Hiding Libya

Libya is a country that suffers with a crisis of hiding and adapting since its existence. It is a game of hiding and finding to fit every purpose at any time. Just like a chameleon does when, they need to feed themselves or when they need to hide from some predator. The Libyan government reacts and acts predictably, influencing each result, and manipulating whoever needs to be manipulated, as long as they end up with some benefit from it.

In 2003, Libya said for the first time, that they were getting rid of any chemical weapon that they had (BBC News, 2014). If at that time, there was a concern from any other country that having chemical weapons or producing it, could be bad, than at least these worried countries could relax a little bit. It sounds trick from Libya to say something like this, and the rest of the world do not actually know if any actions are being taken along this subject. It seems like a chameleon camouflage to outwit those too worried or to send them away, far from Libya’s business.

However, the country is always prepared to be attacked. It is an instinct extracted from the chameleon. At the same time that the country was planning to destroy or get rid of any chemical weapons, they were making agreements with Russia to buy their weapons, such as fighter jets, tanks and air defence systems (BBC News, 2014). If a country wants to be seen, or even wants to be a nonviolent place, it does not only get free from chemical weapons, but at the same time, does not make agreement on purchasing more weapons, even if they are not as dangerous as the first one. It shows that Libya is not a very good negotiator country, because they need guns to fight. If they disarm here, they have to be armed there.

So, what is the benefit for the government on destroying chemical weapons? Maybe the benefit is not on not having these types of weapons anymore, but instead, is letting the world know that they do not have it. Making such a big purchase, as the one that they did with Russia, and their weapons, is also something that has to be done, according to the appearance status. How do I look today? Or how do you see me or not? Libya balances itself at every decision made.

BBC News. (2014, January, 29). Libya profile. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445

Libya's Single Option

Respect for The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1978) is a basic concept that humans in the 21st century should be used to follow. In Libya, a country in Africa, the government is not pleased to offer these rights. During the 42 years that the country was ruled by Muammar Gaddafi, the citizens only witnessed an oppressive government. Even after Gaddafi’s ended in 2011, Libyan people still do not have their freedom back. There is no big picture for citizens from Libya. There is nothing right, nothing ethical. There is just one perspective of life provided by the government.

Gaddafi’s oppressive regime took control of the oil revenue from Libya, letting the citizens high and dry. There were, and still there are no investments made on education, health or security in Libya during this long government (Soguel, 2011). The full control of a country is already a violation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the people should have the right to be free (United Nations, 1978). Controlling a whole country is also controlling its people.

According to Nawara Zeidi, a Libyan citizen “Freedom means they [the Libyan government] will meet our demands, improve our homes” (Soguel, 2011). What Gaddafi has done is nothing else than giving one option. Libya gives citizens the option of living without any benefit coming from their own country. It means that the population is not free. Today the country has more than one third of the population under the line of poverty (Rheannon, 2011). This number is not a choice of Libya’s people, but Libya’s old government.

The violation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so huge in Libya, that it affects not only one, but all the citizens at the same time. It is despotism leading the country. People from Libya need their rights back. No one can have the power of taking away the basic right of freedom.

References
Rheannon, F. (2011, March 04). Lesson from Libya: despotism, poverty and risk. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=US108205791820110304
Soguel, D. (2011, April 27). Libyans hope revolt will lift them out of poverty. Middle East Online. Retrieved from http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=45803
United Nations. (1978). The declaration of Universal Human Rights. Office of Public Information. - The united nations and human rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Too Poor Libya

Libya is known for having an extreme oppressive government. This government is creating a status of poverty in the country. By poverty, it is possible to use any definition of a common dictionary, saying that there is a “lack of means of providing material needs or comforts” (Farlex, 2014). In other words, not enough resources are available to make the population live without concerns and wealthy, or anything that provides enough money and proper health to people is offered. If the government has the opportunities to end up or decrease the poverty, than what is happening?

The Libyan government itself has a lack of sagacity when it comes to development using partnerships. It causes a gap of possibilities either for the own politic, and also for some private companies that could be investing on the country, but are stopped by the fear of development. The result is both economic poverty and poor decisions. The first one, because despite of economic growth, since money in this case does not mean wealthy economy, the population has no access to quality health insurance, few options of food, and also no opportunities of jobs (Rheannon, 2011). The second one, since those poor decisions are made with no sense of what can make the country a wealthy place and help the citizens. In one side, there is the result of a country that it is being guided by poor decisions and on the other side, there is the lack of possibilities and un-development that it resulted in, the poverty situation.

