Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: We can enjoy cheap products in the western world and also criticize China for its rapid industrialization because we have seen the problems we have created with our rapid industrialization. And I think we can criticize China because we know how much pollution, how cruel we have been on the planet’s resources to gain our rapid industrialization. In that way we are cleverer than China and can criticize them for not taking care of human rights, planet rights, animal rights, global rights. And I think it’s very important that we still criticize China or other rapidly industrializing countries so they can learn from our experiences, so they don’t make the same mistakes that we did ... or that we made.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: How can people do that? They do. Human nature to assuage guilt, to keep control, to have their own power, to, you know, keep their finger on China. I think what was interesting about the question is that it's not something I was so aware of, that we criticize China for its industrialization that -- that it's, that someone in China can be, can understand that that development is frightening the Western world -- I found quite interesting. And that the story, I mean even if we look at everyone being afraid of what if every Chinese had to have a car and what if, what ifs, that we are so unaware of how just in the Western world, there's attempts to be sustainable, those same things exist in China even though it's, it's, that that could be growing as as rapid a rate as the industrialization isn't discussed.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

John Gage: China should not be sensitive to the kinds of comments or question it feels are important. In fact, the world admires China for its immense capability to produce, for the enormous capability of the Chinese people to produce, to work, to device new methods of creating products, which then benefit the world, by being cheap, by being of high quality, and by transforming the interior structure of China in ways no one yet fully appreciates. Now, the criticism that could be made of any one who is efficient in production is that they do not adequately represent the costs of the things that they are making in the product. That means they are damaging the environment, they are casting off into an immense free sink of the atmosphere, the kinds of by-products, which, if they were fully costed, would change the final cost of that object. So, if there is criticism, it’s criticism, and there is criticism, the criticism, the proper criticism is of those productive processes that in fact impose costs on all the rest of us not reflected in the price of what is made. That’s causing carbon dioxide, the carbon depositions, the effluents into rivers, all of those products of industrialization that poison the earth are a result of those who are involved in production not feeling the price of what they are doing? So, how do we change this? We change this by changing the accounting systems. Every meeting, every gathering, every daily trip, everything we do have a carbon cost. We are beginning to account for that carbon cost because the planet feels that carbon cost, we all feel it in global warming. So, there is some hope that, as China drives toward industrialization, China will emerge with technologies that will allow the rest of the world to learn from China and admire [audio ends].

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: Rapid industrialization has not been often criticized anywhere. I haven't heard that. I've heard criticism of failure of honoring human rights in China. I've seen arguments that the Chinese are not being environmentally responsible. But rapid industrialization? I haven't heard anybody criticizing that. I certainly wouldn't criticize rapid industrialization. I would join in the criticism of inadequate - from what I've heard, I've never been to China but what I've heard is inadequate respect for the rights of laborers, and an inadequate sense of the sacredness of the environment, and the need to protect it. Does - must industrialization abuse workers? Must industrialization abuse the environment? Those are not questions about China, those are global questions. And the answer that we all have to give is that if China follows the route of economic development of say the United States, I don't know if there'll be enough resources, everywhere. So it'd be foolish I think to criticize China on the grounds of industrialization, but we've got to criticize any place where there's a lack of justice.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: Humans are arrogant, schizophrenic, illogical, haughty and so as they are. Hence they ask for exciting things as well as unexciting. Confusion is the only existing measure, not knowledge. Show your confused vision, then you are the most political. The obscure politics is reflected in your face. Industrialisation has not taken place yet, there is only the industry of the nature. The industry of nature is the herald of the total revolution. Anything else is man-made and has no meaning. The nature makes its products on its own, as it wish, and it will present us prolificly, if we treet her suppliantly. That means: The nature gives what it is able to. It is not possible to give more, as well as there is no need to. Man is his own provisions. Expect everything of yourself, carry more than you can, take more than possible, and give even more, give everything, only give. Convert everything that is given to you. This is the evolution of the thing. I told to myself that I am obedient and this is really good. Nobody is more hermetic than me. Karl Marx said: "We ourselves are our industry, we are our factory, these factories are in us."

