Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Hello. Speaking as a jurist, I look at the example of the Namibibian in South African constitutions, the progression. I look at the universal declaration. I look at the various United Nations documents and I see a growing recognition, a consensus that we need to move beyond the protection of individual rights which was the subject of [Boujwa] democratic constitution into social and economic rights; and finally, to environmental rights; the rights of all species on the planet, so that we preserve the only planet in the universe in which we happen to live. For me, as an activist, I have struggled with people who have been deprived and people who feel that their rights have not been respected, to find forums and tribunals in which those rights can be asserted and in which authoritative judgments can be delivered about them. But my ability to do that depends upon listening to the voices of people who are deprived. I think that we are moving towards a world in which private ownership of the environment and private ownership of the means of production has been shown to be a dismal failure, because it takes out of the hands of the people most affected the crucial decisions that govern their lives and their future.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Michael Laitman: The economic system must correspond to the law of altruism, when each person uses only as much as he needs in order to exist, and gives everything else to the fond to be equally distributed among everyone. This is just how the cells of our body merit life because each of them receives only what is necessary for it to exist, and gives everything else to the body as a whole. Each cell lives only by means of the barest necessities, while its entire nature, its entire activity is to provide the body with the forces of life. Every person must function and exist in human society according to one principle: he lives using only the small part that he needs to exist, and gives everything else to the needs of the society. In this case we will distribute products among everyone according to how much each person uses, how much each person needs. This is what everyone will be equal in, while everything else will go to humanity as a whole. This way, everyone will be balanced. This is the only way that we can balance ourselves according to the general altruistic law of nature, which envelops us and acts in all of human society, even though we do not see it. This is the only way that we can merit receiving a good response from nature. Then there will not be any catastrophes, tsunamis, illnesses, epidemics or wars—everyone will live a peaceful, secure and healthy life. Nature itself will provide a wonderful, equal, and comfortable existence. Whereas if we will not observe the general altruistic law of nature, like the cells of a living body, where each person uses just what is necessary while contributing everything else to society—then we will lead ourselves to annihilation. This law needs to be realized in full force in our time. This is why globalization is becoming revealed and showing us that we are all interconnected into one body.

by Michael Laitman

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: I like what the Dalai Lama has said is that we need to have a universal responsibility to respect all life, which encompasses not just human beings, but all species. I look at it as we must begin with a – we have an obligation to care for creations, whether you look upon it as god’s creation, or just the unfathomable mystery that life, in fact, emerged at all out of nothing and has created such a wondrous diversity. I hold it certainly in awe and wonder. We tend to be a human centric society thinking that we are the most important, and we certainly as conscious human beings can be proud of the fact that we can reflect upon that. But that doesn’t entitle us to a dominion over all other species as their god. In fact, it imposes a responsibility for us to think about how can we live harmoniously with other species, so that instead of driving species into extinction, which right now, the rate of species extinction in this planet is a thousand times greater than their normal natural background rate that has been experienced over history. We are in the midst of the sixth extinction spasm in planetary history. At the same time, we also have more absolute poverty than at any time in human history. So it’s incumbent upon us to come up with win-win solutions, so that we can have both standards of well being for all humans, and economic justice for all members of society, while at the same time, making sure that that’s not done in compromising/undermining those species whether it’s marine, mammals, or whales, or orangutans, or rhinos, all of which are facing diminishing populations. In fact, in many countries the tropical rain forests are being cleared and burned at a rate of about 14 million hectares per year, and in the wake of those fires some 1800 species population of animals are going extinct each hour today.

by Michael P. Totten

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Mohammed Arkoun: I'ts an utopia. People have always dreamed of things going very well. But such an economic system is very hard to imagine at our time because of the worldwide economic disorder. During and after world war two people talked a lot of a new economic and monetary world order but until today this new order has never been released for different reasons which are also durable. The system of inequality has on the contrary reinforced between continents and between societes. Each society has become a system of inequality much more serious than before as even in developing countries different groups appeared who monopolised the economie and the control over an economie on which the majority of the population depends on who is jobless and who do not take part in the prosperity which can exist in these societes. These forces of division worldwide and within the different societes always prevailed until today over the forces of equal division and the forces who would make it possible for each society to participate in production and construction of a economic world order which everybody desires but which collides with production structures, political structures and cultural structures who avoid to advance to this ideal economic system everybody dreams of for which we have to work for and which we have to continue to imagine.