On the other hand, Libya does have a market for foreign investment. The country is mined with oil industry and is in need of business speculation, in order to increase the rate of opportunities to citizens and maybe even immigrants. These facts would create an antonym for poverty, and we could call them a sufficient nation. People in Libya could have just what is necessary, instead of having an absence of primordial needs. The result could be Libya out of the terrible margin that says that its population is 40% under the line of poverty (Soguel, 2011).

If the fear is not the growth, but what comes with this whole process, than maybe the country has to think about the meaning of poverty or learn about being self-sufficient. The problem is that until now, this is not a country that can survive without external investments. At the same time that Libya needs other nations pushing up the economy, the own country needs some resources offered by the globe. It is not going to be exploitation between nations and the private sector, if their decisions of allowing private companies be safe and careful.

Using these examples than, there are two possibilities of growing poverty in Libya. One is basically a physical poverty, where the citizens are instantaneously affected – no food, no jobs, equal to no money and after that, no healthy. On the other hand, defining poverty in the idea of political decisions: poor mind. Poor ideas and ideals. Poverty in Libya has at least two meanings. It is enough just to have the wisdom and even the nation will be rich.

References
Farlex, Inc. (2014). Poverty. The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/povertyRheannon, F. (2011, March, 04). Lesson from Libya: despotism, poverty and risk. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=US108205791820110304Soguel, D. (2011, April, 27). Libyans hope revolt will lift them out of poverty. Middle East Online. Retrieved from http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=45803

Digital Divide

It is known that technology is everywhere. Since the pen I write with until the latest medicine invented to help with Alzheimer’s disease. What is not known for a few people in society is that, there are a few issues with technology that, instead of approaching people, pushes them away. This is called Digital Divide, and we can see it through: first, people with access and privileged information, such as countries spying others nations, second, people who have access of information and can make money with it, and third, those people who do not have financial conditions to be aware of what is happening, and cannot be a candidate in a job position, for example. Because of these disparities, technology should be used carefully and fairly.

In the past few months, a few spying situations happened between United States of America and Brazil, and / or several other countries. The Brazilian Government found out that they were being spied by the USA through the internet, telephone calls, etc. The fact is that politically the USA government could have some decisions being influenced by this information they had and the Brazilian Government did not know. It was an unfair situation, not very polite or even ethical. But in the end, there is nothing Brazil can do, because they cannot have control on what any other nation does, even if it is unethical. And by now, there is no way to know if the Brazilian Government has the same technology that the USA has. As the facts show the USA spies on Brazil, only the USA has the Technology and it is causing this divider, not in a small community, but in a very large scale.

A small issue is also an issue. When we have people that have access to monetary information or privileged information and can make money, that no one else can do, than yes, there is something wrong. Eike Batista is a Brazilian businessman that is known for having a huge quantity of money, and in the past, for being one of richest people in the world. The problem is that Eike had information about the financial market and some companies, which were provided only for him. This is totally unethical, unfair, illegal, but it happened – and I can assume there are a lot of people in the world that have this same “benefit”. This is way too much to be considered only a digital divide, and it is isolating people from something that should be equal and fair: the information.

This same information is not being given for people who need it to survive! In a few poor communities, the people do not have easy access to the internet or others ways of communication, that it is easily found in rich communities. A lot of companies use the internet to post job position and opportunities, but it seems to be excluding people that do not have computers (Robert Aucoin, personal communication, 27 November, 2013). Those people will not be able to candidate to these jobs, only because they have been excluded, but not because they are not qualified. If the propose of the internet is to connect people, than it should be at least cheap enough, for everyone be able to afford it.

Since the spying, making money or having a job, everything depends on a fair or unfair communication. This communication is failing. Not because it is bad, but because in a time that the world is being daily changed to be more democratic (with exceptions), my first sentence should not have the word unfair. If the technology is being used as a way to have access to information or to connect people, it should be democratic. This digital divide cannot happen in our society and people should care and be aware that everyone has the right to know.

Technology for dummies?

This week we had the PlayStation 4 releasing in many countries, such as Canada and USA. Next week the video game is going to be released in South America countries and another places as well.  We can say that this is a popular activity is several nations and the PS4 is known in almost every culture. There is a huge amount of people wanting to buy this video game since it was first announced, and this is curious because this type of technology brings fun, but not real production.

