So, yeah, basically, like Scott said, I'll be talking on de-growth and neo-malfusionism. And I think, yeah, this actually is quite a timely talk, even though it kind of appears but maybe the events of 2020 have kind of like overshadowed the climate crisis. But I'd say nothing really overshadows a crisis, which concerns kind of life itself and the future viability of humanity in our planet. Before the pandemic even began, you know, 2020 began with wildfires in Australia, floods in South Asia, and now we're seeing the worst wildfires on record, ravaged the West Coast in America. And millions of people had to evacuate their homes as a result. Photos from the West Coast definitely look like the set of a dystopian film, but this is, in fact, obviously the reality facing humanity in our planet. And therefore, many have drawn the conclusion that something has to be done. So last year, obviously, these people, they really something had to be done. Six million young people from across the globe took part in the climate strike on Fridays for future movement, and it occurred in almost every country on Earth. And it's young people who have put the climate crisis on the order of the day frustrated at the inaction on this question. But it's not, this inaction doesn't stem from a lack of consciousness of the environment. You know, the modern liberal environmental movement, as we know it, gained momentum in the 1970s, and this was the time the question of the climate began to kind of enter general consciousness. Greenpeace was founded in 1971, and it was kind of around this time as well, that the UN began to hold conventions on the environment. Since then, the environmental movement has encompassed many organizations, political leanings and classes, and has attempted to offer solutions to this crisis. But in 40 plus years, nothing has really changed. If we know that anything, the crisis is getting much worse, simply because those responsible have not been fundamentally challenged or gotten rid of. There's been an eclectic mix of solutions proposed, and this ultimately stems from the fact that none of the various trends of the environmental movement can even agree on the root cause of the crisis in the first place. Most mistake basically affect the cause. Believing like climate change stems from too much civilisation, too much industrialisation, individual overconsumption, overpopulation and so on. And at present, the leaders of the movement can't even agree on the cause or a solution, and therefore it remains largely impotent in the face of the task ahead, which might potentially spawn that the energy of millions of young people and workers who want to actually tackle the crisis. And it's therefore the task of all masses and socialists to point the finger squarely at the cause of this crisis and expose the reactionary nature of some of these so-called solutions. And we must challenge the dominant ideas of this movement and be capable of articulating the real socialist alternative. And we must also be part of building the movement of the working class, which is ultimately capable of overfiring capitalism. So kind of one of the ideas that has appeared, or should I say reappeared in the movement, it might not at first be very like obvious in what capacity does the environmental movement of 2020 reflect the ideas of an 18th century economist, Thomas Malthus. But anyone familiar with Malthus' ideas will see remnants of these ideas within certain layers of the environmental movement in his essay on the principle of population. He basically puts forward the theory that population growth is potentially exponential, while the growth of food supply and other resources is linear and therefore limited. So in essence, the earth has a carrying capacity and it's only equipped to handle so many people before we see negative potentially devastating effects. In biology, the carrying capacity is defined as a maximum population size of a biological species that can be sustained in that specific environment, given food, habitat, water and other resources available, which seems pretty sensible and logical. And therefore, many people believe that a large global population would lead to hunger and scarce resources. And I think you can see why so many people actually believe that because we see hunger and poverty around us every single day. In 1968, the population bomb by Paul R. Elrich actually brought Malthus' ideas back into vogue, which was obviously around the time that the modern environmental movement started up as well. And basically this work catastrophised further population growth and it actually sold millions of copies. And this book stated that a growth in population was not only related to food insecurity, but also to environmental damage and climate change. And one of the most high profile advocates for this outlook is the esteemed, I guess, a cherished biologist, David Attenborough, who basically believes overpopulation is the main driver of the climate crisis, poverty and hunger as well. And this is a view shared by the World Economic Forum, who believes that the countries with the fastest growing populations are contributing the most to global overshoot. That is, these countries are using resources quicker than they can be replaced. And this logic itself has bled into the environmental movement, and many believe overpopulation is responsible for the overexploitation of Earth's resources and it therefore comes down to a question of our individual consumption and choices. We can choose to consume less and use less of these resources. We can choose to have smaller families. And in many cases, some activists have chosen voluntary childlessness, citing that it's one of the most impactful choices you can make for the environment. And yes, it's true. The population is growing, and it's true that millions around the world go hungry. And the climate crisis actually does lead these people much more vulnerable than ever to food scarcity as extreme weather events actually threaten their food sources. However, at the same time, it's actually been estimated that we produce enough food for 10 billion people. So why then do so many people go hungry? You know, at the beginning of the pandemic, millions of animals were slaughtered in the US. Of course, animals are slaughtered every single day, but they were slaughtered simply because the industry couldn't remain open. Bosses could not ensure the safety of workers, social distancing PPE, while continuing to basically make a profit. So why care for animals which can't be raised and killed for profit, basically? Meanwhile, the demands for food bags in the US doubled over the course of the pandemic, and many of the food bags actually face shortages. And therefore, using ideas, as I just highlighted, can't actually account for these real dynamics of capitalist production. And despite kind of the resurgence of these ideas, they've actually long been disproved. Engels combated what he deemed to be the eternal laws of food or our economics, which hadn't been able to progress past the economic forms of the animal kingdom. According to Malthus, obviously, population is always pressing on the means of subsistence. So as soon as production increases, population increases in the same proportion, and that is the inherent tendency of the population to multiply in excess of the available means of subsistence.  And Malthus understand that economic laws such as Malthus, i.e., that only a certain population size can be supported by the planet, are not laws of nature, but are themselves historical. They appear and disappear, and Earth's population has increased with a productivity of labor, meaning that Earth's finite resources have been able to be multiplied and shared among a greater population. But this is actually currently being limited by capitalist society, which cannot produce these resources sustainably or share them equitably, as it's really just not profitable to do that. Malthus' theory of overpopulation doesn't reflect an objective and eternal reality, but simply reflects the limits of a modern bourgeois society and is based on a society of class rule and exploitation. Engel summarizes why scarcity will basically continue, no matter the size of the population under capitalism. He says, not enough is being produced. That is the root of the whole matter. But why is not enough being produced? Not because the limits of production have been reached, but because the limits of production are determined not by the number of hungry bellies, but rather the number of purchases with full purses. Visual society has no desire and can have no desire to produce enough. Those impenetrable bellies, the labor which cannot be used for profit, full prey to the mortality figures, and the conclusion is, therefore, always a reactionary one. When there are too many people they have to be disposed of in one way or another. Either they must be killed by violence or they must starve. And in practice, this logic was employed by the British Empire during the Irish famine of the 1840s to basically justify their own action, simply stating that a reduction in population would rid Ireland of its poverty and backwardsness. But Ireland in the 1840s, as with many other countries in the world, which face hunger today, are actually net exporters of food. They do produce enough to feed their own populations, but they don't control or own its distribution. So put simply, we can't just apply the laws of biological look like. So we can't apply the biological laws of an animal society to the question of the climate crisis, such as the concept of a carrying capacity to a human society, which operates not only according to the rules of nature, but also has its own laws, morality, custom and mode of production. Human society is very different to bacteria in a petri dish, owing to our own evolution. And, you know, at a critical point, the bacteria is going to run out resources within the limits of the petri dish and die. However, human society may expand, move beyond its locality. In addition, all of human history has proved our ability to use technological innovation to maximise what we can produce of a given resource. But in bourgeois society, this capacity is limited by bourgeois relations, which leads to an over exploitation of resources rather than using technology and our own knowledge of natural laws to produce according to the needs of ourselves and our planet. And the claim that overpopulation is the root of the crisis is itself a red herring, which simply divides humanity and obscures the role of the bourgeoisie in exploiting these natural resources for profit. But this, you know, malnutritionism is not really the only trend in the environmental movement, nor is it really a popular one, and not everyone really agrees with it. The environmental movement remains kind of split into two camps, which actually cuts across a political divide of left and right. One idea that kind of finds support, both left and right, is this idea of degrowth. And I think, therefore, it kind of needs to be explored in a bit more detail. Degrowth, degrowth origins is not in left wing or socialist politics, but it was actually popularised by the club of Rome, a group of politicians, UN officials and economists. Their first publication, which came out in 1972, the limits of growth is still actually the best selling environmental book of all time. And the conclusion of this book is that the limits to growth on Earth would become evident by 2072. That would lead to a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity. Therefore, to