY,IN SUCH IMPORTANT ISSUES ?
HAVE THEY THOUGHT THE PEOPLE'S ANGER ?
HAVE THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY TOO,WHEN THEY ARE CALLING THOSE ,WHOM THEY ARE ON THEIR SERVICE TO DO SO ?
LATELY WE HEAR VOICES OF THE GLOBAL OLIGARCHS THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR WOULD LOVE TO LEND THEIR MONEY TO THE CITIZENS.
WHICH ARE THESE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS (BY THEIR MAIN NATURAL PERSONS SHAREHOLDERS ) ,WHO HAVE A POWER MORE THAN THAT OF PEOPLE, AND WHO CAN BEAR TO LENDING US ,FOR A LONG PERIOD (ESPECIALLY THE EUROPEANS WHO WE ARE FEEDING THE GRAEA (GLOBE ) ,BY A LOT OF MEANS) ?????
THEY WHO ARE ACCUSING THE PEOPLE OF OUR EUROPEAN NATIONS AND ARE ADVISING AUSTERITY MEASURES,WHICH ON A LEVEL SHOULD BE FOLLOWED,THEY SHOULD ALSO SHOW TO THE PEOPLE THE JUST WAY,EVEN IF SOME OF THEM MUST ENTER TO THE JAIL.
WE AREN'T JUST WHEN WE CLAIM FOR OUR PERFECTION,PRODUCTIVITY AND POWER,
WHICH ACTUALLY IS BASED ON THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE AS A WHOLE
AND AT THE SAME TIME OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO COVERING THE THIEVES.
THANKS ALL THESE POWERS ,
WHICH ARE SUPPORTING OUR FIGHTS FOR
COOPERATION VERITAS/JUSTITIA/LIBERTAS
A UNITED EUROPE,THE EUROPE OF NATIONS,PEOPLE AND CITIZENS
AGGELOS
Is the American Dream Over?
America has long been a country of limitless possibility. But the dream has now become a nightmare for many. The US is now realizing just how fragile its success has become -- and how bitter its reality. Should the superpower not find a way out of crisis, it could spell trouble ahead for the global economy.
It was to be the kind of place where dozens of American dreams would be fulfilled -- here on Apple Blossom Drive, a cul-de-sac under the azure-blue skies of southwest Florida, where the climate is mild and therapeutic for people with arthritis and rheumatism. Everything is ready. The driveways lined with cast-iron lanterns are finished, the artificial streams and ponds are filled with water, and all the underground cables have been installed. This street in Florida was to be just one small part of America's greater identity -- a place where individual dreams were to become part of the great American story.
But a few things are missing. People, for one. And houses, too. The drawings are all ready, but the foundations for the houses haven't even been poured yet.
Apple Blossom Drive, on the outskirts of Fort Myers, Florida, is a road to nowhere. The retirees, all the dreamers who wanted to claim their slice of the American dream in return for all the years they had worked in a Michigan factory or a New York City office, won't be coming. Not to Apple Blossom Drive and not to any of the other deserted streets which, with their pretty names and neat landscaping, were supposed to herald freedom and prosperity as the ultimate destination of the American journey, and now exude the same feeling of sadness as the industrial ruins of Detroit.
Florida was the finale of the American dream, a promise, a symbol, an American heaven on earth, because Florida held out the prospect of spending 10, perhaps 20 and hopefully 30 years living in one's own house. For decades, anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000 people moved to the state each year. The population grew and grew -- and so too did real estate prices and the assets of those who were already there and wanted bigger houses and even bigger dreams. Florida was a seemingly never-ending boom machine.
Could the Dream Be Over?
Until it all ended. Now people are leaving the state. Florida's population decreased by 58,000 in 2009. Some members of the same American middle class who had once planned to spend their golden years lying under palm trees are now lined up in front of soup kitchens. In Lee County on Florida's southwest coast, 80,000 people need government food stamps to make ends meet -- four times as many as in 2006. Unemployment figures are sharply on the rise in the state, which has now come to symbolize the decline of the America Dream, or perhaps even its total failure, its naïveté. Could the dream, in fact, be over?
Americans have lived beyond their means for decades. It was a culture long defined by a mantra of entitlement, one that promised opportunities for all while ignoring the risks. Relentless and seemingly unstoppable upward mobility was the secular religion of the United States. Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, established the so-called ownership society, while Congress and the White House helped free it of the constraints of laws and regulations.
The dream was the country's driving force. It made Florida, Hollywood and the riches of Goldman Sachs possible, and it attracted millions of immigrants. Now, however, Americans are discovering that there are many directions that life can take, and at least one of them points downward. The conviction that stocks have always made everyone richer has become as much of a chimera in the United States as the belief that everyone has the right to own his own home, and then a bigger home, a second car and maybe even a yacht. But at some point, everything comes to an end.
The United States is a confused and fearful country in 2010. American companies are still world-class, but today Apple and Coca-Cola, Google and Microsoft are investing in Asia, where labor is cheap and markets are growing, and hardly at all in the United States. Some 47 percent of Americans don't believe that the America Dream is still realistic.
