Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: When you look at the world, yes it does look like it depends on the third world being poor. Do you think it’s right that the third world should be poor for the development of the West? I hope you don’t think so. The third world, as we call it, is where we took out the resources and forgot to give it to the people themselves. The only way it would be able to change is when you change. I don’t know if I had a chance to tell you before that I’m from the top of the world where the ice is. And my grandma says that the very easiest ice to be melted is one on the ground. When you put your hand down on the ice on the ground it will melt. But the very hardest ice to be melted is the one in the heart of man. Until the ice in the heart of man is melted, man will not have a chance to change. And only by changing within will man be able to see that taking away resources from other people is not right. They had the right to the resources they have. And rightfully so sell it to us. Then it would belong to us. Remember, the economy is the blood of the society. And when the blood is good the society will be good. But it is not. So it is as though, as you posed the question, that the well being of the west is depending on the third world being poor. It should not be. I pray to the Great One that he heard my answer.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: Because our wealth covers up an important fact, which is "our" is a collective term. And with all terms like "we" or "our" I think we have to be very careful about who we're referring to. If you mean "our" as in the people of the first world, if you take that as your reference point, the reality is the first world is not a unified entity. There are class divisions. There are social divisions in even the richest of countries, the United States, which mean there's not a unified interest. There's not a unified collective. There are people in the United States who benefit from the exploitation of the third world. That goes without question. But then there are also people who equally are disenfranchised, who are oppressed in the United States, and they don't benefit from the exploitation of a third world; and I think that's a very important point. So, to take the first group, those who do benefit from the exploitation of the world, there's no question that they benefit from the subjugation of the third world; that they benefit from the exploitation of their resources; their labor markets; from the social conditions that exist in those countries. They have an interest in continuing those social conditions. On the other hand, if you're a working class, if you're poor in the United States or in the first world, you do not benefit from that circumstance. In fact, right now you see growing - an income gap growing in equality in the rich countries, in the so-called rich countries, in the advanced capitalist countries, as the rich get richer and working class people find themselves in competition - with seeing their benefits eroded; seeing their wages eroded, because they're in competition with a global labor market, which means that they have less resources; that their living standards are being attacked. And then also, if you look at the third world itself, you find elites. You find individuals. You find people in positions of power in the government, in the economy, who benefit from that alliance with the rich countries, with the capitalists.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala: [inaudible] any developed country, any developed country, the end position cost is very high so I think that it depends on our wealth or the Third World being poor. It all is determined.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I would say actually that the wealth of the Western world would actually depend not on the Third World being poor, but really it depends on the Third World being prosperous. A Nigerian chief once said, “If you will not share your wealth with us, we will share our poverty with you.” So if you want global peace, we have to talk about equitable distribution. We have to talk about a world where the Third World is not seen as the one that is just giving its resources -- and when it’s not given, they are taken way -- whether through trade agreements or whether through force, [assets, open markets, open fire]. So, as long as we have that, there will be no prosperity even for the Western world. The only way to ensure security, the only way to ensure prosperity is actually ensuring that there is equitable distribution; and the Third World is not poor but it is able to enjoy and have access and control over the resources that are its. It is willing to share them like it has. If we look at food, 80% of the food that is eaten in the Western world, the germplasm of that came from the Third World. So, we have to acknowledge and respect the fact that the Third World has been willing to share its resources rather than thinking of we need to take more to maintain our standard of living, our prosperity, our wealth because that again is a myth and needs to be challenged.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I would again question in terms of the two contrasting cultures. The culture that is centered and integral [whole], human dignity and equality. Let's call it the holistic culture of high civilization, true awakened human beings living together. Wealth there is not only measured in money and currency, hard currency, but in terms of the wealth of human resources and the abundance of love and compassion and care. And in that respect, the values of wealth have a different standard of measure, different currency than cultures that are ego-based and egocentric and egonomic. So, I would want to distinguish between egonomics and when I use the word logos for the higher integral space of the infinite force field that is a ground of all reality, all of our cultures, all of our great religions, and of our true human being. So logonomics, the power and funding and resources of the logos, is the word I use, is of a different order and magnitude than the ego-based currency and egonomics. So, I would situate this question there, and so the question of third world and first world is another issue, because what is now called third world countries are underdeveloped and this refers to my prior response to the previous question, is that certain third world countries or let’s say indigenous people who maybe disadvantaged or poor or underdeveloped from the materialistic egocentric culture, cultural point of view may be in enormous wealth and abundance in terms of the meaning of life, and in terms of spirituality, and in terms of enjoying the abundance of logos and the presence of logos which is untapped wealth, abundant infinite wealth. So, if you look at it from those points of view, the wealth, the money wealth of certain nations may be exploitative and from a dominance culture and a kind of regime and a marketplace fundamentalism so to speak and consciousness that does exploit other people. And so perhaps that from that point of view it does depend upon repression and oppression of other people and keeping them down and exploiting them. Whereas true wealth from the other point of view does not come from that and [audio cuts off].