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: Does the word hypocrisy mean anything? I mean that people are -- I don’t know -- I don't think most people know -- they know these two things. I think people who enjoy cheap products enjoy them because it makes their lives easier. And if they are thinking like that, then they are not worrying about what the effects are of that in China. Trust me, most people aren't thinking about that. I personally am not into the cheap products. I just like -- I don’t know if there is any better answer than just there is hypocrisy involved. I think most people are just worrying about today and they are fearing tomorrow, so they could sit around, and if they are happy today, that's what they are worrying about and they are afraid of tomorrow. And so, they don't want to deal with it. And the idea of China becoming a global economic superpower, which it already is and what the effects of that might be on the environment, which ultimately will effect them in a much more profound way than their ability to buy cheap sneakers is a normal and human flaw, just that's how we are. It's not right. That's why it's hypocrisy. This doesn't make any sense. Anyhow we have no right to judge China's desire to go global -- globalization and rapid growth, rapid industrialization if we are not doing it in our own country, that's for sure. I always think like the main thing of personal economics is just consume less, it's just something personal to like do less damage, just consume and judging less as well.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto:

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: I think that the people enjoy the cheep products, but only the large industrial companies and the capital countries criticise these products, because they consider them as seriously rival products,but the consumer is satisfied with them, so i do not think that the chinese products are criticised,, that what i think..i do not understand how you came to the idea that the chinese products are criticised.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, Qin, you must understand that their criticism has a reason, and their criticism is basically their jealousness or their fear. They are jealous to look at your economic growth on one hand. But, on the other hand, they are afraid of losing their own jobs and economic growth. That is the reason. If the world market is poured with the cheap Chinese goods, then everybody is afraid that they may lose their own production, they may lose their own jobs and so on. So, that is the reason. But, I would also say that when it comes to the criticism I would always vouch for better working and living conditions of Chinese workers because that is one question which I would like to raise that until and unless you have decent working conditions, until and unless you have freedom of association to Chinese workers those who are the backbone of all the economic growth of China today, it would not be justified to go so fast as a big economic boom. So, it is very important that the Chinese production should also linked with the social justice for Chinese workers, women and children, especially the children. Now, it is, there are stories that the children are joining the workforce in early ages and the child labor problem is growing in China. Children are dropping out from the schools and going to work in production because they feel that they can earn easy money. So, that's a big question that the economic growth of China or any country must not based on the young children, the exploited women and the workers who are not living in free and decent conditions -- working and living conditions.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: What I hear is really not criticism. What I hear is a huge fear of history repeated. I think one of the lessons learned in the developed world was how industrialization hit our environment. So, I do not personally criticize China. I think China should just go for it, of course. But, please do not let history repeat itself. Please do not let the whole environment around us be really, really, ruined. Please learn from all the lessons learned around the world of how to make economic growth and still take care of the environment. I think that’s really the basic problem. You won’t be able to live with that. It’s not a goal in the world to pollute; it’s not a goal in the world to have your air stink, to have your water really, really, dirty. No, it’s not a goal. It’s a goal to have cars. If everybody in the world want cars, yes. I love my car. Yes, go for it; get a car. But, right now, we have techniques, we have innovation methods, we have technology that would enable us, as a global society, also to help China not to make the same mistakes that were made in the Western world. So, it’s a question of a green economic growth in China. That is possible now.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: I think that the Chinese will hardly care if we criticize the development of their economy or not. More than one third of the world’s population are living in India and China. They have already become great powers and their economic development takes place much faster than it takes place in our countries. We shouldn't think that we should criticize these countries or that we have the right to criticize them but we should learn from them. Not in all areas, but we can learn enough from them. Their readiness to work and their readiness to develop their country is for us more an example than something to criticize.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: [inaudible]