Loud and Distressed
The Desperate States of America are loud and distressed. The country has always been a little paranoid, but now it's also despondent, hopeless and pessimistic. Americans have always believed in the country's capacity for regeneration, that a new awakening is possible at any time. Now, 63 percent of Americans don't believe that they will be able to maintain their current standard of living.
And if America is indeed on the downward slope, it will have consequences for the global economy and the political world order.
The fall of America doesn't have to be a complete collapse -- it is, after all, a country that has managed to reinvent itself many times before. But today it's no longer certain -- or even likely -- that everything will turn out fine in the end. The United States of 2010 is dysfunctional, but in new ways. The entire interplay of taxes and investments is out of joint because a 16,000-page tax code allows for far too many loopholes and because solidarity is no longer part of the way Americans think. The political system, plagued by lobbyism and stark hatred, is incapable of reaching consistent or even quick decisions.
The country is reacting strangely irrationally to the loss of its importance -- it is a reaction characterized primarily by rage. Significant portions of America simply want to return to a supposedly idyllic past. They devote almost no effort to reflection, and they condemn cleverness and intellect as elitist and un-American, as if people who hunt bears could seriously be expected to lead a world power. Demagogues stir up hatred and rage on television stations like Fox News. These parts of America, majorities in many states, ignorant of globalization and the international labor market, can do nothing but shout. They hate everything that is new and foreign to them.
But will the US wake up? Or is it already much too late?
YESTERDAY: AMERICA'S FALL
The sociologist Robert Putnam hems and haws, not wanting to be the kind of professor who drops names to make himself seem more important. But the issue is much too important for him to resist. "I have had the chance to discuss income inequality with George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and I can assure you both were worried about the trend," he says. "It was possible to have an adult conversation with them on this topic."
Putnam, a Harvard professor who sports an enormous beard, sounds pleased, as if this were an exception. He is a surveyor of the American psyche. A few years ago, he caused a stir with his book "Bowling Alone," in which he argued that more and more Americans are bowling alone -- and not in a bowling club -- because the average American hardly even speaks to other Americans anymore, and certainly not with those who hold views different from his own.
Now Putnam is worried about economic imbalances and new disparities within society. Today an American CEO earns about 300 times as much as an ordinary worker. In 1950, that number was only 30. The consequence is "social segregation," says Putnam, by which he means that people go to different schools and parties and live in different neighborhoods, and that there is no longer any overlap between groups.
"The fundamental bargain, the core of America, has always been that we can live with big gaps between rich and poor as long as there is also equality of opportunity," Putnam says. "If that is no longer true, then the core bargain is being violated."
THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY (MEROS B)
(CLICKING ON THE LINK WE ARE REDIRECTED TO AUTHORS WEBSITE FROM WHERE WE CAN READ OR DOWNLOAD THE BOOK )
THIS IS A SMALL PART OF THE MAIN BOOK,WE CALL IT MEROS B ( THE WRITER DESCRIBES IT PART 2,BUT HIS DESCRIPTION CONTAINS CHAPT.8-12,OURS PART OF CHAPT.8),CONTINUING OUR POST
THE KNOW-LEDGE SOCIETY / EE G(K)NOO(W)-STIKEE KOINOONIA (MEROS A)
ON 4/09/10
FROM THE WEBSITE " WE THE ECOUMENISTS exontes zilon FOR AN OECOUMENIC POLIS"
( http://zilote.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4AB911131313636C!6596.entry?&_c02_vws=1 )
WE THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS PERMISSION IN POSTING HIS WORK AND FOR HIS SUPPORT
A.C.
CHAPTER 8: THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY — A NEGATIVE SCENARIO
(THE PART IS FROM SCREEN 4 UP TO SCREEN 43 AS IT CAN BE READ FROM IE8)
..........
The Lisbon II strategy—a return to the industrial society?
The scenario described above is not that far from us. On the contrary, it is all around us in our everyday life. A concrete example could be the revision of the Lisbon strategy. Indeed, one may ask whether the strategy of Lisbon II, the revision of the Lisbon strategy, which took place in the European Commission after the report of the Dutch politician Wim Kok, is not a return to the industrial strategy. And it is understandable that this might be the case. The Lisbon strategy was a very audacious choice. It inferred a paradigm change, a real jump into a new way of thinking, like Finland was obliged to do in 1989 and did with great success.
But leadership failed on the Lisbon strategy plan. It was never made clear—not within the European administration, nor in the member States, except perhaps in Finland and in Sweden—that we were changing society and economy. There are no books and no explanations on this topic. It is, therefore, understandable that this return to the industrial-society model occurred.
But it is a pity, especially, when one sees the disappearance of all the Units, which, in the Commission (Dg Infoso), really were at the front edge of research and creation of knowledge networks. It is disheartening.
What to do with humans?
The major problem that one faces in this new type of “industrial” scenario is probably the manner by which human beings will be considered and treated. As I showed above, humans are crucial for the creation of new knowledge, which is the new heart of the creation of value. The classical “industrial” approach will tend to prioritise machine over man as it has done for centuries. In this final phase of the industrial society, man is not so much an asset as a cost to be minimized and, if and when possible, to be replaced by robots. Thus, in this new context, the industrial society and modern mentality will continue prioritizing the machine. It also will try to do without humans. This is deeply ingrained in its logic, and it seems that there are two ways in which it will manifest.