avoid such a scenario, we must save industrial capitalism from itself and its tendency towards environmental destruction in the name of profit. Simulate, you may have heard the phrase uttered by many socialists. There's no infinite growth on a finite planet, which is the cornerstone of degrowth. But this phrase originates not from the ideas of socialism, but from a quote from a liberal economist called Kenneth E. Bolding. However, such critiques, obviously, logically lend themselves to left-wing and anti-capitalist politics. One degrowth organisation describes degrowth as an idea that critiques the global capitalist system which pursues growth at all costs, causing human exploitation and environmental destruction. The degrowth movement of activists and researchers advocate for societies that prioritise social and ecological wellbeing instead of corporate profits, overproduction and excess consumption. And as such, this idea has been particularly popular with left-wing anti-capitalist leaders of the environmental movement who reject liberal environmentalism and malfusionalism. And they see capitalism as driven by its desire to grow infinitely at all costs. One of these anti-capitalist degrowth advocates is George Mombio, who's a regular contributor to The Guardian, I think people may know him, who basically believes we can't decouple growth and economic catastrophe. He rightly identifies growth as an effect of capital accumulation and that capitalism's attempts at green growth have been ineffective. But ultimately, he believes that any economic growth on a finite planet is doomed to destruction. Similarly, Eric Pino, who's a degrowth anti-capitalist academic, believes that any attempt to solve this contradiction and grow in a more sustainable way using technology will also basically reach a dead end and still result in environmental damage. And I think this is half correct. Many sustainable technologies have been innovated and we still see the climate crisis. But this is not because the technology itself is incapable of creating a means for sustainable growth, but instead because the technology poses a fraught profit-making. In this article from the Economist in 2017, they wrote, the more that green energy is deployed, the more it lowers the price of power from any source. And that makes it hard to transition to a carbon-free future during which many generating technologies, clean and dirty, need to remain profitable with the lights that stay on. And it's because capitalism cannot profitably employ such technology on a large enough scale to tackle the crisis, not because the technology itself is inherently ineffectual. And degrowth ideology, it rightly identifies capitalism as the source of the crisis. But by extension, it concludes that all economic growth, i.e. any increase in production, leads to environmental destruction or catastrophe. And while it's true, capitalism needs to grow because of its tendency towards capital accumulation. It's not motivated by growth. It's solely made motivated by the need for profit. Obviously, we know capital is enhanced by value-forming labour. It can create surplus value, which can then be used to create more capital. It can then therefore not only reproduce itself, but capital can expand and grow and realise even greater profits off the back of that growth. But under capitalism, when profit seems to be made, growth itself will stop and the whole system will enter into crisis, as we're seeing. It's therefore the profit motive, which motivates the accumulation of capital and by extension growth. A desire to grow profits itself is also driven by competition and private ownership. But, you know, that is the cause, profit, and growth is merely the effect and from the standpoint of the catalyst, the only limits there are to production is not the planet's resources, but it's the limits of its own markets. And because production is geared towards an accumulation of capital and not the meeting of our needs, inevitably more is produced than can be consumed by the working class. Capitalism doesn't produce in the first instance for our consumption, but for profit. And that's why capitalism, like capitalist companies, spend millions advertising things to people that they don't want or need.  And I think competition between capitalism also drives waste and obsolescence as they try and cut corners to ensure that they can outcompete each other, basically. And I think there's a logical error in identifying growth and not capital accumulation as the cause of the climate crisis. And I think that means that many deep growth advocates, while courting to be anti-capitalists, don't actually believe in a socialist alternative. And many of them actually reject Marxist critique of capitalism. George Monbeau, I think that's how you say it. He does admit that he doesn't at present know of a realistic alternative to capitalism, just that capitalism itself is causing harm to the environment. He instead states, we should identify the best proposals from many different thinkers and shape them into a coherent alternative. And I think this might go some way to explain why there's still so much eclecticism in the environmental movement. One group even believes that in the need to relocalize economies, that is return to feudalism in which production is local and small scale. And by extension, that will reduce our consumption and essentially advocating for a reduction in our living standards. And so without fundamentally facing the ownership and control of production in the hands of workers, socialism, any cause for the growth within the present system would be a promotion of a reduction in living standards, something which the go the working class globally has faced for the last 40 years while climate change has continued to accelerate during the course of the pandemic. Global emissions have only dropped by eight or nine percent, despite a few, sorry, despite a fall in consumer demand and economic collapse. Many of they weren't already have been plunged into poverty. On a capitalist basis, if this trend were continued, we would be able to reduce our emissions by 50 percent by 2030. But this would necessitate plunging billions into deprivation. And that would be the reality of degrowth into capitalism since so many degrowth advocates reject socialism outright and they don't pose a realistic alternative to capitalism. They fall into a trap of believing, ultimately, that existing governments can be convinced to kind of adopt these ideas.  Zero growth or degrowth in a capitalist system is a recession. And it's the working class and the poor who were often made to pay. And in essence, it would be an argument for permanent austerity. So instead of focusing on growth in the abstract and the question of consumption, we need to focus on production, i.e. who owns and controls it. The limits to growth at present are the limits to capitalism. Objective limits are not imposed by our finite planet, but by a socioeconomic system and dominant mode of production in combination with nature. For example, under feudalism, living standards and production were limited by a socioeconomic system based on agriculture and localised production. Capitalism too, sorry, is limiting our ability to progress further. History has proved our ability to harness nature and transform it and transform production as well. But we have yet to harness masses of energy such as we don't even really haven't really even capitalised on solar energy yet, alone energy that we can harness from our solar system because it's not profitable to do so while burning coal is. The real objective limit to growth is that imposed by capitalism. So while many degrowth advocates don't share the view of hardcore primitivists and eco-faches, they share ultimately the idea that there is an objective limit imposed on humanity by nature, that we can't change, which has led some sections of the movement to draw much more reactionary conclusions. These reactionary conclusions stem from seeing resources, production and population as directly proportional to one another. Eco-fascism promotes an idea of deep ecology. That is the only way to preserve life on earth is to drastically, forcefully, if necessary, reduce the human population. But in a catar system, through what means do we reduce population and who even gets to decide how we do that and who's subject to that? When the world's population can control production and can actually plan it, we can become conscious of all aspects of it, including its environmental impact. We could invest in sustainable energy to power production and produce only for need and that would eliminate tons of waste. And we could also eliminate waste in production itself by innovating production. Catars and present can't even do that because any investment in the productive forces is only done on the basis of it being profitable. And there is a future in which living standards can be raised while we also tackle the climate crisis. And we must be clear that it's workers control over production, which will not only tackle this question of the climate, but also ensure that the majority of the world's population don't suffer as a result of such measures. And that any program that is implemented is done with people and planet in mind. Arguably, I'd say both mouth usingism and degrowth, even though that's obviously the subject of this talk, actually do remain on the fringes of the environmental movement. And I'd say it's largely dominated by those still seeking compromise with the establishment hoping that appealing to the moral sense of the bourgeois will basically ensure more realistic and effective change. You know, since the 1970s, we've seen many international protocols and agreements and many in the movement have welcomed these agreements as being an important step forward. And they rightly recognize that any endeavor to tackle the crisis would need to involve global cooperation. How if they kind of remain inadequate in the face of this crisis because they fail to identify the root of the crisis that is capital exploitation of the environment for profit. And they instead rely on the voluntary participation and goodwill of bourgeois states. The UN itself even advocates for a mix of market and non-market approaches in tackling the crisis. So what is clear is that we can't actually rely on bourgeois, on the bourgeois and their governments to tackle this crisis. And calling for international cooperation of these parties is, you know, next to useless in an era of trade wars, protectionism, private property and a global economic downturn. You know, recently we've seen funding for sustainable projects cut in the EU rescue deal, essentially to save the biggest European economies such as France and Germany, which have basically seen their economies shrink by 20% this year. And even if bourgeois governments claim to be green and take measures on the environment, we've seen in many cases that it's simply just a greenwashing of austerity measures. In 2018, as some of you might remember, Emmanuel Macron demonstrated that any capitalist measure to tackle the crisis would be placed onto the shoulders of the working class. He announced that he'd introduced the green fuel tax to discourage the use of personal vehicles. But importantly, there was no major plans to invest in public transport. In Austria, despite being the favoured party of the youth, kind of galvanised by the climate movement, the Greens have entered into a coalition with the Conservative People's Party, which is a racist and pro-austerity party in exchange for some very