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Our wealth ultimately creates a disparity. When the, when we understand, for example, that wealthy developed countries utilize the majority of the world's resources to support their lifestyle, someone has to pay the price for that wealthy lifestyle. Ultimately, if we were all to maintain, for example, the American dream, the question becomes is it possible for everyone in the world to live according to that standard of life. And it is -- the earth cannot sustain that standard. So the question becomes how do we equalize the resources of the world so that we can fairly share in what is there as well as have the mindfulness of how the resources are being utilized, because the resources of the world are not continuously renewable. And therefore we have to be willing to change our way of thinking, our way of living, so that we can create an equality, a balance in how people live their lives, and again it goes back to the way globalization and market fundamentalism has unfolded within the last few years in a way that creates this disparity, huge disparity, in the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Our monetary wealth is concentrated to the few by exploitation of the many, and that of the earth. Those in the third world who are connected to the earth are easily taking advantage of because their culture does not promote the acquisition of the commons. It’s not acceptable. It’s not sometimes allowed in these cultures to take advantage of the commons, to privatize and to acquire the property for -- was it theirs to, in the beginning, to acquire or to take ownership of. Therefore, the resources in a capitalistic society, the resources are commodified and privatized. We have another type of wealth: an ecological wealth, and a physical and psychological wealth, not just a monetary wealth. And that wealth depends on the third world being rich. Health is wealth. Nature in ourselves. Unfortunately, corruption lurks in all corners of the human spirit. And until a shift in consciousness is reached, our capitalistic me-first mentally will dominate. But if we concentrate on the third world being rich, to honor the wealth that they have to offer then we can truly start working or moving forward. But the monetary wealth does depends on taking advantage of the third world, exporting their wealth, of their natural resources, and concentrating them to our own. Third ethic of permaculture is about setting limits to consumption to consume to what we need.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Benson Venegas: It's rooted in the fact that economic growth happened at different rates in different places. It's a sense that there's some places where you have a centralized perspective of economy, and the others are part of a failure around decentralized economies. So, these states create a sense of domination. And the way you perceive domination in a locally perspective is it comes in three phases: brutality, compassion, and naivity. And for us to move forward we need to reconcile a confrontation among different cultures, economies, and societies. So, the issue here is not how do we make the rich poorer, is, if the rich would really fulfill all the promises, we'd have all the resources that is necessary to get the poor people out of poverty. For instance there are many few countries in this world that fulfill their promise to give 0.7 of their gross national products to end poverty. If all countries would do so, probably, we'd have a absolute different situation, of the situation we have right now where more than 1.2 billion people are in poverty. We need to take actions, and actions come taking personal responsibility to change a situation. And there is where we really need, for this to happen, that we need to create a balance, an equited distributions of resources among -- in our societies. But this is not happening. Because there is really strong forces that really try to create this disbalance to be able to build and have more access or more economic benefits.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Beverly Schwartz: Our wealth should not depend on the Third World being poor and I think there are many things to think about when we think of trade, when we think of the changing of services and we think of the economic systems. I think that as we empower people in the developing world and as they develop their own systems, their own economic systems, and their own values, that it does not depend on their being poor. It depends on the world empowering people, the world being more values-based, and the world seeing all countries as equal partners. Each country has things to give others. Each country has lessons to teach others. And when we even call different countries by different labels, like the Third World, it makes it seem less equal. So, no, our wealth does not depend on the Third World being poor. There are many new models of full economic citizenship around the world. There's many models of 80% of the world's population who are poor, being fully brought into economics and economic citizenry and market power. And as these models and as these practices become more widespread, the economic system will change and adjust and hopefully make people full economic citizens around the world.