The video games in general had the first technological diffusion many decades ago, but they were not as common as they are today. What we have today is a common sense about the best players, games, and also, the availability of worlds that this electronic life have. It is a funny activity and today it is also a way of living. Either by those who play or those who develop and create the games. People make money in competitions and people make money using the imagination to produce the scenarios, characters and strategies.

It is all so popular that in this latest release of this week, there were people making lines in stores, at midnight to be the first to buy it. I just wonder if these people keep playing the entire dawn until the sun comes up.  I also keep thinking if these people who bought it this week have other types of jobs besides playing. OK, I primarily understand that a creator keeps playing all the night to test, and to feel, to develop new ideas… But a player? A common person?

Because there is no increase in someone’s skill if they just play… Besides playing skills… And when someone is developing the game – then there are all the abilities in the 3D software’s that they improve,  practice and when they are playing they can have new ideas, it is just an infinite world. But it is a profession. Everyone should have fun. But there are limits. A normal person could just go in the day after the releasing date to buy it, and it would not make any difference.

So, I wonder why video games exist… This is not a technology created to help us in some task. This is not an extension of ourselves anymore – except when we talk about video games for airplane pilots, for example, where they need training – and we cannot even say that there is a productivity paradox, for those people who play for fun, because they are not playing to improve their tasks  at work. They are just playing for fun.

To sum up, video games can be a needed tool when we talk about training, or they can just be a tool for fun. But when you keep awake only to play – then it is not for fun, but an addiction, and this is the only factor I can think of that justifies why there were so many people on the line last week. Are the creators of games making profit on dummies that do not have any new skill to develop?

Technological Nonsense

By the time that the world was spending money in a technology that was able to extract oil from the Alberta Oil Sands, in Canada, we could also see an increase of the Natural Resources usage, the growth of numbers of cars in China and many other countries, the large number of oil in transportation. But what we could not see was an investment in a sustainable energy, only the opposite.

The global oil consumption has grown from 60 to 87 million of barrels a day, from 1985 to 2005. There is a human dependence in oil, and it does not justify the reason why we are so worried about getting the oil from Alberta, because this increase in the natural resource usage has to have an end. Humans are using their forces and their abilities in the opposite way of the needed development. Today, our technology is basically based on natural resources, and we are not maintaining or protecting almost anything of that.

There was a huge growth in the numbers of cars in China, in 37 million, since 2009, and there are some researches that show that the number of oil consumption for transportation is going to increase in approximately 3% in 15 or 20 years. But the fact is either there will be no space for cars in the world soon, or the oil we are depending so badly is going to end before that. And we did not invest on any other energy while we had time.

China has invested more than $3 billion in the Alberta Oil Sands since 2009, what is just interesting, because the production among these oil sands uses almost more energy and resources to get the oil, than the product of oil itself.  And those investments, not only from China, but from many other countries are probably going to result in a profit in the next few years, but in a close future, this oil will have an end.

All facts around the investments in the Alberta Oil Sands result on the same issues. And this statement can be written with a ‘general word’, like ‘all’, because there are enough evidences to support this thesis. Unfortunately, there are not enough people to put their money in a sustainable and clean energy. Probably people are going to be without money and without oil. 

"StupidUs"

Today I heard a debate at CBC News Online, talking about the Internet: “Is the Internet making us Smarter or Stupider?”, and I also got another idea from the audio to share: “we know what a tool can do for us, what about what a tool can do to us?”. Yes, this is a very good question. Do we wonder how do we behave in front of a computer or in a world that most part of a communication is done electronically?

We know that Marshall McLuhan once said that “technology is an extension of ourselves”, and what does technology do to us? Today, we can easily go out to have a lunch and find many, if not all, people in a restaurant talking through some electronic device, we are just addicted at talking with (with?) our devices. This is our common behavior. If people need to do a research, most of them go directly into the internet to look for it – it is like if the internet had something that would stick on us and we cannot think about anything else then internet: “Internet is my solution!”. Wake up!

It is easy to fit than in some kind of Productivity Paradox – not only because we can spend so much time learning how to do something new, through some technology, but also, because sometimes we can forget our duties, just by “playing” online – chatting, gaming, reading something irrelevant… Because internet is full of crap and worthless things at the same time that it has a lot of important and good things to deal with.

So, yes! Internet makes things easier and at the same time, makes us waste our time. We do not have to think a lot about that. People get distracted from anything that moves. Internet moves all the time, internet has some life that we cannot understand anymore, and in many ways we can behave as if the internet were powerful then us! Even we created it. Stupid!