1. The first way is to replace humans with machines.
Since a computer beat the world chess champion Gary Kasparov, many scientists believe that the computer will, one day, be able to replace the human brain in all its functions, even the most intimate ones. And they massively invest in more and more powerful and performing computers to be able, some day, to get rid of man. Thus, one could some day progressively reach a society without a human dimension. Like it or not, this seems to these scientists rational, unavoidable, and perhaps most disturbingly, ethically acceptable. This is the result of a “modern” vision in which the scientific and rational approach is, by itself, above ethics, since the use of reason and the scientific method is a direct and warranted way toward objective truth. From this point of view, it is perfectly logical and acceptable to replace humans with machines.
2. The second way, in my opinion, is even more dangerous—that is, to manipulate the human brain.
Indeed, by remaining in the industrial and rational paradigm, and as much as the human brain cannot be replaced by computers, the most “rational” way to employ it is to manipulate the human brain to produce the knowledge that we want as much, when and how, we want it.
A meeting of the European Commission on scientific policy
In September 2005, I was invited to an interesting meeting at the European Commission in Brussels. It was organised by the Scientific and Technology Foresight Unit of European Commission. The subject was “converging technologies.”
What is it about? With the spectacular advances of nanotechnologies and also of the cognitive, biological, and informational sciences, one witnesses in the U.S., the European Union and the rest of the world a phenomenon of convergence of technologies and scientific approaches. In fact, when the scientist is working at the level of the very small—that is, at the cellular level, it is difficult to distinguish if one works with chemistry, biology, physics, informational sciences… or nanosciences. In fact, they might well be working with all disciplines at once. Indeed, the traditional distinctions between the scientific disciplines, as we once knew them, are dissolving at the cellular size.
Science is rapidly changing, and some speak of a new scientific paradigm. At the technological and research level, a similar junction/fusion is occurring between biology, cognitive, and informational technologies and the nanotechnologies.
This convergence between sciences and technologies at the “nano“ level implies a different approach of all the educational systems, and of student preparation. From the first day, students will need to be educated in a transdisciplinary way and to be able to switch from one discipline to another, or even to navigate in a new one which may be a synthesis of a few traditionally separated disciplines.
All this also means that the nanosciences now have access to the building blocks that are the essence of life itself. As Dorothee Benoit Browaeys, journalist in Paris, and founder of the project “Living” observed , ”If one can observe, manipulate, simulate the bricks of the living, one also can invent new structures. This is the field which has been opened namely by the nanotechnologies.” We are emerging on possibilities that were unsuspected a few years ago, but which pose formidable questions.
At the beginning of the Conference, the European Commission mentioned the existence of an important report presented to the president of the U.S., George W. Bush in 2002. The Commission pointed out that the vision of the U.S. “raises questions” and suggested another approach to the “converging technologies.” Let us review the U.S. report and make clear the implicit concept of the science and the technology which are at the basis of this report. This will be later very useful.
It is worthwhile at least to read the summary of the U.S. report. There is a quiet and serene description of the two scenarios we just mentioned—the progressive replacement of man by more and more intelligent machines, which reproduce themselves on their own and, on the other hand, the manipulation of the human brain modestly called “improvement of human performance.“ Science is also mentioned in totally “modern” terms. I would even say in much more purely modern terms than European modernity. Following is this eloquent text :
“Science must offer society new visions of what is possible to achieve. The society depends upon scientists for authoritative knowledge and professional judgment to maintain and gradually improve the well being of citizens, but scientists must also become visionaries who can imagine possibilities beyond anything currently experienced in the world. In science the intrinsic human need for intellectual advancement finds its most powerful expression. At times, scientists should take great intellectual risks, exploring unusual and even unreasonable ideas, because the scientific method for testing theories empirically can ultimately distinguish the good ideas from the bad ones. Across all of the sciences, individual scientists and teams should be supported in their quest for knowledge. Then interdisciplinary efforts can harvest discoveries across the boundaries of many fields, and engineers will harness them to accomplish technological progress.”
Thus, in this report, the scientific approach becomes the altar of objectivity and truth. It is almost revered as divine since its method distinguishes the true from the false (the “good” from the “bad”), and, thus, leads humankind toward the truth. The public can only “depend” on scientists and must be educated, because if it opposes the progress of science, it means that it is in the darkness of ignorance. In brief, it is a marvellous homage to science, corresponding to the “modern” vision of the 1800s in Europe.
As Jeremy Rifkin admirably says, the U.S. for historic reasons has imported a “modern” vision of science which became frozen in 1800. This vision of science did not change, because it was cemented in the American dream together with the protestant Puritanism. In addition, this gave birth to the powerful American dream that strongly believes in progress generated by science and technology but, at the same time, by the divine blessing which can manifest itself by the economic success of each citizen having the courage and the will to work hard and be honest.
