Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: Yes, for sure. But if the leading industry nations want to stay alive, their leaders need to prove wisdom in being more generous against the Third World countries. That there are releases from debts from time to time is an example for this consideration. Because if the Third World countries will go down, they need to be replaced by parts from the Second World countries or even the industrialised nations themselves. By the way, the Third World countries become more similar to the countries of the industrialised world through the immigration of millions of foreign black people and the growing poverty of millions of own white people. I think that nowadays the Third World is not to be searched only in Africa, Asia or South America, but as well in the streets of Paris, London, New York or Berlin.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: If an answer, I answered before and I must repeat; there are several interests that create this kind of situation in part of the war and the danger scenes of this kind of situation because are not respected the natural process of humanity is that is a bomb. This will a plot and the history say this; the history says this. Human being was the time they consider they have the right to make from another human being slave. They can work for our [inaudible], perhaps official in many society think about official and to allow a system of respect slave finish. But, they are partners in the world; what is this like you should-- we can say under the table still exists. And again and again and again, it’s not to criticize because we criticize, we don’t have nothing; but we must found the human solution to this situation that was created by human being. For this, we didn’t come to this physical life and we must be lucky now our families. We must be responsible inside, everyone of us in the human family.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: On third world’s poverty. Because third world’s poverty -- the poorer the third world people become their skills can be drained away from third world countries. The poorer the third world countries become the more the raw materials from third world countries can be transported away from their continents to the developed continents. In an unrefined state, so for developed countries to remain wealthy, they need to keep developing countries poor so that the developing countries will remain sources of labor, they will remain also sources of raw material. So, in this case I am trying to say that there should be a way in which we should look at life differently, a way in which the world starts to think about developing countries, forging a development, a genuine development paradigm that helps them to progress and achieve sustainable development. Not only to look at developing countries as sources of labor, not only looking at developing countries as sources of manpower or raw materials, in this case we will be able to say the wealthy in first world countries does not depend on the poverty of African countries. But, if the situation continues, that labor is taken from developing countries into first world countries, the big brains are taken away from developing countries to the first world, and raw materials are transported. And if the conditions prevailed also that the third world or developing countries continue to be sources of the market, then it means that the wealthy of the rich countries depend on the poverty of the poor countries. Because the poor countries are the sources of labor markets [audio ends]

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: But, does anyone care to think that way. The wealth is an issue that always gets consolidated with those who already have wealth. It is the desire of the developed world to keep that wealth with themselves. So, it is always a process where you will have poor which is a majority that it is exploited to help the wealthy to remain wealthy. If I want to be rich, I want you to be poor, it is funny, but that is the way the world functions. If I want you to be rich then I should be willing to share the opportunity of growth. If the opportunity of growth that enables equity then it is possible that Third World can also become rich. It’s like this, often we don’t.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: ..[interrupted]..that the extreme wealth on the one side and the extreme poverty on the other side are connected. But there will always be the rich and the poor. The wealth of the Western World is not only connected with the fact, that the poor are being exploited, but also the limited resources, and that the life standard is being created which cannot exist too long. We have to start to hearken back to the things we have access to in everyday life. That means a completely other kind of lifestyle. And this lifestyle will become reality only if we use the natural resources of this world, which mostly come from the sun. And then everyone in this world will have a part of what they lack now, in the moment of their poverty. The present development will not last, and then our problem will be not only poverty, but also wealth, that these people won’t be able to act this way any longer.

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: I don't think the wealth that depend on the Third World being poor, I think partially may be this the reason, but I don't think this is the only reason.

by Harry Wu

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Helena Norberg-Hodge: The wealth in the industrialized countries definitely depends on poverty in the so-called Third World. This whole system of development started with slavery in the Third World. No community would ever think of producing only cotton, only tin, only tea for export. This happen because they were enslaved, force was used in order to create the production of natural resources for Britain, for the so-called developed world, which gave rise to the whole industrial revolution and to the development that has happened there. We need to recognize that there has been a continuum from conquest, colonialism, and slavery to development, which was supposed to help the so-called Third World, but actually what happened was, that it created a larger and larger debt and that the so-called Third World became economically enslaved to the Northern countries. Today we have a third phase which is called globalization. In that phase we are told that now finally the so-called Third World is going to get rich, is going to benefit from the deregulation of global trade. In actual fact, it’s a giant step in the wrong direction. It is increasing the exploitation of the Third World and of the majority of people even in the West because as deregulated trade pushes businesses to go more and more global and we have bigger and bigger mega-mergers, these giant corporations are using technology instead of human labor and intelligence and everywhere in the world it is leading to a bigger gap between rich and poor. It is leading to greater poverty and job insecurity even in the middle classes in the West now. So the continuation…

by Helena Norberg-Hodge

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Homero Aridjis: Our wealth depends not only on the Third World being poor, but the Nature itself and all living creatures that share with us the living-space, contribute to our wealth.