paltry promises, such as a target of zero emissions by 2040. That's a decade later than the EU's own target. And the leader of Austria's Greens, Werner Kogler, gleefully proclaimed at his PI conference earlier this year that big fat sinking diesel SUVs are going to get more expensive. In exchange, the Greens have agreed to support the People's Party in its plan to ban the Islamic veil and brutalise asylum seekers in addition to other austerity measures. So such collaboration with Conservative and Reactionary forces in exchange for tinkering around the edges will do little to solve this crisis because such green measures in the last instance place the blame on individuals and their choices rather than taking on the big polluters. Big polluters such as BP, which also has a role in kind of deflecting its own responsibility. It's a multinational oil and gas company, as you probably know, but they actually popularise the term carbon footprint and they've encouraged consumers to calculate their own contributions to the climate crisis. Very generously, they've offered tips on how we can reduce our carbon footprint as well. So while they try and pass the blame onto us, they themselves, as we know, cause unimaginable harm to the environment. And we know that they're continuing to expand their activities in oil extraction, not reduce them. And I think it may therefore kind of be tempting to buy from companies which produce environmentally friendly products in the hopes that consumer demand will push the polluters out of business. Companies such as Oakley, you may have heard of it, Oak Milk, has capitalised off the ground for the plant-based consumer who mostly do so for environmental reasons. They claim to strive to produce the most sustainable, responsible products on the market. But they've recently been exposed for having received investment from private equity firms who have also invested in the arms trade and have leased to the deforestation of the Amazon. Oakley has defended its decision to get investment from such characters, claiming we need to speak the language that capital markets can understand. And if Oakley can create super profits, capitalists will be more likely in future to invest in environmentally friendly alternatives, and that will be the source of change. And I think this scandal has clearly shown the link between kind of ethical and eco companies to the same capitalists that exploit the planet for profit. The capitalists have been more than happy to get behind the environmental movement and environmental companies and things in recent years. But this is not out of a genuine concern for the environment, but I think they're kind of seeing the writing on the wall that the majority of the world's population actually really want to do something about climate change. You know, the ruling class went along with young people and praised them, you know, and it basically also drained them of their revolutionary energy.  And, you know, off the back of the movement as well, Fridays for Future, many governments, including the UK, have declared climate emergencies, and it got cross-party support. In Denmark, the majority of the parties also supported a 70% reduction target in emissions as well, and many within the movement have almost claimed this as a victory without really considering if these promises are real or even if they're going to be kept. You know, I just used the example of Denmark. They've excluded from its data emissions from import, export, and air transport and offshore shipping, which counts for 50% of their emissions. And I think this is very much a clear attempt to fleece people. You know, the Climate Act itself only covers a fraction of emissions and openly states that it probably won't reach this target anyway, even though they've cut out loads of contributing factors. They also said that they would use flexible mechanisms and other means to achieve their targets. This essentially is quota manipulation, and obviously we know that changing a number on a page does little to really change anything in the real world. And, you know, green NGOs, charities, organizations through their activism and their historic criticism of these same governments for their inaction, they've actually gained authority within the movement, but have increasingly become kind of an extension of the establishment, and they've gone out of their way to basically marginalize more anti-capitalist and radical voices within the movement. You know, we know Friday's for Future began as a radical spontaneous movement, and it was quickly co-opted by kind of a better organized and established leadership of groups such as Greenpeace. Using the example of Denmark again, the leadership of Friday's for Future, which included a lot of people from Greenpeace. They banned all political flags, banners, symbols, and they banned leafleting. And they basically made the movement apolitical, but that's actually shrunk the movement and has basically, yeah, made it ineffectual. And this has inevitably led to growth of groups such as Extinction Rebellion within the climate movement. And I think that itself reflects some radicalization of the movement, actually, and a frustration with open collaboration with basically the same governments and companies that are responsible for climate change. 30 minutes. So XR very much has a focus on direct action, doing something now telling the truth. And many seeking radical solutions were very much taken in by such rhetoric. In essence, their demands and methods boil down to the same class collaboration with Catalyst and NGOs which they criticize. They say that we must move beyond ideology. They say to unity, beyond division to collaboration on the question of the climate. And they hope that making politicians and companies aware of their impact will force them to support measures which are necessary. And essentially they call for the same deep politicization of the movement as the NGOs do. They even went so far as to distance themselves from a group of activists who held up about socialism or extinction. And essentially they're trying to paper over the class divide, which I think is the most instrumental question of the climate. The line between those who are economically exploited are actually going to suffer from climate change. And the latter who are the capitalists, who are the ones who exploit people and the planet for their own profit and just want to maintain their current way of doing things. But I'd say, yeah, you know. Yeah. And they've also tried to pass the blame on to individuals again, rather than taking, you know, the more structural approach, you know. In their report, Emergency on Planet Earth, they blame not the capitalists for the burning of fossil fuels, but they blame humanity in general believing that the destruction of our environment is somehow endemic to us. And that we're somehow all responsible or play a role in the destruction of our planet. But in truth, we're not responsible for the damage done to our planet. But the only thing we are responsible for is ensuring those who are the capitalists are quickly deprived of the means to exploit the planet and people as soon as possible. Yeah. Sorry. Many people in my experience are quite confused by the presence of Marxists and socialists on climate demonstrations, or just generally in the environmental movement. I remember one of the first youth strikes that I went on. Someone remarked to me, we need to sort out climate change and then worry about socialism. And I think this mainly stems from a misunderstanding rather than hostility because I think the genuine ideas of Marxism have been so distorted and it's been essentially turned into a lifeless dogma basically. But Marx and Engels were extensively on the environment and our relationship to the world around us and can actually offer a clear path forward to achieving harmony between humanity and the environment. Unlike groups such as XR or other radical environmental ideologies, Marxism sees humanity not as antagonistic towards nature or separate from it but as objectively part of the natural world. Marx explained, the man lives on nature. It means that nature is his body and he must remain in continuous interchange if he's not to die. Man's physical and spiritual life is linked to nature and that simply means that nature is linked to itself. For man is part of nature. But we don't just live off the direct products of nature. Obviously for a course of evolution we were able to transform the world around us and ourselves and pursue life activity. That is conscious activity to produce our means of subsistence. And that is what separates humans from other animal species and is in turn to help our own evolution. Such activity obviously developed our dexterity, tools and even language. But the appropriation of surplus value in any class society not just capitalism and control of production in private hands by a small minority has actually severed this relationship to the natural world. Labour is objectified and humanity becomes alienated not only from our basic means of survival but our life activity as well. Work. It just becomes a survival for existence rather than the pursuit of activity which helps us gain a greater understanding of the world around us. Natural resources which are once collective comes under the ownership of a small minority who exploit these and human labour for their own benefit and neglect our relation to it. Engles outlines that we by no means rule over nature to the foreign people. We do belong to nature and exist in its midst. All our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly. It's taken thousands of years to even gain a primary understanding of production on nature and yet we're kind of unable to even advance beyond this at this moment in time. Engles again outlines all existing modes of production which have been the most immediately and directly useful effect of labour. The further consequences which appear only later and become effective through gradual repetition and accumulation were totally neglected and it's maximisation of surplus which has been valued over how we produce for our needs while minimising our impact on the environment. And class society and I'd say in particular capitalism actually in its inability to understand nature has said that while we've advanced greatly nature is actually now taking its revenge. Through over cultivation deforestation and other practices they've unleashed untold effects on the environment and have disrupted this innate harmony of nature and again because it disrupts nature it disrupts humanity as well. Thanks to the research of many scientists we're actually beginning to understand what regulation and production will be needed to actually begin reversing some of the effects of climate change not even start reversing but just begin to bring it under control. As Engels explains this regulation on its own is not enough it's not enough just to know it it would require a complete revolution in our existing mode of production and a revolution in our whole contemporary social order. And it would require that humanity truly understands the effects of our actions on the environment and that would require every work to be in control of production. When we eliminate profit and private property we can actually use all available means to us to ensure this and further study nature. It's fussing the interests of humanity and the environment to basically rectify our estrangement from not only production but to the world around us. A planned democratic and socialist economy would be the