According to Rifkin, the vision of science has not changed in the U.S. precisely because it was sacralised in the American dream that no one dares to touch or decry. It has remained “deep frozen” since 1800.
This “modern/1800” vision of the U.S. Report about the convergent technologies brings up frightful questions. This “practically infallible” vision of science permits to totally short-change the ethical debate. So that the report clearly shows that the political and scientific leadership of the U.S. gave the green light, without inner thought, on the one hand, for the development of intelligent robots, capable to replace man, and, on the other hand, they do not hesitate to contemplate calmly the manipulation of the human brain to increase its potential.
I encourage the reader to go to the Internet to read at least the summary of the report, because I cannot go further in depth here. But I shall here present two reactions of well-known scientists who sound the alarm.
The first is the very famous article by Bill Joy, the creator of the Java and other programs at Sun Microsystems . Bill Joy wrote in 2000, in the fashionable technology magazine, Wired, an article that sounds the alarm and tries to launch a debate on the future of technology in the U.S. Here are significant extracts:
“First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would wilfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless it may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, it may decide to play the role of good shepherd to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.”
Following is another extract leading in the same direction.
“In a completely free marketplace, superior robots would surely affect humans as North American placentals affected South American marsupials (and as humans have affected countless species). Robotic industries would compete vigorously among themselves for matter, energy, and space, incidentally driving their price beyond human reach. Unable to afford the necessities of life, biological humans would be squeezed out of existence.”
There is probably some breathing room, because we do not live in a completely free marketplace. Government coerces nonmarket behaviour, especially by collecting taxes. Judiciously applied, governmental coercion could support human populations in high style on the fruits of robot labour, perhaps for a long while.”
It is most interesting to observe that the report of the U.S. National Science Foundation replies to Bill Joy on page 95, thus.
“Bill Joy has raised such issues with the public, presenting scenarios that imply that nanoscale science and engineering may bring a new form of life, and that their confluence with biotechnology and the information revolution could even place in danger the human species. In our opinion, raising this general issue is very important. But several of Joy’s scenarios are speculative and contain unproven assumptions (see comments from Smalley 2000) and extrapolations. However, one has to treat these concerns responsibly. For this reason we have done studies and tasked coordinating offices at the national level to track and respond to unexpected developments, including public health and legal aspects. So far, we all agree that while all possible risks should be considered, the need for economic and technological progress must be counted in the balance. We underscore that the main aim of our national research initiatives is to develop the knowledge base and to create an institutional infrastructure to bring about broader benefits for society in the long term. To this end, it is essential to involve the entire community from the start, including social scientists, to maintain a broad and balanced vision.”
We see that all the importance is given to “the need of economic and technological progress“. We still are in the “modern/1800” paradigm, built and based on the concept of quantitative scientific economic and technological progress which is not questioned. It is given a priority over ethical preoccupations (humankind’s future) which must be “handled in a responsible way,” but without giving them a decisive priority.
Engineering of the human brain?
Let us now consider the second way to treat humans in this new technological “industrial” vision. Either machines replace humans, or humans are manipulated to continue to adapt themselves to the logic of the machines which remain preponderant. Here one talks of “engineering of the human brain.“
The National Science Foundation mentioned above suggests that this is only a matter of increasing the human potential, nothing more. Let us take an example that was called upon during the Brussels public meeting of 2004:
“We are in 2035. The school principal summons the parents and tells them, ‘Your child is having difficulties in our school. You are totally free; however, I suggest that you give him a small injection, at school expenses of course, of a mix of nanocomputers the size of a cell. We have observed that often the children increase their performance and become quieter. But, if you do not accept, and I repeat that you are totally free, I regret that the school no longer can assume the responsibility of your child’s education.”
This is a possible scenario. Moreover, it indicates the second danger of the negative scenario—manipulation of human mind, beginning with the weak and defenceless.
Is this the direction in which we want to take our world civilization?
Are we ready to subject our children or grandchildren to these types of “experimentations”?
This certainly merits discussion. The public must be informed as best as possible to be able to fully participate in the debate.
After Bill Joy, let us go to one of the highest world authority in astronomy—Sir Martin Rees , professor at the University of Cambridge. In 2003, he published a book that is a serious warning about the actual evolution of science and technology. He is much referred to by Jeremy Rifkin in the “European Dream“ (p. 315). According to him, “the odds are no better than fifty-fifty that our present civilization on Earth will survive until the end of the present century.” Rees warns against the construction of small nanorobots that replicate like viruses and that race out of control, devouring matter and turning the Earth’ surface to a “gray goo” . Rees worries also about similar threats posed by genetic engineering and computer technology—especially as technology in the high-tech field spreads rapidly.
According to Rees, it is urgent to organise a global discussion on scientific research. Many scientists reply that if the same warnings existed when man discovered the fire, we would have remained primitives. But Rees replies that the major difference is that the prior discoveries only had a limited and local impact, whereas the progress of the converging technologies may have a global and lasting impact.