by Beverly Schwartz

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Bora Cosic: Rather is 3rd word poor because we are wealthy.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Brian J. Weller: Our current economic paradigm, the answer probably is yes. I mean if you think about the over-consumptive, resource-depleting, unsustainable economic system that we live in, there’s a huge imbalance and that imbalance, I believe, is leading to dreadful pain and it must stop. If 80 percent of the world and humanity is poor, such inequity fuels anger, conflicts and injustice. In the year 2000 in the United States of America, the average chief executive officer made 458 times the income of the average worker. In an increasingly crowded world with finite environmental limits, the human species confronts a painful tradeoff between profligate material, consumption of wealthy, and meeting the basic needs of everybody. We must cancel the debt and the illegitimate debt that we’re burdening our poor countries with. That must end. Poorer countries are now collectively fighting back and you can see that in South America. This imbalance is unsustainable. It makes my heart feel very sad.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Catherine David: It is partly true but it should not be a statement. I believe that there are things that are more difficult. Yes, partly. It seems to me as if the question of globalisation of the capital also implies that the third world becomes a more complex space and I would say that there also are people that live very well in the third world, so one has to be a bit more precise. In the so called first world there are people that live under very bad and poor circumstances, too. Thus, we have to repeat the question more precisely and we should be less caricatural in order to eventually find drafts for solutions.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: Before it did, yes. But today it is changing. Africans becoming -- African leaders have the power today to manage their worth, I think. And also I think the way the developed world are sharing; they try now to share their worth with the poor countries. For example, a country like Switzerland or America which gives a lot of money into AIDS in Uganda, but then we go back to the question of being corrupt. The corruption in Africa, it is the biggest disease that African face today. And also, there are leaders in Africa who think to stay long in power is better to make the people -- to make the people stay poor. And then they can better rule them, to deny the people knowledge, to deny the people to know what is their rights. All this is causing the Third World to stay this way. But I think here in Europe or America, there are so many things created here which this very country get worth from.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: Undoubtedly we cannot image a world in the year 2010 or 2020, in which China and India, which will then make up two thirds of the world's population, will experience the same ecological catastrophes as the states of the west did in the past hundred years. Where the production of cars is so high, and today China and Indian already make up one third of the world's population, if they have the same ecological [?], we can no longer imagine such a situation of the world. It is correct that natural resources have been taken from the states of Africa, Asia and Latin America to the industrial states over centuries and that of course the imbalance has become bigger. On the other hand, we experience the fact in globalization that India attracts enormous investments, that American companies, European companies in the industrial sector, in the technological sector, in the digital revolution, invest in the software in India, in Bangalore, whereever. We do experience, consequently, a hesitant change of the globalization process from west to east and not only from the states of the third world to the states of the first world. Nevertheless it is undoubted that industrial states have profited from the imbalance between the first and so called third world over centuries. Only the World Trade Organization and the programs of the past few years, also for instance the international monetary fund, where now the rate of Turkey, of Korea, of China, of Mexico is raised a few per cent, show a shift of responsibility in the economic-political domain and in the organization of the world. It is a very hesitant process that cannot rectify colonial inequality and the usage of natural resources from the states of the third world to the states of the first world. On the contrary. This slow process of the inversion of globalization from west to east takes place hesitantly.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Cornel West: Well, the question becomes who is the “our” in the question “our wealth”? I think we must think globally and we must redefine what we mean by wealth, that there is no doubt that the structural inequalities of the present worldwide capitalist global economy. It’s hierarchical and, therefore, dependent on those below, those in the middle, and those at the top remaining structurally similar even as a certain dynamism can result in the lifting of slices of persons out of poverty as we’ve seen in India recently. There will be no fundamental transformation of the capitalist global economy without struggles from below that attempt to take back power in the face of elite use and abuse of power. The question is a difficult one to answer if we remain in a static framework. There is a dynamism at work, social movements emerging, new forms of leadership among everyday people being forged. And so when we talk about “our” wealth, we hope that that “our” becomes a global “we” rather than a very narrow elite “we” or even a veriforicial nationalist “we.” But so much depends on the democratic globalization that we are here to promote in this historic place in Bebelplatz, Germany.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 10:30:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: In my point of view, we have to recognize that first world countries have their own asset too. They have an asset that help them build for their own development. However, when we are going to analyze third world and the first world countries like Germany, most of the first world directly got much resources, extracted much resources from the third world countries. And, this act of extraction actually led to the situation of the third world countries being poor at the moment. So, if the question is that the world like Germany depend on the wealth of the third world countries, I would say yes. 60% of the resources being used by the first world countries are being - came from the third world countries, extracted, and in this age of neocolonization where consumerism is the key, we also see that third world countries are the market [droplets] of these first world countries. So, in terms of the economic cycle which determines the wealth of industrialized countries or first world countries, most of it comes from the…

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas