Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: We shouldn't only be concentrating on money, money making. I think if we do that we are really robbing and raping our very world that we live in, and we seem to forget that actually this world is the world we wish for our children to stay. Leaders, I think, should stop being corrupt and people's will, every human being, I think, should be responsible. Don't want to much, don't want things that you can't even use. Just, for example, in this developing machines where your mobile phone can do a lot. But yet you want all kind of machine you want it all and you don't use; think less for others. I think we should learn to share. Then we will not be raping and stealing too much from our world.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: Economic systems, created by the industrial society, have the disadvantage that they pillage, I would say in a exploitative way, in an unusual way, natural resources of the Planet Earth. I think that China, for the moment with a high economic growth, only in terms of which however it wins the medal, has today about 3 per cent, one estimates, up to 10 per cent of the gross national product under damage by environmental problems. That's about 51 billion dollars in one year. Discredit was brought completely on animal and ecological resources thereby. The same involves India, Brazil, but China is the most obvious factor, a complete discredit of ecological demands. I can repeat it one more time, that up to 10 per cent of the gross national product of China today are used or are wasted, one can say, it is threatening for ecological structure. That's 50-51 billion dollars. That involves also the states of the industrial world. Only in the latest ecological processes of rethinking, an awareness begins to crystallize, what the states of the periphery, which have a strong economic growth today, the leading position of the economy, uniquely recorded in the history, completely neglect. That is a great threat to the security and the policy of peace.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Cornel West: Well, we have to begin where we are. We have a capitalist mode of production around the world that must be reshaped, reconceived and revisioned in such a way that voices from below are heard. I am not sure it helps to talk about abstract Utopian systems. Take Antonio Gram. She is right in terms of his focus on our concrete historical situations and see what are the imminent possibilities for recasting and reshaping, reforming and revolutionizing our present capitalist system in such a way that we don’t know exactly what the “newism” is. But, it has to be one that puts people’s needs, people’s dignity, everyday people, especially the least of these are most vulnerable at the very center of whatever economic system we do in fact forge, so that the abstract ideological level of the isms that do not exist are less important than trying to reshape and recast this present inegalitarian capitalist mode of production which is now in place. It’s a major challenge; and it’s a challenge that, I think, we can make if we put at the center the kind of human rights and those of centia beings, of animals who deserve much better treatment, and of course a concern for the ecology and the so called planet rights in the question.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: The only way to design an economic system favorable and not violating the rights of human, animals and planet is to design in a way that it responds to the needs of human beings. The problem now is economic systems are created in such a way that it promotes commercialization and it is money oriented and once economic system is a money-oriented and commercially motivated because of greediness of those people who are planning it, they tend to implement such systems even if they know very well that it violates the rights of other human beings, of animals, and the planet Earth. And therefore, as I say, economic systems should really be designed in such a way that it responds to the needs of the people without going away from that towards greediness for economic profits and greediness to maintain their power. In that way, that very de-humanizing economic system will be minimized. And those are, of course, on/in the perspective of indigenous peoples. We see in this world that lack of economic systems are not really responding to the needs but rather respond to the interests of few people in this world.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara: Economic Systems are... Even the mere word “economic system” has the connotation of power in it. The power of money, the power of the one who has the money to buy himself whatever he needs. We, indigineous, don’t have this view, we have the view of an economic system where everything is shared. Whenever we produce flour in our indigenous community, flour that is made by all women, that flour in the end becomes distributed in the whole community, so everyone produces, everyone consumes the same. This is not the case within the capitalistic system, one produces, pushes the production and forces and enslaves his workers since those people don’t get as much as they deserve for their labor. Therefore, one produces, others enslave themselves for this production, this economic system produces luxuries but not for the people, for the community but only for the one who invested in the first place. It is different again in the indigenous system, as all of us produce and all of us earn, all of us nourish ourselves the same way, even if we face, within our community, poverty. Everything we make is thought for sharing, hence, the keywords in our society are “sharing” and “cooperation”. In a capitalistic system, however, the keywords are “investing” and “making profits”. Therefore all other economic systems fail to meet the bare necessities of human beings, which is the dignity of life.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: I think that an economic system, if you start with a – I don’t think that an economic system has never been imagined that includes the idea of human, animal, or planet rights. The economic systems have always been based on their market forces or on correcting economic inequalities. And the idea of imagining one that would include a planetary consciousness and a consciousness setting that includes the rights of all the species on Earth is something that we haven’t even begun to think about. Is a beaver a Marxist or a capitalist? So, once again, I think it’s the question of, by beginning to formulate the question, you have a kind of paradigm shift in how you even think about the idea of an economic system, that an economic system is something that has to go beyond merely the market, merely the rights of workers, and merely the profit motive.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: Thank you, Jens. I like this question of how an economic system should be devised that isn't in conflict with human, animal or planet rights because I am an evolution biologist. And I study living systems. It’s very easy to see nature as an economy, because in nature the different species take raw materials and they create things from them, they produce products. They consume them of course, they trade them with each other, there’s a lot of cooperation of feeding each other and providing homes for each other in the plant and animal world and the microbial world, and the fungal world. And so, healthy living economies are very cooperative in their economics. But there is a learning curve in nature where young species are actually quite hostile in their competition the way we young humans are at present on the planet. And they take as much territory and resources as they can get, they multiply as fast as possible. That’s the juvenile mode of species behavior in evolution. However, eventually, they meet up with other species and either they have to bump each other off, or they start setting up some cooperative schemes. And then they discover how well those cooperative schemes work. You get more and more cooperation going, so that in a very mature species kind of ecosystems such as the rain forest or a prairie, you have the species feeding each other, taking care of each other, providing for each other, and it’s economically much, much more efficient. And you can see that, if you look for inside the United States Pentagon budget, it's much, much more expensive to destroy countries and then rebuild them than it would be to build them from where they were in the first place. We have to make friends in this world if we are going to stop terrorism, if we are going to stop hostilities. It’s the only way forward for our species, is to get through this evolutionary maturation cycle to take globalization as an opportunity, to build global family, to help each other. And with the coming climate change ahead of us, we are going to really have to cooperate. I hope that it will drive us to do that.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Ervin Laszlo: Economic systems today are based on profit and on the generation of profit for the shareholders. However, it could also be based on sustainability and on self-reliance. It is entirely possible and these ideas are known, they require to be put to work. They do exist. We have all the theoretical basis. They are nothing implemented because those who make the profit still insist on continuing in the system that makes profit for them.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru: This question allows us to start thinking about the basic. We must start going back to our own traditions. And I think our communities have a wealth of knowledge to be able to give us the answers to these questions. Grassroots communities, those who are living in their own communities, they are gaining livelihoods from their own communities. They believe in the future of their generations. They are doing exactly the same. They are protecting the environment. They are protecting the animals. They are protecting the planet. And they have no conflict. But we have. Many of us want to go and exploit the environment for our individual gain without thinking about the global world, without thinking about the future. Then of course, we will have the conflict. But the conflict, the answers to these questions can only be gotten if you want to go back to the communities. Let’s go to our basics, let’s learn how communities actually deal with their own environment, how they’ve been able to protect for ages, their own environment. Unless we are able to learn from community actions and see how they’ve been able to protect the riverbeds, how they’ve been able to protect the forests, how they’ve been able to live in harmony with the animals around them - then we would realize that we don't have to be in conflict with the nature. We are only in conflict in nature if we do have external supreme beings coming over and exploiting what the internal people do have. But if you allow people to control their own environment, and we are not thirst for power, then we will not be in conflict with the environment, the humans, and the animals that live with us.