There also is, in Washington D.C., the International Center for Technology Assessment http://www.icta.org/nanotech/index.cfm which is again very critical about some nanotechnology development. Here is a quote from Andrew Kimbrell , founder of this Center:
“Corporations, academics, and researchers came to realize, albeit slowly, that current technology is not compatible with life… To deal with this historic dilemma, the techno-utopians and their corporate sponsors outline a breathtaking initiative. This initiative was not to change technology so that it better fits the needs of the living things, as we were so eagerly advocating. No, they had and have a very different and stunningly self-serving approach. They decided to engineer life, indeed reality itself, so that it better fit the technological system. It is in this chilling context that the enormous significance of the current revolutions in technology can be fully appreciated. Here we have the key to the otherwise bewildering high-tech headlines and to much of our social malaise.”
As I will show below, the difficulty is precisely the paradigm, the underlying vision. According to the vision of part of the North American establishment and its present government, they consider themselves “in the truth and objectivity” and are not ready to change, because there are no reasons to change if you are in The Truth. This is, fortunately, not the position of millions of U.S. intellectuals, who are totally conscious of the dangers of not shifting paradigm with this new tool of production.
So that Rifkin concludes (p.320):
“The divergence in views on science and technology between Americans and Europeans is growing and is now coming to the fore in a myriad of public policy debates, threatening a schism as significant as the divide over our different sense of how best to pursue foreign policy and domestic security.”
It is time now to go to the European position represented by the European Commission. This leads us into another atmosphere, another vision of the world, another scientific and technologic paradigm. We make a bound from 1800 to 2004.
Innovative and critical position of the European Commission
One must acknowledge the European Commission and specifically Mr. Paraskevas Caracostas and his think tank on Scientific and Technological Foresight in the General Direction of Sciences, who initiated a high quality reflection on these crucial questions. They asked a group of experts to provide a report on the converging technologies. This intelligent and in-depth report was published in September 2004 in Brussels. It includes the following items.
1. It clearly warns against any danger of manipulation of the human brain.
“Some proponents of Converging Technologies advocate engineering of the mind and of the body. (The text has probably the U.S. National Science Foundation in mind, without to say it explicitly). Electronic implants and physical modifications are to enhance our current human capacities. The expert group proposes that Converging Technology research should focus on engineering for the mind and for the body. Changes to the cognitive environment or medical self-monitoring can improve decision-making and health. And the Commission warns against a real danger of surrendering our freedom to the machines: “Either way, humans may end up surrendering more and more of their freedom and responsibility to a mechanical world that acts for them."
As we can see, the report proposes a strategy which is very different from that of the U.S. Instead of engineering of human brain, they advocate engineering for the brain and for the body. We are in a completely different vision, in which, the human person is in the centre now and not the machine. We Europeans, feel much more at ease in this new vision and new paradigm.
2. Involvement of citizens since the first day as a new strategy.
The report details different aspects and challenges of these converging technologies, and it strongly advises to involve the European citizens by organizing centres of discussion, which they call “widening circles of convergence”. It insists in the idea that, "Converging technologies (CT) converge toward a common goal. CTs always involve an element of agenda-setting. Because of this, converging technologies are particularly open to the deliberate inclusion of public and policy concerns. Deliberate agenda-setting for CTs can therefore be used to advance strategic objectives such as the Lisbon Agenda."
Moreover, the report advises that the political goal should be that of the Lisbon strategy which recommends that the Union become competitive in the knowledge economy, but in a sustainable and socially inclusive manner.
3. Ethics is completely integrated inside the creative development process, and scientists shall be educated in ethics.
The report indeed insists on ethics, philosophical reflection and human science’s contribution “CTEKS agenda-setting is not top-down but integrated into the creative technology development process.” In everyday language, this means that usually everything is prepared and the decisions taken before “consulting the public” and politely asking it to accept a well prepared package. But the report says: No: the public must decide with the scientists, and from the beginning what these technologies will be used for. Toward which society are we going together? What is the real agenda? We are in a completely different vision of the role of science and scientists in society. And the text continues, ”Beginning with scientific interest and technological expertise it works from the inside out in close collaboration with the social and human sciences and multiple stakeholders through the proposed WiCC initiative (“Widening the Circles of Convergence”). For the same reason, ethical and social considerations are not external and purely reactive but through the proposed EuroSpecs process, bring awareness to CT research and development.” Thus, ethics is not an appendix that is added a posteriori without prior consultations. No, ethics is at the heart of the process of the agenda creation. It is at the heart of the reflection. And one also foresees a continued education of scientists in the field of ethics.
4. A new contract between society and science.
The end of the report mentions “the new contract between society and science.” The public is no longer an obstacle to the development of science, but it is an indispensable resource allowing society to choose between the scientific applications which are positive for the future of humankind and those which are not.
We no longer are in the modern paradigm. The vision of science and society is transmodern. The paradigm is different.
Conclusions from Chapter 8
Without entering into the technological details of these interesting North American and European reports, I have described a negative scenario for the future and the objective evidence of its existence. I conclude with the most important messages here.
1. The negative scenario exists.
It is powerful and alive. Indeed, there are huge political, economic, and financial forces which have firmly decided to activate it. For instance, the National Science Foundation of the U.S. and all the important forces gravitating around it. In addition, this is going on since 2002. Let us have no illusions.