first step in ensuring this. And it's not an inherently green ideology I'll be very honest about that but abolishing private property and implementing democratic ownership of a production would go a long way in beginning to address many environmental questions. Private ownership means that large scale productive forces and natural resources are kind of at the winds of a handful of individuals who themselves only seek to maximise profits and on the grounds of private ownership they can never actually ever be meaningfully challenged. Work is control would basically ensure democrat accountability and that decisions regarding production are made in the interest of everybody and in addition it would remove the basis for private ownership altogether. A socialist economy would not be based on growth or degrowth but on production for need so that all humanity can develop productive forces and enjoy a good standard of life and a good standard of life in term relies on a safe environment green spaces, clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. It would mean freeing science and technology from a profit motive which is so far stifled innovation. In a planned system technology can be utilised and realise its full potential instead of being funded by big multinational and fossil fuel companies it could be publicly funded and you know we can start bringing these big energy monopolies into workers control and that can actually be the first step in actually phasing them out. We can undertake a programme of social house building and also improving the houses that people already live in. Bring transport back into public ownership say back it's not really ever been publicly owned but a free public transport system which is coordinated and integrated so people wouldn't need to rely on personal vehicles and depending on how long this goes on could maybe also social distance as well. And we could put all natural resources including lands, mines, rivers, forests under workers ownership and democratic control and basically kick out the people at the top who basically use it and destroy it for profit. And while socialism has not historically been an environmental movement a harmonious development between humanity and nature is only possible on the basis of a conscious socialist plan and with a consciousness of the effects of human activity on the world around us. In 1976 the Lucas plan showed the creativity of the working class in dealing with such crisis. It combined the best scientists, the skills of workers and basically demonstrated how democratic workers control basically could use technology that already exists that's being used in the arms industry and it can basically be repurposed for renewable technology and healthcare equipment and that was in 1976 you know, I'm sure at least some things have developed since then and I think such creativity could basically be replicated across all industries and workplaces but I think, yeah you know, but this is only possible once the means of production are taken away from the capitalist and I think Marxism therefore unlike other ideologies gives a really clear explanation of how we've gotten to this point but I think it also ultimately proves a route out of it a wise man once said that all history is that of class struggle all previous socioeconomic systems have been brought down in class struggle and capitalism won't be any different to overcome class society it's necessary for the working class the largest and most powerful class in history to go through it this would mean abandoning the confused tendencies of the environmental movement which kind of remain a hodgepodge of ideas solutions, egos and kind of replace frivolous actions such as mass arrests and stunts and replace them with methods of class struggle of the workers and oppressed layers of society that would be mass militant protests strikes occupations organized and led by the working class armed with a political program which would ultimately aim to put them in control of the economy and make way for rational economic planning the leadership of both the labour and the environmental movement have actually failed to ever make this link environmental groups such as XR and Greenpeace they're basically their whole thing is to raise awareness basically by just gaining media attention and that often just results in them performing stunts essentially for example they wanted to fly in drones into Heathrow airport basically to force it to close but actually at the same time union members in the airport were balloting for strike action and you know a strike of these workers would have been far more effective in paralyzing the airport actually not only bring attention to the question of the environment but raise the consciousness and confidence of workers all across the UK and the world potentially and that would be far more effective than the antics of a few flying drones and you know we defend the right of such groups to protest and that's recently actually come under attack from the Tories but we maintain that such movements will remain ineffectual until it takes on a mass general character that not only seeks to address the climate question but also major questions facing humanity such as housing, poverty, food and education and it's therefore the task of all socialists to root out all Malfusionism and reactionary ideas from this movement and instead give it a socialist consciousness the key question has and it will always be that production who controls it owns it and what is produced the conclusion of that is that we can't control what we don't own we can't hope to ever reign in the current excesses of production if we don't ever have a say in it if groups such as XR would like to see the public have a great assay over decision making as it advocates for and as the citizens it would need to consider why those in power are there in the first place and who they represent you know these politicians they don't vote down environmental policy because they're morally bankrupt although many of them are but they represent the interests of capital which remains antagonistic to the majority of the planet's population you know movements of workers and young people are on the rise and it's crucial that the militancy of these movements be channeled into a common struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and class society which simultaneously exploits workers and the environment it will only be with a socialist transformation of society that we can satisfy the needs of the majority in harmony with the environment instead of generating profit for a small minority the scientific knowledge and technology exist to deal with climate change and a lot of people know what needs to be done but under capitalism these forces are destroying the planet and they're not saving it and therefore it's socialism or extinction and that is the future before us


Wel, ddeBL addysgu, rydyn ni wedi rhoi fawr o'i rhaid addysg, a rhaid addysg o'i creddol, fel mae'n ddych chi'n ddefnyddio'r byw. Felly, mae'n ddefnyddio'r byw o'u dros sy'n mewn John, I was briefly moved in to be Margaret Thatcher's speechwriter, and it was after she'd fallen and she was still in good vigor, and she was of course invited to talk quite a lot. She got an invitation to Frankfurt to talk to the Buddhist bank, and God forgive me, I rather approve of modern Germany, and we used to have some rows about it, and I did manage to make her do a pro-German speech, and she was pro-German for a good week, but while we were doing it, oh, we had rows, and she would say, where's John, and throw things, and throw to be temperamental, and obviously John did this, he played her like a stratifarius, it was a brilliant performance. Now, I don't want to talk about what John has to say about Europe, but I have a very difficult one to follow, which is John Derbyshire talking about China, and he said, in reference to Turkey, that perhaps Turkey, with 90 years, having got rid of an empire, adopted a republican constitution, perhaps Turkey can be some sort of model of China, despite this long, millennial history of Oriental despotism. It could be a very difficult act to follow. I'll do my best, but Turkish history is quite complicated, and whether Turkey, whether the Ottoman past is actually a guide in any way to the Turkish present is a very good question. You know, you can look at English history, and you can see, you know, you can't do it these things directly, but you can get a general sense of the history and the character of the place, and it's a sort of vague guide to the present. If you look at English, or, for that matter, European portraiture, from the moment where, I suppose, in the 14th century, representational paintings come up, you can see the national face emerging. As I look in the mirror, I can recognise, very obviously, a sort of pudding-faced Scotsman. And you can see these things back in the 14th century. It's not so easy with the Ottoman Empire. You can actually, if you look at the porcelain curiously enough, the little faces in these miniatures of Persian type, you can see the faces of, well, the waiters in this hotel in another version. But it's very difficult to take the Ottoman Empire as any sort of model for modern Turkey. I think I can do it, and I've got a thesis which I will dance, which is that what we are living through at the moment is a version, a smudgy version, of what Turkey went through in the 1880s and 1890s under Abdulhamid, when, with the kind of politicised religion, there was, for the last moment, a revival of the Ottoman Empire expressed in the fabulous buildings of the European, of the Ismir or Constantinople, or the railways which begin to snake around, and the emergence of a government machine, which is capable of doing the sort of things that government machines have to do. Now, I'm not going to go on too much about this, but when, at the present phase, Turkey is in, in an interesting moment of renewing with the Ottoman past, not saying, as was done 90 years ago, the Ottoman past is so much junk, let's get away from it. This is year one of the Republic, not doing that, but going back, and it's curious, you know, just knocking around in Turkey, if I go on the bus quite often from Ankara to Istanbul, and if I get out at Chalayan, the taxi driver, we've got talking, but the taxi driver will talk about the television things which are shown, now, very, very popular, the latest one is about Suleiman, the magnificent, but there have been plenty of programmes where serious historians talk about this or that aspect of the Ottoman past, and the history has very much come alive, sometimes wrong, but it's there, and it's an interesting phenomenon. Now, before I get on to talking about, well, my title is What Makes Turkey Work, before I approach this vast and formidable subject, I might start by saying that, you know, although there are good books on Turkey, not as many by Turks on their own modern history as there ought to be, they've let that foreigners remarkable, but there's still a sort of idea which goes round that, which can only be described as the black legend of Turkey. Now, I think it's eroding, I think more Europeans, and the Americans have never been anti-Turkish, they're the best foreigners here, by the way. The Europeans are beginning to understand that it's not all black, but because a lot of students go. My star, I mean I've had many good students here, my star got a Microsoft scholarship to Cambridge, and I mean I heard about the interview from three sources, one obviously from him, two from a friend of mine who was on the board, and three from one of the defeated candidates who realised when he heard the laughter coming from inside the room that he'd lost.  