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Fernando Solanas:

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Fred Matser: Well, let's first consider we are all part of nature. We, the human beings are one of the billions of form or creation of this planet. And as we can see, we are part of nature. The only thing is in a way it looks like we have aborted ourselves from nature, from our environment with all its consequence as we see in global warming, a lot of pollution, a lot of violence. The thing is, I think that in all our actions, our productions, the creation of surfaces, there's nature that can serve us for input to see how in nature, the cyclical evolutionary laws of nature or creation are at work. As long as we respect such, as long as we see how it works and we mimic such in the products and services that we create, I think everything is okay. I give you an example. If we would take an alfalfa seed and we put it in the windowsill, it could become to a wonderful nutritious product with the use of light, water, earth and heat. And after two, three weeks or ever earlier, when we can eat it and it can nurture us, and through the [inaudible] we could nurture the next seed. So, that's an example of a very short cycle, and an example of a very long cycle is, for example, the creation of nuclear energy, where we create a huge blast with an enormous level of pollution and demolition with perhaps a cycle of several thousand years to come back into the natural balance. So, if we are aware of what we really do, when we take elements away from nature and make them into new creation, we always have to think in what way can we bring it back into the cycle. For example, we have those bulbs, lamps that we can create, they often are created in -- with a maximum time space, so that they burn only say 200 hours. But, there is technology for example to add with $0.01 or $0.02 and that can burn 1,000 hours. But, the thing is, are we really willing to make goods durable? Do we have the intention and what is our real [audio ends].