2. The main danger is the implicit vision, the paradigm.
The simple ideas that I would like to present here are that:
• The danger exists to lose human freedom.
• This danger is not linked to such or such a person or group of persons that might be bad or ill-disposed. Indeed, there are always mafias, but I am not here concerned with that sector for the moment. The danger is not linked with persons.
• The danger is not linked to a particular technology. This debate is NOT a technological debate!
• The danger lies in the VISION, the way of seeing and unconsciously acting which I call the modern-rational vision of science. The danger is to keep the obsolete paradigm with the new tools. The value scale is no longer appropriate for the new era that we entering. We are, in part, reproducing the same errors as at the end of the Middle Ages, when we tried to manage the first industrial tools with medieval agrarian tools and concepts.
3. Our working hypothesis is that some leading elites in the U.S., but also elsewhere in the world, still are totally in the modern paradigm, and even in a modernity frozen around 1800, for many reasons.
4. The danger lies in this obsolete vision or paradigm that pretends to solve the problems of tomorrow with the mentality of yesterday. This U.S. report of 2002 on the converging technologies is an excellent example of a modern concept of science. And in that vision, science is:
• Objective and capable of reaching and achieving the Truth by itself, thanks to its “objective experimental methodology.”
• Independent from the public. It is unnecessary to consult public opinion, which is considered as an obstacle to go around or to educate.
• Oriented toward “supply economy.” The vision is that anything that science produces (supplies) is excellent for Humanity, and must thus be put on the market. Public opinion will have to be “convinced” to buy all that science and technology produces.
5. In the actual context, what seems to us particularly dangerous is to maintain this “modern” concept and vision of an independent science, deified on an altar and separated from the human and from the historical context.
Prigogine and Stengers wrote splendid and enlightening pages on this unconscious deification of science during the centuries: “Science, laicised, remains the prophetic announcement of a world described as it is contemplated from a divine or demonic perspective: the science of Newton, this new Moses to whom the world truth came into sight, is a science revealed, definitive, foreign to the social and historic context which identifies it as a human activity. This type of prophetic and inspired discourse can be found all along the history of physics…”
As Ilya Prigogine, Nobel price of physics (1977), remarks very well, the problem of the scientific “modern” paradigm is that “modern “science is foreign to the social and historic context which gives it its human character. Since it sees itself as “divine,” inspired, and objective, it is really in danger of becoming demonic.
The serious danger on the horizon is that science and technology are indefinitely allowed to blindly progress and dehumanise our civilization, without even realizing it. In the end, we are in a logic of death, unable to be stopped. Indeed, in the “modern” context dominated by the almighty reason, there are no possible protective railings. The impression is that an unavoidable development is heading us toward a catastrophe that we prefer not to see. This is the warning of Professor Dupuy who teaches in Paris and at Stanford University, California.
6. The European vision is more transmodern.
One can feel that the tone of the European document is in a different paradigm and vision. This is because the underlying vision is transmodern, without saying it. The vision of science and its relation to truth and society is very different.
• Science is more critical toward itself. It does not consider that any scientific discovery by itself is useful to the citizens. The position is more critical and warns against real dangers.
• Science is functioning as a new “Demand economy.” In a turnaround, one moves from a supply economy where techno-science continues to produce and to “supply” new products that people are supposed to buy, to a “demand economy” where science tries to answer to implicit or explicit demands from society, notably on sustainability and social cohesion.
• Science is linked with its historical and social context. The EU report situates itself differently with regards to science. Science is here inserted in a historical and societal context. It is not above society; therefore, it dialogues with the other human sciences and with the citizens.
• Science proposes a new pact with society. A “new science pact” with the citizens is proposed and put in place.
I will end this chapter with an important quote of Jeremy Rifkin from his well-known book, The European Dream .
“It is too early to say for sure whether Europe is leading the world into a second Enlightenment. Certainly its multilateral agreements, its internal treaties and directives, and its bold cutting-edge initiatives suggest a radical re-evaluation in the way science and technology are approached and executed. The increased reliance on the precautionary principle and systems thinking put Europe out in front of the United States and other countries in re-envisioning science and technology issues in a globally connected world. Still a word of caution is in order. The old power-driven Enlightenment science remains the dominant approach in the research, development, and market introduction of most new technologies, products, and services in Europe, America, and elsewhere in the world. Whether the EU government can effectively apply new-science thinking in its regulatory regime to old-science commercial applications in the marketplace remains to be seen. In the long run, a successful transition to a new scientific era will depend on whether industry itself can begin to internalise the precautionary principle and systems thinking into its R&D plans, creating new technologies, products, and services that are, from the get-go, ecologically sensitive and sustainable.”
However, this leads us naturally to the following chapter, which analyses the relationship between the knowledge society and the transmodern and planetary paradigm.