He said, it's all right, but it's just terribly difficult because people keep saying to me, what about human rights in Turkey, what about police women, wasn't there an Armenian genocide, what about the poor old curbs? He said, how should I deal with it? I said, listen, it's simple, just say, yes, it's true, but the sex is heaven. And there is this black legend which goes on. It has been, I'd have to say, it's been fermented, most obviously, by the Armenian diaspora. And this is something I know something about. And let's put it this way. The Armenians were not innocent. They were doing their share of the slaughtering as well. And you cannot see that the Minister of the Interior said, wipe the Armenians out. That's all forgeries, nasty things happened, lot of theft, but not, and it's not the genocide. The Armenians jump up and down, up and down and up and down in the European Parliament and here, there, everywhere, trying to take advantage, obviously, of American law to try and extract compensation from the Deutsche Bank or French insurance company on and on. The ones who I think have made a terrible mistake are the Greeks. It has done them no good at all to frustrate Turkey's entry. What happened on Cyprus, everybody knows who was there at the time, is by no means 100% Turkish guilt and Greek innocence. If you listen to Greeks talking about it, you get the impression that the Greek Cypriots were just dancing around their meatballs with their bazookie music when all of a sudden a hairy squat people arrived, not at all. And yet that is the version which somehow spread around the Western world. And the Greeks have gone on for quite a long time, making life difficult for the Turks, over endless silly little issues, particularly now, obviously, the European matter. It is something which they ought to regret. It is in no way in Greece's interest to get on so badly with her major neighbour and she will simply provoke trouble. It's simply not true to say that historically Greeks and Turks were enemies. In 1453 when the Turks arrived, the first port of coal of the Sultan was on the Orthodox Patriarch and the Orthodox Patriarch had one hatred in his life, the Latins. The Latins had destroyed Constantinople in 1204 on the 4th Crusade. That was when the Byzantine Empire was ruined. After that it was taken over by teams of rival Italians, Genoese, Pesans, Venetians. The population of Constantinople shrank from something close to a million to something like 50,000. The buildings were falling down. The last Byzantine Emperor didn't pay his rent and the Turks decided more or less to kick him out. Now, the Patriarch and men at the second did a pant that the Orthodox Church was the largest landowner in the empire. The Patriarch had the rank of an Ottoman Pasha, all sorts of privileges attached to it, and the document was run together with the title that was used for a Byzantine Emperor, Megasar Thente's Great Prince. Now, the Turkish here can't accommodate certain combinations and constants. That's why they call Smyrna, Izmir. It's why Urgub in Cappadocia comes from the word Procopy. It couldn't accommodate Megasar Thente's, and it turned it into Effendi. Effendi, the honorific of the Middle East, is actually a corruption of Byzantine Greek. That sums up the relationship. It's only in modern times that there was any kind of rivalry. I'm sorry, now listen, I'll be accused of using all sorts of unfortunate vocabulary at this, but I often think that about 1453, and the siege of Constantinople, if you'll forgive me, the Turk saved the speck from the warp. That is more or less what happened in the setting up of the Ottoman Empire. Now, it declined. Why? It's a very interesting question. Here you're asking the question, why did China go, how did these non-European societies, great civilizations like China, why did they lose their impetus? It's very difficult to answer that. I have a suspicion about the Ottoman Empire that it might even be climate change. In the 17th century, you can see deforestation happening in central Anatolia. Maybe the strains of malaria or something, but at any rate, the decline happens, and you ask yourself, which country does Turkey resemble? It's a good one, and the answer is Spain. If you think Spain, five centuries of Islam, and very grand most of the time, an empire, Latin America, Peru conquered by 2,000 Spaniards, etc. A very grand civilization, the architecture, everything. And then around about 1600, signs of trouble, and 1700, it's rotting, actually more than Turkey. And then comes a very sad period in the 19th century, when the army becomes the maker of politics. Its relationship with Europe is expressed first by the Spanish experience in the peninsula of war, and then, of course, the horrible civil war in the 20th century. And it's only in the 1970s, after Franco, that you can see some kind of Spanish recovery happening. But other little parallels, the Catalan, who do you think the Catalan resemble? The Greeks of Anatolia, the creative minority, and who pray of the Basques? Seven Basque languages, only one of them particularly developed, living in mountains, one part of them fanatically religious. The other half, the other part, taking part in the terrorist activity of Eta, the courts. You can see, the Spanish parallel is something that works quite well. Spain has recovered, not at the moment, but it has recovered remarkably well, and I think that is the path that Turkey is on. Now, the Turks started off in 1922, having lost about a third of the population. The Armenians, I'm sorry to bang on about this, but the Armenians claim that they lost, well, a third of their population. The figures have expanded now to sort of 2 million. The figure they gave at the time was 800,000. But the fact is that in eastern Anatolia, there's horrendous diseases starvation going on, and a third of the population is wiped out. Refugees had come in from the Balkans, as earlier from the Caucasus, as earlier from the Crimea, and seven million refugees represented something like two-fifths of the then population, and half of the urban population in the town population. When the Turkish Republic was set up, they more or less had to create a language. Now, all this was forced on them. It's the Greeks and the Armenians and the French and the Italians and the British who tried to partition Anatolia and were shown off. They are left with a country to create, and although those days are long gone, and really more or less, it's not a model that's alive now. It's rather a heroic business when you think you've got a whole country to remake. Let's start off with the language. England just grew. We never had to have a language reform. People just wrote things, which is why we've got this absurd spelling.  It must be a nightmare for foreigners to learn and never been reformed. An effort was made in England's such an interesting place. It's the first modern country. You wouldn't think so. We've paid for it ever since. A monk at the time of the Thirty Years' War, before printing, produced a book called Remorse of Consciousness. England was fighting France at the time. Another patriotic monk said, these words are Latin. We have to change them to something Anglo-Saxon, and he translated it into the again bite of Inuit. Remorse is Latin for a bite again and inuit you get it. The English intelligentsia have many faults, many, but no one has ever accused them of lacking a sense of humour. A shout of laughter went up across the land and language reform in England has never been heard of again. Not every country is as blessed as England in that respect. The Ottoman nationalities had to invent a language and the Greeks had fun. There weren't in Greek words like journalists or foreign travel. You know what the Greek for foreign travel is. Metafora esoterica. The word for journalism is ethemeristica. The Turks are faced with the same sort of problem of having to create a language. For them it's worse because they had a script which was Arabic in origin. Arabic has got three vowels. The Turkish has eight if you include the omelons. It's complicated diacritical marks have to be used to explain the vowels. The literate population in the Ottoman Empire, even after some sort of simplification of the language, can't have been more than about 10,000 in a population of 21 million. Most of them may disagree with me about this, but when the Republic comes in, it wants to make the peasants literate and it has to change the language. If you're making peasants literate, you obviously simplify terribly and all sorts of words just go. I love reading old Turkish texturies. They're fascinating. You get words like ifrahat, which is described as the pride that a father feels in his son's achievements, or my favorite, which is mi alim. No one understands it now, but that means a condition of looseness of the vowels, which is just under control. I find myself using these things with taxi drivers to Scottish acts and results are very funny. The language reform is the first thing which comes in, and this was drastic. The counterpart has been that the writers of this country have got a patriotic mission, which carries on to this day of advancement. They're enhancing the language, and the other side of it is that people, the masses of the people are detached from their, well, they can't read their grandfather's tombstones. The Turks themselves are very badly divided on this, and some people say that the old Ottoman language could have been reformed without bringing in a whole set of Latin letters. Now, the other reforms which come in, well, you know, if you were in a town in Turkey in 1930, you turn on the radio, you hear Mozart, you go to a university, you will find 1,000 academics, mainly German, and they were supposed to be headed by Einstein coming and doing the teaching, writing the textbooks. That was the most extraordinary moment in the 1930s, and if you do that to a people, and you force Western standards on them, there's going to be some kind of reaction at some point. Now, it's all done. Well, you know, it obviously, the question hanging over these Middle Eastern events at the moment, Cairo, Tunisia, Tunisia was the first starting this process, then the question hanging over the whole thing is, why are they not like Turkey? Why is Istanbul, Barcelona, a not Cairo? It's a very good question to ask, but I think the starting point of Anatolia in 1922 is so very different from the Arab world that in the end this question was meaningless. Still, you know, the Ataturk, the Ataturk Revolution is something which took place, it did, it treated the, even the enlightened Islam, the enlightened cleric who was called Said Norsi, they put him in prison for quite a long time. They changed Islam from the top and regulated Islam quite heavily, at least in the towns. And if you were a traditional minded Ottoman, you know, and after all, the native religion is inescapably part of yourself. It's something that you get as a small child when you grow up with, it's, I mean, using platitudes, it's system values are things which are almost independent of the actual practice of the religion. It is very much part of yourself and in one form or another, and to try to suppress it is obviously dangerous. Now, in the end, Ataturk was, he was an atheist, yes, but he was careful what he said in public, and what he did try to do was to encourage a different sort of Islam. Now, at this point, I should say, this