by Homero Aridjis

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Irina Yasina: […] because the wealth of so-called "Golden Billion" i.e. developed countries depends first of all on their innovative orientation. Innovations and technologies on which the mankind’s development is based are created exactly in these countries. If at the same time normal industrial system will be created in the countries of the third world and these countries will start to develop normally, it will just lead to the fact, that the whole Earth becomes wealthier. There is no such dependence. To tell the truth I wouldn’t say this. We could say that it was so in the eighteenth century, but I think that it’s too much simplified, too much. “They became rich because they plundered”. It’s not true. Before they have started to plunder, they were already richer, they have already been more developed.

by Irina Yasina

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: I think our wealth, and I guess that means the western world’s wealth, depends on the third world being poor. I think that’s right. I think the third, or I think the western states, I the more developed states need a globalized state slavery. The industrialized countries need someone or some countries to work and get cancer from bleaching our denims and bleaching our towels in our hotel rooms so they’re a nice, nice white color. I think the industrialized world and the industrialized customers depend on people being poor so they can or are willing to work for nothing or work for just a little so we can get, in the western world, our white denims or white towels. Cheers. Why did we get the shade?

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: Yes, currently our wealth does depend on the Third World being poor. What is it that allows us to buy things at so cheap to continue to hoard our wealth when the rest of the world is starving? I don't know what else to say but yes. We, the Western world, the rich world, those people with wealth have no consideration for how they got it, at whose cost or kind of a long-term view of what that's going to look like after they've hoarded all this money and created so much destruction.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

John Gage: Massive buildings, monuments to overseas investment, monuments to wealth brought to Berlin over centuries by powerful armies, powerful economies, powerful habits of trade. So, in the last 100 years, the concentration of wealth in Europe started 400 or 500 years ago has physical representation. So, to some degree, what we see today in the capitals of Europe, in the United States are results of investments in poor countries extracting value from those countries without adequately, fairly recompensing those from whom those resources were taken. So, yes, there is a basis on which today’s wealth resulted from the extraction by technically advanced societies from less technically advanced societies. But, the future wealth of all the rich world, the 2 billion people who have resources depends fundamentally on the enrichment, on the addition of wealth to the 4 billion people who today have very little. So, the wealth of the world depends upon the increasing wealth of the poorest among us. That single realization can drive investment decisions, can allow those that today control the hundreds of billions of dollars of investment that flows off and only to those countries that today have a pattern of return, instead divert to those highly leveraged, highly capable, becoming ever more capable, countries where an investment can yield a great return. And in the long term, the wealth of the world depends upon the wealth of all of us, bringing all those who are below the levels of acceptable life standards, up to the level where everyone can participate. So, in a long-term way, the global wealth depends upon increasing the wealth of everyone in the world’s poorest countries.