(TO BE CONTINUED )
Marc LUYCKX GHISI
(SOME WORDS ABOUT THE AUTHOR )
Born in 1942, married with Isabelle, six children, He is living in the neighbourhood of Brussels. He has studied mathematics, Philosophy and has a PhD in Russian and Greek Theology. He has lived in Italy, Brazil, and USA, and has lectured in Brazil, US and Europe. He has been during almost 10 years, working directly for Presidents of the European Commission Jacques Delors and Jacques Santer, as a member of the “Forward Studies Unit”, in the European Commission, from 1990 until 1999. He was in charge of a research on the Future trends in Europe and in the world in the context of the paradigm shift. He is now active in knowledge economy research and is:
Vice president of the New "Cotrugli Business School" in Zagreb, Croatia, and Belgrade Serbia.
Vice-Chairman of the "International Advisory Council" of Auroville, in India.
Senior Advisor with “Business solutions”, Brussels.
He teaches regularly in: o Cotrugli Business Academy (CBA) in Zagreb o ROUEN ESC Business school University Degrees:
STUDIES
• MA in Mathematics (civil engineer) University of Louvain, Belgium 1960
• MA (Baccalauréat) in Philosophy. University of Louvain.1961
• Licence (MBA) in Catholic Theology. University of Louvain, 1967
• PHD (Doctoratus) in Russian and Greek Theology, (“Pontificio Istituto Orientale”), Rome Italy. 1972.
Languages: French (mother language) English, Italian, Dutch, Brazilian, Spanish., German, Modern Greek, Russian.
Honours and memberships
• Fellow of the “World Business Academy”, Ojai, Ca. USA
• Fellow of the “World Academy of Arts and Science”. USA.
• Member of the Brussels-EU Chapter of the “Club of Rome”.
• Member of the “(Yes magazine), Positive Future network ”. BainBridge Island (WA)
• Member of the “World Future Society” (more US)
• Member of the “World Federation of Future Studies” (more Europe-Asia)
• Honorary President of EUROTAS “European Transpersonal Association”.
NOTES
[1] The nanotechnologies are technologies which work at the level of the cell size or the nanometre ( one millionth of a millimetre or one meter divided by 1000 millions). One is attending at a new change of scientific paradigm, because, at the level of the cell, it is difficult to distinguish what relates to physics, biology or chemistry. This is another world where the classic distinctions between the modern sciences are relative [2] See http://www.vivantinfo.com/index.php?id=121
[3] “Converging Technologies for improving Human performance : National Science Foundation, Arlington 2002, National Board of Commerce, USA. http://www.technology.gov/reports/2002/NBIC/Part1.pdf
[4] See “US report” p. 40: “Motivation and outlook: Theme Summary of Panel by US representative of Governmental agencies.”
[5] Jeremy RIFKIN : « The European Dream : when Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. Tarcher Penguin 2004. See the brilliant chapter 15:”A second enlightenment”: Pages 315-357.
[9] Sir Martin REES:” Our final century” Random House 2003,UK, published in US with the title: “Our Final Hour”, by Basic Books 2003
[10] Sir Martin REES: ibidem. P.132.
[11] Andrew KIMBRELL: “Technotopia” In “YES, a journal of positive futures” N°19, Fall 2001, p.14. Mr Kimbrell is President of ICTA : “International Centre for Technology Assessment”, 666, Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.Suite 302, WashingtonD.C.20003. Phone: 202/ 547-9359. www.icta.org
[12] “Nano-Bio-Cogno-Socio-Anthro-Philo. High Level European Group Foresighting the New Technology Wave: Converging Technologies – Shaping the Future European Societies. Brussels, European Commission 2004. http://www.ntu.no/2020/final.
[13] See the European ReportPage 4:
[14] Ilya PRIGOGINE and Isabelle STENGERS : ”Order out of Chaos: Men’s new
DEAR ALL,
IT IS WISHED A HEALTHY AND PROSPEROUS MONTH.
WE WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE FEEL VERY HONORED BECAUSE AT LAST OUR VOICES SEEM THAT ARE HEARD,THROUGH THE SPREAD OF THE NET.WE CONCLUDE THAT ,SINCE ACCORDING TO ANALYTICS ,USA SENDS THE MOST OF THE VISITORS,FOLLOWED BY BELGIUM AND LATELY BY RUSSIA AS THE THIRD POWER :-)
Russia Joins Drug Raid in Afghanistan, Marking Advance in Relations With U.S.
Petraeus said a new program to create village-level security forces -... he called it "community watch with AK-47s" - is gathering momentum. The Interior Ministry, he said, plans to implement the program in 68 districts, each of which would receive funds and equipment from the U.S. military for about 300 armed auxiliary police officers. The Afghan government had placed a 10,000-member cap on the force, out of concern that it could morph into militias, but the Interior Ministry has scrapped that limit in an effort to expand the program more quickly.
ON 26-27 OF OCTOBER WE PARTICIPATED AT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT'S CENTRAL HEMICYCLE WITH THE THEMATIC
" A NEW SPACE POLICY FOR EUROPE ,NEW CHALLENGES ,NEW OPPORTUNITIES "
WE MUST ADMIT THAT THERE WAS A GREAT INTEREST ,AND A LOT OF IMPORTANT TRADITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS TOOK PART . IT WAS ALSO THE FIRST TIME THAT IT WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SOCIETY OF CITIZENS AND VARIOUS SOCIAL PLATFORMS TO PRESENT THEMSELVES.