government in Turkey has been very successful in all sorts of ways, quite remarkably successful, it's in the last lot, eight, nine years. And it is also the product of an Islam which does talk about reform. I saw the Prime Minister on television about a year ago. He was in Erzurum, which is a very pious place. The Esam, the call to prayer, is deafening. And you see these women in black scuffling around the place. There is a place where you can get a drink, but it's hidden in a back street. It's ugly, Anatolian, concrete, and so on and so forth. And the Prime Minister went there, and some women turned up in the black outfit. By the way, it's called Chador, as you know. That is from the Turkish word for tent. And he saw this woman wearing her chador, and he said, look, you don't need to wear that sort of thing. It's ugly, it's as you know favours, get rid of it. Now you see, we have that kind of Islam, and that's what is wrong with it. And at the moment, if I say this kind of thing in Turkey, the secularists, the people who are on the side of the Republic, will say, no, no, the people who support this are traitors. They're only doing this temporarily, and then we'll have the full weight of traditionalist Islam. I'm really not so sure. I hesitate to say anything as a foreigner, and you know, as John Derbyshire said, even if you've been in the country for a long time, it is possible to make a complete fool of yourself in terms of prognosis. But I cannot myself yet see what it, what there is to be, alarmed about. Now, Turkey's come a long way. The Republican period, when you're making the peasants literate, when you're introducing elementary hygiene, which the Republic did with great success, the schools, the country works. When the election comes out next in June, everybody knows it will work in the main without any kind of corruption or anything of that sort, except possibly in the Kurdish areas, that all sorts of things do work in Turkey for a modern state. If you look at the economy very obviously, the Turks make things. It's nice to be, and if you're British, you're in a country that doesn't make things by and large. But it's nice to be in a country where my students will think nothing, going into business, Microsoft, making things, selling pharmaceuticals all around the world. They do it very well. In that respect, Turkey's been doing very well indeed. Now, at the end of it, it is, I think, going back to a period after about 1878, when they had lost the war that ended with the Treaty of Berlin. They lost a good part of the Balkans, and refugees streamed out of the Caucasus, especially to besetled in miserable circumstances all over Anatolia. The Circassians, they're called, a million and a half of them, were thrown out of Russia. About 300,000 of them died in leaking boats in the Black Sea. God knows how many others died as they were resettled all around Anatolia, particularly in northwestern Anatolia. They arrive, and then the last really serious Ottoman Sultan, Abdulhamid, came up, and he used Islam as a way of unifying the empire. It didn't mean trouble for foreigners. Quite the contrary, you could set up French language schools, the Americans set up missionary schools all over Anatolia, in Beirut. No trouble with foreigners. He stabilized the currency and ran things. One of the best buildings in modern Istanbul is called the Kestel Adet Ottoman. It's now the Istanbul Boys' School, and it's lit up just over the Golden Horn, the marvellous Italian building with Gabley. That set up as the Europeans looked after the Turkish finances. The Turks screamed about it, but it was exploitation by the Europeans. It wasn't. It was a way of bringing down interest rates and encouraging investment. So Turkey did get railways, did get good buildings, did get banks, and it's quite a promising period under Abdulhamid. It's all done with a certain amount of Islam in Turkey. It's not the sort of Islam you get in Egypt. Abdulhamid drunk the old brandy, but he wasn't much of a drinker, but he was a terrible lady's man. The Quran allows four wives. Abdulhamid decreed that, since he was the representative of God upon this earth, he would have seven. And he married his 17-year-old wife at the age of 58. The daughter of that married died not so long ago. He allowed the foreigners, especially the schools, to go on. He doesn't stress Turkishness. What he does stress is Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam is the one we live with in Turkey. It doesn't make problems for foreigners. It does make problems for people who are not Sunni, namely the Alevis. They are a quarter of the population of just about in Turkey. Their tradition is formally, I say stress formally, Shia, as in Persia. But they are probably a lot to the old religion of the Turks, shamanism coming from Siberia. There are obviously Orthodox influences. They are very secretive and they flourished in the provinces. And there is tension even now between this government and the Alevis, who are the backbone of the Republican and the left-wing parties. Look, the parallel doesn't work. Don't take it seriously. But the reason why Scotland got a reputation for being red was because in 1917 the Catholic third of the country voted Labour. And it's much the same sort of thing here. And there are tensions of that kind, which are in the end something historic. Now where does Turkey go from here? I think you take, first of all, the line from 1922 to the present. And that's been steadily up. It's not been dramatic progress. It's not been a career starting off exporting wigs in 1960. And then 40 years later, God knows what. It's not that. I don't think it ever would be. It's not that kind of place. Nevertheless, the progress has been very steady. If I go to a Turkish public hospital, there's a bit of bureaucracy, but I know I get dealt with quicker than I would be in an English public hospital at the moment. I'd rather tend to trust Turkish schools as well. They're not bad at all at the top end. So on that level, all's well. There are tensions below the surface and sometimes just coming up. First of all, there's a big regional problem that the east is very different from the west. The Kurdish east is going to be a terrible headache for this country because you can't solve problems like that by spending money. The problem is partly demographic. You find families with 40 children, which is a terrific strain on everything. I hope very, very firmly that the country will stick together, but still there is no doubt that there is a tension now, which has been created by a terrorist movement, the BKK, which might prevent the improper integration of the country. I don't know. I'm a Scotlun. If there is one thing I detest in this world, it is tin-plot nationalism, and the moment Scotland becomes independent, I become a Turk. I'll bear that kind of thing. Let's hope this country will stick together, because in the end it's the best place that there is to be alive between Athens and Singapore.


Grounded theory is a methodology used in research studies that involves generating both qualitative and quantitative data. The aim of this article is to provide a contemporary research framework for grounded theory studies, which includes essential methods and processes that underpin the methodology. The framework is presented as a diagrammatic representation of a research design and acts as a visual guide for novice researchers. Grounded theory is not a linear process, but rather an iterative and comparative approach that involves defining essential concepts and processes. The article defines each of these essential methods and processes, including data collection, data analysis, and theory development. The framework can be used to inform research studies in various fields, such as nursing, healthcare, and social sciences. Overall, the article provides a practical guide for novice researchers to conduct grounded theory studies effectively. This article was authored by Alona Chantai, Melanie Berks, and Karen Francis. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Hello and welcome to this session. In this session we will discuss cubes. Let's see what are perfect cubes or cube numbers. The numbers obtained when a number is multiplied by itself three times are known as cube numbers or you can also say perfect cubes. Now we have that 8 can be written as 2 into 2 into 2. We have multiplied 2 to itself three times so as to get 8. So we say this 8 is a perfect cube. Then again the numbers 729,000, 1,728 are also perfect cubes. Then we have cubes of even numbers are even and cubes of odd numbers are odd. But if you consider the even number 4, now its cube is 64 which is also even. Thus we say that cube of even numbers are even. Now let's consider odd number 5. Its cube is 125 which is odd. Thus we have cubes of odd numbers are odd. Consider this table. If the units digit of a number is 1 then the units digit of the cube of the number would also be 1. If the units digit of a number is 2 then the units digit of the cube of the number would be 8. Then units digit of a number is 3. Then the units digit of the cube of the number would be 7. Units digit of a number is 4. Then the units digit of the cube of the number would also be 4. If the units digit of a number is 5 then the units digit of the cube of the number would be 5. Then if the units digit of a number is 6 then the unit digit of the cube of the number would be 6. Then we have unit digit of a number is 7 then unit digit of the cube of the number would be 3. If the unit digit of a number is 8 then the unit digit of the cube of the number would be 2. If the unit digit of a number is 9 then the unit digit of its cube would be 9. Then if the unit of a number is 0 and the unit of the cube of that number would also be 0. Now we discussed some interesting patterns. First we have adding consecutive odd numbers. Observe this pattern of sums of odd numbers. Now consider the first line of this pattern which is 1 equal to 1 equal to 1 cube. Now as you can see to obtain the sum as 1 cube we need one odd number and that is 1. Now observing the second line of this pattern you see that to obtain the sum as 2 cube we need 2 consecutive odd numbers and that is 3 and 5 which is equal to 8 that is 2 cube. Then according to the next line of this pattern we have that to obtain 3 cube as the sum we have added 3 consecutive odd numbers 7, 9 and 11 so as to get 27 which is 3 cube and this pattern goes on in the same way. So if we are asked that how many consecutive odd numbers we would need to obtain the sum as 10 cube then our answer would be 10 consecutive odd numbers. So if you are asked the number of consecutive odd numbers needed to obtain the sum as 10 cube then we would simply say we would need 10 consecutive odd numbers so as to get the sum as 10 cube according to this pattern. Next we discuss cubes and their prime factors. Consider the number 4 its prime factorization is given as 2 into 2. Now consider cube of 4 which is equal to 64 its prime factorization is given as 2 into 2 into 2 into 2 into 2 into 2. That is we have multiplied the prime factor 2 by itself 6 times. We could also write this as 2 cube into 2 cube that is each prime factors appears 3 times in its prime factorization. Thus we say that if in the prime factorization of any number each factor appears 3 times then the number is a perfect cube. Let's consider the number 400 its prime factorization is given as 2 into 2 into 2 into 5 into 5. Now let's make triplets of these prime factors. So this is one triplet. Now as you can see the number 2 is left alone and this 