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: [inaudible] depend on the Third World being poor. Because wealth now is generated by information and greater social organization and, ah, wealth is generated through - largely through intelligence, not just through resource appropriations. So, we can do more with less, and the need to have an unjust social order in which wealth - one man's wealth is dependant on another's poverty, that no longer applies. It comes back to the principle that we stated earlier, that many of the people here I'm sure are stating: there's enough to meet our needs, not enough to meet our greeds. The zero sum game toward human destiny that one must succeed, the Hobbesian world in which people are unable to cooperate and work together for the common good is no longer an ignorance that we can survive. We will either have a common destiny of the poor and the rich together, coming to a greater level of balance and justice, or our destiny will lead in violence and our destiny will be unsustainable. It's unacceptable, morally and practically, that half of the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day. It is not morally sustainable and it creates mental and emotional diseases amongst those who refuse to acknowledge this injustice, and physical disease in those who are subject to this oppression. This is not sustainable. Not only is it - wealth is not dependent on the poor, but wealth will not be sustainable if we don't change the equation.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: What is poor? What is the third world? What is the 8th world? What is the 10th world? What is the 1000th world? What is the [Third Reich]? What is the 8th empire? What is the 10th empire? All these categories don’t count, they don't mean anything. They are only conditions. They arose from the idea that human beings are the standard and its categorization. Human beings are pathetic. They have to understand that all these questions and answers lead to nothing. Money is going to be abandoned soon. There will be gold once again and gemstones. Love, respect, humility. Nothing is secure, everything is like a volcano. Who exploits is going to be exploited. Those who have a status are going to exploit those who have no status. There is no status, there is only confusion, a nebulous state. I am poor and I know it and I am grateful for it. I don't know anything. Who is richer? What is money? Why is there money? Why do we define ourselves the way we do? Why not differently? What is total beauty? What is art? Does poor art exist? Does a poor god exist? Does a poor human being exist? Does a poor animal exist? Does a rich human being exist? Does a rich god exist? Who are they all? Why don't we know them? When will we get to know them? I am afraid of knowledge. What do we know anyway.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: Depends on the third world being poor, then we are in trouble. We are in trouble I mean to the extent that we have managed to accumulate this much material wealth and that's how we are determining wealth, then there is no doubt that we have benefited in the West from the exploitation of third world countries, as you describe it. But, you cannot look at wealth strictly in terms of finance, you just cannot do that. You do that or just on those terms, that is not good. I see it as the third world is filled with ideas and language and people and spirit and energy that can -- that's going to provide the answers for the future. What it has existed in the west has gotten us to [where] we are today. If where we are today is not right, then we need to look for new ideas, so where are we going to find those ideas? In places where people haven't yet -- we haven't looked before or we haven't respected before. I think my idea is, my thinking is we are all one here. One way or the other, we are on this planet, we are hurtling through the universe and if we don't figure out how to work together, we are not going to make it, anybody knows that any journey, any travel, anytime you journey anywhere, you are only as strong as your weakest link, you are only as strong as -- we need to like transform the way we perceive the third world and not as a weak link, but as a kind of cornerstone of a kind of new chain. But, we can't just keep going on, we can't just keep -- [it won't work] if we just keep exploiting the third world.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto: I don’t think so. Indeed, the poverty of the third world is without a doubt a burden for the well-being of our planet. For the industrialized world, a poor 3rd world isn’t appropriate. The industrialized world should search for a sincere improvement, a transfer of wealth to the 3rd world and there are many mechanisms which are doing so. There are many mechanisms which try to reverse the tendency towards major impoverishment of the third world without stopping as well to perceive up to what point multinationals and companies are searching for an enormous enrichment and are developing economic projects in countries of the 3rd world, which don’t comply with guidelines of supportive development, or which violate certain ecological guidelines or which develop certain kinds of industries which would be impossible to develop in their own countries. Hence, it’s also a task of the 3rd world to develop a vigilance rearding this, and to make sure that the establishment of economies from the industrialized world in their countries is an establishment that favours them and doesn’t impoverish them to a high degree. But to a certain extent, the industrialized world and the 3rd world should embark on a strategy of „lose and win“, let’s call it that way.

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: The industrial control of the progressive countries, the tendency to control the others and taking advantage of the human and natural resources of these countries lead to lack of minds and resources in the 3rd world.Consequently, that will lead to poverty and underdevelopment.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Definitely, the wealth of the West or wealth of the South very much depends on the poverty of the South. It’s unfortunate that the policies on debt, aid and trade have been divided in such a way that you can exploit more and more South to be rich, and that has been done. The present situation of economic globalization is very much governed by the fact that you can find the cheap sources of labor -- the cheapest labor market, as well as the cheapest raw material from the developing countries so that you can exploit more money from them and take it back to the West and the rich countries. Just one or two examples. On the aid front, whatever aid has been given or being given to the developing countries by the rich, 13 times more money is received or taken by them as the debt services or as the interest of the debt they have been -- they have given in the past. So, that one area that if you give $1 as aid and you take $13 in the debt services payment. Secondly, take the case of the debt. Whatever has been given as debt, nine times more than that is being received by the creditor from the debtor. So, who has taken the debt for instance US $1 is supposed to pay US $9. So, it’s a serious question that on debt, trade, and aid front the richness of the rich depends on the poverty of the poor countries.

by Kailash Satyarthi