SOME BASIC CONCLUSIONS FROM THE DISCUSSIONS ARE :
WE AS EUROPEAN UNION WE ARE INVESTING 6 TIMES LESS AMOUNT OF MONEY THAN USA DOES IN SPACE POLICY,EVEN IF THIS SECTOR HAS A 7 % GROWTH / ANNUM .
WE ARE LAST IN OUR BUDGETS ON SPACE SECURITY AND INNOVATION BEING COMPARED WITH CHINA ,N.AMERICA AND RUSSIA
THE RATIO FOR INVESTMENTS IN E-DEFENCE APPLICATIONS IS EU/USA = 1/25
FOR SPACE FP7 RESEARCH PROGRAMS EC DONATES 700 MILLION EURO /YEAR HALF OF WHICH ARE CONSUMED BY ESA.THIS MEANS THAT NATIONAL SPACE CENTRES DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ABILITIES FOR AN INDEPENTENT RESEARCH COOPERATION BETWEEN THEM.
ONLY 6 MEMBER STATES ARE BEING INVOLVED IN PRIME SPACE INDUSTRY
THE FIRST DAY ,DURING AND AFTER THE FOUR PLANETARY SESSIONS ,A LUNCH AND A COCTAIL WERE OFFERED BY THE INTERGROUP SKY AND SPACE ,THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS ,EUROSPACE AND BELGIAN HIGH REPRESENTATION FOR SPACE POLICY.
AT SECOND DAY OF THE SUMMIT AND DURING THE FIRST PLANETARY SESSION (9.30-11)WE AS EPAPHOS ADVISORS TEAMWORK ,POSED A CRUCIAL QUESTION TO THE FIRST SESSION'S PANEL ,
( ARNAUD DANJEAN ,CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE,EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT-
STEFANO MANSERVISI , DIRECTOR GENERAL ,DG HOME AFFAIRS ,EUROPEAN COMMISSION-
CLAUDE-FRANCE ARNOULD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL ,DIRECTORATE "CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING ",COUNSIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION -
GENERAL VINCENZO CAMPORINI ,ITALIAN ARMED FORCES ,CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF -
GIUSEPPE MORSILLO ,HEAD OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL'S POLICY OFFICE ,EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY -
FRITZ MERKLE ,MEMBER OF THE EX.BOARD ,OHB /SYSTEM -
GENERAL (RTD) BERNARD MOLARD ,VICE PRESIDENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ,TELESPAZIO -
GIUSEPPE ARIDON ,VICE PRESIDENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ,TELESPAZIO
JURRY DE LA MAR ,ACCOUNT DIRECTOR ,T SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL )
WHICH WAS ADRESSED MAINLY TO THE MILITARY MEMBERS OF SPEAKERS
" WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR SATELLITE OR LAND (TERRESTRIAL) BASES DATA CONTROL CENTERS ARE DEPENDED FROM USA .
SO AS IT WAS MENTIONED BY OUR SPACE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SOME TIMES WE FACE A KIND OF PROTECTIONISM FOR DATA REQUESTS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC PARTNERS OF OURS.
AT THE SAME TIME OUR CYBER-SECURITY (or E-DEFENCE ) CRISES MANAGEMENT ON REALITY DOESN'T EXIST,AS WE ARE TOTALLY DEPENDED EITHER FROM NATO HEADQUARTERS OR FROM MILITARY CENTRES IN USA (1).
SHOULDN'T DEFENCE POLICIES FOCUSED ON BUILDING OUR EUROPEAN MAIN SPACE - DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURES ,SO BY THIS WAY THE COOPERATION WITH OUR PARTNERS TO BECOME BALLANCED AND CREATIVE ?
SHOULD'T WE TAKE CARE ABOUT HOW EUROPEAN CITIZENS TAX MONEY ARE GOING TO BE INVESTED WITH SECURITY AND A MELLON PERSPECTIVE ,FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR EUROPEAN NATIONS ?"
THE HONORABLE MILITARY REPRESENTATION GAVE THE APPROPRIATE EXPLANATIONS,STANDING AND STATING ON A FURTHER COOPERATION BETWEEN CITIZENS AND MILITARY AUTHORITIES.
DEAR FELLOW CITIZENS ,
WITH YOUR GUIDANCE AND INSPIRATION AND ON BEHALF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ,SOCIAL PLATFORMS AND SME (SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES ) WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED THE SOONEST BY THE HELP OF THOSE MEP ,WHO ARE SUPPORTING CITIZENS PEACEFUL MOVEMENTS,TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF "URANIA AND HELIOS AEROSPACE-DEFENCE " INTERGROUP.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
A.C.
(1) SEE OUR ARTICLE ON 17/10/10 http://feraios.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-controls-internet-squared-jawed.html
OUR COMPANY BASED ON SHAREHOLDING LEGISLATION CONSISTS OF EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS,LAWS,ENGINEERING,CONSULTING,TECHNOLOGY,ECOLOGY,CAPITALISING WHICH ARE WORKING WITH PASSION TO IMPLEMENT OUR VALUES.(published by think tank IAMBLICHUS team)