5 into 5 is one pair it is not a triplet. As you can see each factor does not appear 3 times in the prime factorization of the given number 400. So we say that 400 is not a perfect cube. Next we discuss smallest number of prime factorization of the multiple that is the perfect cube. Let's consider the number 72. Prime factorization of 72 is equal to 2 into 2 into 2 into 3 into 3. Now let's make the triplets of these prime factors. So as you can see we just get one triplet and this is one pair 3 into 3. This is not a triplet. Thus the 72 is not a perfect cube. Now for 72 to be a perfect cube each factor should appear 3 times but as you can see the factor 3 is appearing just 2 times. So to make 72 perfect square we need to multiply the 72 by 3 so that we have that each factor appears 3 times. Thus we say 72 into 3 is equal to 216. Now this 216 is a perfect cube. Thus we say smallest natural number by which 72 should be multiplied to make a perfect cube is 3. Next we discuss cube roots. We know that finding the square root of a number is the inverse operation of squaring. So we say that finding cube root is the inverse operation of finding cube. Like we have 3 cube is equal to 27. So we say cube root of 27 is 3. Now this symbol is used to denote the cube root. So we say cube root of 27 is 3. Now we shall discuss cube root through prime factorization method. Consider the number 216. Now prime factorization of 216 is given as 2 into 2 into 2 into 3 into 3 into 3. Now let's make triplets of these prime factors. So this is one triplet and this is the other triplet. Now cube root of 216 is given by taking out one factor out of each triplet. So from this triplet we take out a 2 multiplied by 3 from this triplet. So we get that cube root of 216 is equal to 2 into 3 that is 6. So this is how we can find the cube root of any number through prime factorization method. Next we have cube root of a cube number. If we know that a given number is a cube number then we have the following method which we will discuss now. Let's consider the number 175616. Now this is a cube number. Let's try and find out the cube root of this number. Now in the first step we consider the number and then we make groups of 3 digits starting from the right most digit of this number. So we get this is one group and this is the other group and as you can see each group is of 3 digits. Now in the next step we consider this first group that is 616. Now this group would give us the ones digit or you can say units digit of the required cube root. As you can see that the units digit of this group is 6 and we know that if a number ends in 6 then the cube root of that number would have 6 as the units digit. So we say that once digit or you can say the units digit of the required cube root that is the cube root of the given number is 6. Now let's consider the other group that is 175. We already know that 5 cube is 125 and 6 cube is 216. Also we know that 175 is less than 216 and it is greater than 125. Now to get the 10th digit of the required cube root we consider the smaller number out of these two numbers and we know that 125 is smaller than 216 and as you can see that the ones digit of 125 is 5. We take this as the 10th digit of the required cube root. So we have 10th digit of the required cube root is 5. Now we have got the ones digit of the required cube root which is 6 and the 10th digit of the required cube root which is 5 and so we say that cube root of the number 175616 is equal to 56. This is how we find the cube root of a perfect cube or a cube number. So this completes the session. Hope you have understood the concept of cubes and cube roots.


And towards the 2023 general elections, the presidential aspirant, Deli Mamadou, has warned politicians against mis-management of public funds for selfish interests. He made this known during an interview with Newsmen at the Rotary Stakeholders' Meeting held in Abiokuta, the state's capital. He advocated for a credible leader to rule the country. The decision of one leader to do what is right. One of the things we need to cut urgently is waste in government. A lot of Nigerian politicians come to government to enjoy what they could not enjoy in their private capacity. The moment you reduce how much you waste on politicians, you will see that there will be money for development. There will be money for projects. I know that leadership is about managing people and resources. It's not about politics. The reason why Nigerians do what they do today is because nobody holds them accountable. You must have an uncountable government. You must have a government that knows its onions. And you must have a good team. Because leadership is not just about you. It's about your team. The election is coming, and everybody now knows they use it. You know, they don't need you two years ago. They don't need you one year ago. But now that the election is coming, it's time to say we need you. They want to put you in the forefront. They want you to say, go help me kill, go help me beat. All you should ask back is, I want a part of the cake.  If I'm going to vote for you, what are you going to give us back?


Thank you for being here. In this talk, I will present a joint work between Chungo, Tomas Peters, for Susana Standard, and myself. We will talk about integrity in presence of the cage, and we will provide this without any idealized assumption. To start, we start talking about what is integrity. And as usual, we have Alice who wants to send a message to Bob via an insecure channel. And she wants that Bob is sure that the message she sent to him is really from her, not from another person. To do this, she use a message authentication code. So when she has a message, she use a Mac to compute a tag. Then she send this couple of message tag to Bob, who verifies and decides to see, oh, this is from Alice, so this is from Alice, or bad, this is not from Alice. This is a message authentication code. And this is an example of the cryptographic previous scheme. But if she can intercept this message, so she can see couple of message tag, but since these cryptographic algorithms are implemented on an electronic device, Eve may be able to obtain additional information having physical access to them. In fact, for example, she can measure some physical quantities which are produced during the computation. For example, the power consumption, the time, and the electromagnetic radiation. These are the so-called assertion. And analyzing them, she can obtain critical information. For example, in some cases, even the full key. And we say that via side channel, some information are leaked to her. To avoid this problem, an example of this problem is, for example, we can consider this simple Ashton BC, which is a Mac, which we start with a message, then who is Ashton, and then his input is passed as a message. Which is passed as an input of a block cipher. And we complete the tag. To verify what we do in verification, we recompute the tag to a tilde, and then we compare it with the tag which is provided with the message. And we see that if this tag is valid or not. We start observing that maybe via side channel, we can, if we are able to recover the key clearly, we can do everything. Since all the security of a scheme is in the secrecy of the key. But for example, in verification via side channel, also to tilde may be verified. And obtaining to tilde means that you are able to forge at least for this particular message. Now that usually when we put a side channel protection on primitives like this block cipher, we will protect usually the key, not the output. So if it may be problematic, or so if some outputs are leaked. Thus, cryptographic devices are not black box or others. To avoid this problem, we leak a jersey and cryptography has been introduced. It's going to provide security in presence of leakage, or as it will be integrity, our own. In particular, we want to have a trade-off between some assumption, which we suppose that they are weak at least for physical assumption. And, but on the other hand, we still want to have efficient construction because an inefficient construction which achieves some security is not so interesting. For example, to show you what is the, there are the problems that for the weak physical assumption, in particular, we don't want that they are ideal. For example, consider pickable block cipher. We may have this ideal hypothesis that it is leak-free, which means that the leakage gives no additional information. But first, if you want to use, if we want to use in a real or random game, it's very difficult to simulate the ideal, the leakage of an ideal object. Made in a real or random, we have to distinguish between a pickable block cipher and its leakage and an ideal pickable permutation and its leakage. So you have to compute this ideal leakage, which is very difficult. Moreover, how can an evaluation laboratory check if this device is leak-free? And that's also the security bounds which are provided by such a scheme. Maybe, problematically, they understand it. Thus, it has some problems. On the other hand, it is important, it is very nice, the leak-free model because it allows in a construction where there are many primitives and only some of them are leak-free, it gives us what it is needed to be protected and what is not so important to protect. Moreover, in the leak-free model, we can have efficient constructions. But in this talk, since we want to skip ideal hypothesis, we will use strong unpredictability of leakage, which I will explain later. So we provide three message authentication codes. The first, which uses a one TBC call and a collision-resistant hash function. And it is also, it is secure, but it is also beyond birthday secure when the TBC use long-tweaks, which means two times the size of the input. Then we say, okay, perhaps we do not have this TBC call with long-tweaks, so we want again to be beyond birthday secure. So what we do is a LRMATCHU, which use two TBC calls and a collision-resistant hash function. But to obtain beyond birthday security, we still need to have half-collision resistance, which I will detail later. Finally, we propose a much more efficient construction, which use one TBC call and only a collision-resistant hash function, but to prove its security, we need a really strong assumption for the hash function. In this talk, I will start with the background. I will start defining what is the integrity definition we aim for, then how we can model the cage. Then the secret definition for TBC, which I have just told before. And then I will present a construction, a hash then TBC, which has been introduced before and has been studying at InScript 90. Then I will move to our reconstruction to show the results we have provided. In the first, we use a fixed input, the second, two calls, to the TBC call box size, and the third, we will need to add an additional hypothesis on the hash function. So here we want to provide, to define the security we aim for our message authentication code. For us, it will be strong affordability with leakage. We start observing that our adversary, she can model the leakage of her device. She can do tag generation queries on input message, and then she'll see as output the tag and the leakage of this computation. Moreover, once she does verification queries, she asks as input the message and the tag and she output the couple input out and she obtains either. Okay, invalid. Invite, okay. Or she, and in addition, she received the leakage of this computation. The goal is that she's able to provide a fresh and valid couple message