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: Very simple in its structure but at the same time well-grounded and intelligent. Copied from nature's law and created after it. That this is possible shows the example of the Austrian farmer Sepp Holzer who revolted with courage against law and habits and who finally won.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: Well, the economic system have the complete responsibility of environment. We start from there. The economic system of any society must be responsible and is responsible of the situation in this planet, environment situation on this planet. I am a vegetarian here, so I don’t know if this question is good for me. But, a vegetarian or non- vegetarian cannot be that we bring so many – we are forced to bring so many animals to life for the purpose to kill them. They are souls; they should not be here in an unnatural process of life. First, this must be stopped. And, I know there are people that will answer me, “When you eat an apple, and you take the apple out of the tree because the apple don’t shout when you take, yeah?” If I don’t take the apple from the tree, in a period of time will come alone from the tree. And if I don’t know--don’t remember exactly, I think was Jesus, or I don’t know what prophet, say you are allowed to eat a fruit, to eat a vegetable, that when you finish, inside is the seed that you can put again in the land and you will have again the fruit. This will avoid all this kind of conflict in society that we, we, we the citizens of this planet can create and can be found an economic system that will have respect to the planet, no question about. It is our interest; it is not the interest of the habitants of another planet.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: A system, that an economic system that would allow a compromise between or that will stop conflicts between humanity, animals and planets rights is a system in which we avoid the issue of too much commercialization of all environmental products and natural resources. In this case, we say, economics should be there, but it should be economics that looks at the well being, the sustainability of the human race, not the over-exploitation of resources, not the over-exploitation of planet and animal resources, as this will result in a complete collapse of the environment. So, without a sustained economic policy, a sustained economic paradigm, then we will not be able to be successful. We will always have a conflict in which humanity, animals, and the planet are in conflict with the economy, because economics is in a way a process to try and over-exploit the resources, over-exploit the planet and over-exploit whatever is available. And, in this case, there will be a conflict. The only solution is to have sustained economic paradigms that takes cognizance of the fact that the environment is not a finite resource. It is a resource that’s not renewable. It is an un-renewable resource that can at anytime be depleted and in a way we would be able to come up with a system that is not really in conflict with the humanity, animals or the planet's rights.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: How an economic system be devised that isn’t conflict with human, animal, and planet rights. We need to deal with the issue of greed, a system of economy that can meet the needs of human, animal, or a planet needs is what needs to conceived. But in a system where the money isn’t available with everyone it is not so easy to devise a system unless we see the mutuality of purposes being addressed in an economic system where the powerful have the say, where the powerful -- economically powerful push their own agenda where it is the question that everyone can live in harmony with each others’ purposes of existence. It is possible to look at this only as something that we look at in the light of the mutuality.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: It is most important to guarantee the subsistence for all human beings. This means that they have the food they need for their physical existence. In addition to this, it is also important that they have the possibility to develop their emotional and mental capacities to a full extent. When this is the case, especially once again supporting the mental aspect of human beings, then he or she will recognize that they are part of a larger organism, which includes every living being on earth, maybe even that what we call dead. We are parts of a larger unit, which suffers, when parts of it are suffering. The economic system reduces reality to something only consisting of things. Things are a reflection, which decays the world into objects, which have nothing in common. Not considering the close relation of everything with everything else. This overall view is vitally important if mankind wants to have a chance for survival. Those who will not obey this criterion of life will simply be thrown out of evolution.

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: I think this question is raised by the guy not quite understand the whole world. I think if you spend much time in Asia, Africa, South America then you understand it is not a time to talk about it. It is too soon to talk about it.

by Harry Wu