The developed world enjoys cheap products precisely because it has cheapened the lives of those from which it gets this products. When we can have a Nike, when you can have Reebok put together by bleeding hands that are [inaudible] and be comfortable enough waving dollar bills in the face of the world, then indeed you will be happy to [inaudible] cheap products because you have cheapened life and if life itself is cheap then everything that you yourself own and control and posess is inherently cheap. Hipocracy is essentially what powers the criticism of any sector of humanity getting industrialised. When it is strictly because of industry that the expansion [as monsters of the world] can get themselves to [inaudible]. By cheap products i assume that we also mean human life, seeing as human life in itself being [strung down] and reduced to product.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: I find the question of advantage because I think people enjoy cheap products is one thing, and if people criticize China for its rapid industrialization, there could be many different reasons for doing that in order to criticize China for rapid industrialization. They did not necessarily just come from outsiders. We can criticize it from the perspective of the Chinese as well, because at present, the rapid industrialization present, take into consideration the needs of the people and the initial kind of consideration for the people moving from the countryside to the city and people who have difficulty in adjusting to this rapid industrialization. So, the criticism could also come within China from the perspective of the Chinese themselves, being concerned with China in development, concern for the Chinese people. It’s not necessarily just coming from outside and people from the outside enjoying the cheap products, and I think that we should not link the two together. I think the present question is to set up of a kind of primary opposition in saying that because people outside are enjoying the cheap products, then we should not criticize the Chinese for its rapid industrialization. But I think if we talk about the cheap product or making use of the cheap labor in China by industries coming from most sides of the west, that is one thing. That is another issue. But the criticism for China’s rapid industrialization has this [inaudible] reason. And the reason, which is kind of wanting for China to be aware of its rapid industrialization.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: This question seems that we have rights to set a higher moral standard for people in the developed world. It is reasonable for us or we have the right to set such a higher standard for those people.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Oh, this is a very interesting question because it is about hypocrisy and selfishness because this is this thing about we’ve already got these and we want more. And the drug of choice often in our living standards can be “we want more” and so -- but once we’ve got more others shouldn’t really follow our example? And that’s where the hypocrisy comes in. And people want, they see the image and the goodies that are portrayed as successful living. And of course people want that. But there’s a certain hypocrisy in saying thou shalt not whilst we’ve got. And it boils down to this idea of the haves and the have-nots. It’s a bit like people saying we don’t want to talk about racism now, we’ve given that up. Well, the damage has been done. We need to unpack it before we can discard it. So to say to people we like the cheap products but don’t go down the same road as us but in the meantime we’ll enjoy it. And that’s the hypocrisy and I guess that’s the greed of it all. So it’s double standards in many ways. And I think it’s a very good question. Thank you for it.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: Perhaps this question is not very clear, but to my understanding this is because China does not produce quality, but only produces quantity and, as such, this is mainly meant to attract the consumers which, in return, aims at developing and flourishing by the products they produce. And for that matter criticism cannot fail to be there when quality is not produced. So, in the whole industry of development, the issue of quality is important than the production of quantity. Quantity may be produced, but if it is not quality enough then this aspect would then seem to be a debatable aspect and therefore, that is the reason why in certain industrialized sites we find the issue of quantity and quality being an issue which is controversial.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:50:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: Good question, they cannot. China is doing exactly what the dominant system says they should be doing, being ultra competitive, and at the expense of social inclusion into China. I have just been to China and they have invested in infrastructure in a very admirable way. They are trying their best. They have a very good education system, much better than ours which is falling behind. Unfortunately a lot of people are left behind still and don’t make a mistake, they are not raising us to the bottom for cheaper and cheaper goods, they are as a matter of fact raising us to the top. Their technology, their science and technology are proceeding at breakneck speed and they will overtake us in 5/10 years and we cannot be complacent here. This is very serious and you cannot blame China for that. China is doing exactly what the system says they should be doing and they are doing it better.

by Mae-Wan Ho