and tag. Even if she receive, she can model the leakage of the device she's facing. She can, she received the leakage of tag generation queries and verification queries. A forgery means a couple message tag, which is fresh. That means it is not an answer obtained from an answer of this, of queries to the tag generation of a code, and valid, which means that when you verify it, you obtain, okay. The problem is very nice definition, but we need the two model leakage. We start, and we start observing that usually photographic schemes use many primitives. And so we want to use the unbounded leakage model, which has been introduced at FSE 70. The idea of the authors is to divide primitives into type of primitives, unprotected primitives, which are filled in white. And we suppose that all inputs and outputs leak. In particular, also the second one. Note that here we use for input and output of the scheme, not of the primitive. We use the green color and we use for values which are computed during the computation or our input during the secret input during the computation of unprotected values, the green, the orange color. Then we have the green box, which are strongly productive primitives. And we suppose that all, but not the secret inputs leak. In addition, the outputs leak. So here we use the red color to denote the key of strongly protected primitive. This gives a nice pictorial view for the unbounded leakage model, because it means that the author receives as leakage the green values. So in reality, what she knows is all the green values and all the orange values. The orange is what is given by leakage. This is very stronger. And the problem now is, how can we define the security for the green, for the strongly protected primitives? For this, since the strong primitives is a tweak-out block cipher, it will be a stronger predictability with leakage. For this, we have our adversary who is able to model the leakage of this tweak-out block cipher and she's able to query an evaluation to the TBC with input tweak and input and obtain an output and it's leakage. And also she can query the inverse of the primitive. This is why it's stronger. Obtaining the inverse of X with tweak TW and the leakage of this inverse. And so, and we want that it is harder for the adversary to provide a fresh and valid couple tweak, input and output. Fresh never obtained from these queries. Value, it means that when you evaluate with tweak TW star and the input X star, you obtain Z star. This definition, I did want to that you can verify by your lab. You can give, this is my implementation of my tweak-out block cipher. Try to put a random key and try to provide the fresh and valid couple. So my information lab can do all the tasks it knows to try and she can say, okay, we think that the security of this, this primitives is up to like due to the 70 queries, which is a nice result. This is, this is something real and concrete. Then I will start showing that there are some already some construction which are secure when the TBC is molded as strong and predictable, but with leakage, but they assume that the hash function is around the model. This, for example, one of them is age than tweak-out block cipher, which was started in script 90. We have the message, which is after, then an half of the message is used as a tweak for the TBC, the other half as an input. And the target is obtained via this tweak-out block cipher. Clearly, using our leakage model, we cannot do a naive verification. For example, which means, okay, we re-computed the tag to tilde, this, this to become to tilde, and then we compare if we tap with the target provided by the other side. Clearly in our model, to tilde will be leaked. So they're going to say, okay, thank you. To tilde is the right one. Okay, then I will read to my forger instead of being unto, it will be unto tilde. The idea, which will use at the SSE 17 is to use the inverse of tweak-out block cipher for education in this way. Again, we re-computed the hash, but instead of re-computing the tag, we compute the inverse of the tag with tweak v, and we compare if this value, with tilde, is equal to the first half of the hash, but the problem is that, if you assume that f is strong and predictable, there may be some formatting interaction between the TPC and the hash function. So what they do, they use a random oracle to bound the probability that the other side computes uv as a Nash of a message, and then obtains u as the inverse of this, this u tilde, this u tilde with tweak v. The random oracle allows to control all the queries that the other side did before, and this is very helpful in the proof. Having given the background, now I want to move to our queries. The first is error mark one. We started thinking, okay, this, there may be bad interaction between the hash function and the tweak-out block cipher. We can do, we can avoid this. To avoid this, we use, the idea is, okay, is error mark one, we take the message, we hash it, and we use it as a tweak. Then we use a fixed input, which is in our case zero n, and we compute the tag from these two inputs from the TPC. The idea is to use the hash value only as a tweak of the TPC, and to use a fixed input for the TPC block cipher. In verification, what we do, again, we use the inversion. Yeah, we use again the, the message, we recompute the hash function, then we inverse the TPC on input A and tweak h, and we obtain a value of x tilde, and we compare it with zero n. The idea is that if x tilde is not zero n, you cannot reuse again for further, because you cannot, there are no forgery which starts with a value, with an input of the TPC, which is not zero n. This will be the idea of our proof, and then I will talk to you later. But before, for those of you who are more interested, I will start talking, I will give the security, and we have the collision resistance, and we have the strong unpredictability times the number of verification policies that I can do. It is QV plus the one, which is the one given due to the finalization step of the strong unpredictability. The hypothesis that we have is that f, it is a strong unpredictable TPC with location, and h is collision resistance function, you see very simple basic assumption for these two primitives. In particular, if for a good hash function, the collision resistance should be bounded, we know that there is the birthday bound, so it should be bounded by the names of query that the other side can do, to square by the square of the number of queries that the other side can do, divided by the size of the outer space of the hash function. And while the unpredictability depends on f is implemented in a secure way, we propose, I prefer to implement them, to use deoxys 384 and a hash function, shot by 256, the advantage is that the deoxys is a pick up block cycle, which is 128, a bit long input, and 256 bit long queries. So in this way, this term will be around a security, which is near two to the 128, perhaps a bit less because shy, it's not an idea, but it will be much beyond the birthday bound, which is a nice result. And for those of you who are interested, I will now, I will dictate the proof, which as you will see, it's very, very simple. We consider fresh and valid verification queries, MI to I, and we consider it's the hash, H, I. We may have two cases, H I has been obtained also as a hash of a method during a type generation query. So there is a type generation query on input MJ, such that H, the hash of MJ is HJ, which is equal to H, I, or this does not, this has not happened. In the first case, either MJ is equal to MI, so for the forged, the litigation query is not fresh, or we have found the collision for the hash function, or zero N as input, H, I as a tweak, and two I as an output is a valid triple for the TPC. So we have found, we have been able to find a prediction for the TPC. So we are able to, so we have an attack which invalidates the strong unpredictability with leakage of the TPC. Then we move to alarm actual, where we have the problem, okay. We have a very good result beyond birthday if we use this typical work cycle with long tweaks, but if we do not have them, we are doomed to be, not to be beyond birthday, not because the idea is no, but we can do it using true cause to the trigger work cycle. What it is important and what the key idea is to use the same tweak for the true cause and choose two different keys here. Again, we compute the hash of the hash function of the message and which we divide into couples. The second art which is used as a tweak for both call and the first art which is used as an input for the first TPC, then it is passed, then we obtain an output Y which is passed to the second TPC to obtain the package. In verification, what we can do is again, we recompute the hash function, then we compute, we compute again Y, but instead of going and recomputing to tilde, we inverse to and we check if the tilde Y obtained here is equal to the Y obtained from the first call to the TPC. The security we have which is, we have the collision resistant on the full hash function, on the full action. We have many collision on this V or we have, or the adversary may be able to find an error. Particularly we want that the TPC is strong and predictable with leakage. The hash function is collision resistant, but it is also move collision, lower half collision resistant, which means that it is hard to find M1 move messages, M1 and M2 such that the second half is the same. Note that for reasonable good hash function, not idea about reasonably good, for ideal function, it's enough to have move equal to have this term if we are using the output space of the hash function is 128 bits, we have security over 100 queries, over 200 100 queries. But for reasonably good hash function, we may even have, for example, we think that it is, if we say that move is 128, we may reasonably have security up to 200 100 queries. And note that with 128 queries, this term is not very bad. Then the third result is, okay, can we, we want to study a bit more in detail age than TPC, which I mind you, we take a thought to generate a type, we compute the hash of the message and then we use alpha as a tweak, alpha as an input and then with a TPC loop tag. In verification, we inverse the tag and we compare if the output of this inversion is equal to the first half of the hash function. The idea is to say, okay, we suppose that for the hash function, there is a set of weak points in the code domain, so that it is easy to find the day pre-image. And we say that, and we assume that an hash function is acceptable if there exists a polynomial time adversary that outputs the previous set. This assumption is not ideal, but it is very strong. But HTTBC is very efficient. So we have here a very strong assumption for the hash function, which leads to a very secure and very to a very efficient construction. This is part of the trade-off. To conclude, we have provided three new, three leakage resilient message authentication codes, which range from pragmatic to theoretically more important. Their security is based on minimal physical assumption, strong unpredictability with leakage and black box, not a generalized assumption for the hash function. This makes a security proofs and bounds in the standard model. And thus, we have concrete requirements for implementers. As future worlds, we leave the problem of instantiating them, comparing their performances and extending to a syndicated impact. I thank you for your attention and my co-authors and me are more than happy to answer to your question. Thank you again.