by Mohammed Arkoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Mohau Pheko: I think that it's very important that we began to look at the whole question of rights in and of themselves. And I don't think that we should -- in fact, the way that the rights discourse is constructed today, is constructed in such a way that it puts us in competition with one another. I think that if are to create an economic system that is not in conflict with the environment, that is not in conflict with other life forms, it is going to be important that we create economic systems that begin with people's needs so that we take away the question of people competing for resources, because [the source] of the economic systems that we are in now compete with our Earth, compete with our animals, compete with one another. So, when you have an economic system like that, it is inimical to people's development. So, we have to begin to create economic systems that use people's knowledge, that help us live holistically and harmoniously with various sectors of our society, as well as our Earth. And to begin to respect the fact that we have to -- we have one planet first of all, and that we have to -- and everything on the planet and all creatures, great and small have a very special and important role to play in our society. And I think that it becomes very fundamental for us to really build economic systems that are holistic, build economic systems that do not create hegemony and build economic systems that bring balance to the world.

by Mohau Pheko

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Monira Rahman: The economic system, I think it is important the principles of not harming anyone, whether it is human being or animal, or the planet as a whole. Not making any harm to anyone. And in that way this human being and the animal and planet will not have any conflict []. I think the economic system which is promoting the peace and solidarity among the human being, animal and planet, this can promote--this can resolve this conflict with human and animal and planet rights.

by Monira Rahman

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Nadja Halilbegovich: I think we need to work on finding solutions to create our economic system in such a way that it’s more humane to people, to our planet, to our environment instead of sort of greed-oriented and greed inspired. Our nations, developing and developed nations are constantly growing industrially and economically, but that should not mean that we are also constantly destroying our natural resources which of course if it continues like this it will become depleted. I think we have to find a way to grow economically and industrially without ruining our planet, without disrespecting other human beings as well as disrespecting animals, our ecosystem, our environment. One way to do that is to find more energy efficient ways of growing industrially and not polluting our country so much, our air, our water, our planet. So we just need to find more sustainable ways of growing without again destroying our only home we have, our planet.

by Nadja Halilbegovich

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Neela Marikkar: It is difficult, as the world is in a hurry for economic prosperity. The pressure is on governments to create jobs, to make people economically empowered. It’s growing every day, young people are seeking new opportunities, they want jobs, they want empowerment. So, the pressure on governments and on nations is very high. I think the issues need to be addressed. I mean there is a big demand for infrastructure, for urbanization, for industrialization, and often many of these things are entered into without the long-term consequences being addressed sufficiently. I think what happens is we look at it in the short-term for political advantages, for the pressures that are put on governments, and the long-term sustainability is not often addressed properly. I think what is important now is to find the balance. I think governments have to consider the need to find a balance where you can have sustainability, where it won’t impact excessively on the environment, where yet you can create jobs, you can create economic empowerment and development. It’s a challenge. It’s a challenge that the governments of the world have to really address. There has to be a collective understanding. Nations have to consider each other’s pressures and also their needs. And I think it's important that there is respect, that there is an agreement between all the nations, especially, those countries that consume a lot of resources, to be respectful and mindful of the impact on the world in its entirety. So, I think the important thing is to find the balance that will make it sustainable, yet meet the needs of the world community.

by Neela Marikkar

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Oliviero Toscani: Well, the economic system shouldn’t be devised. The economic system should be planned in a complete different system, in a complete different way, with another complete different vision. See, we start again, the economic system should be devised so we take for granted that these economic system the factor and reason of division. Human race probably – the problem is that, is not, we are not civilized yet. And we are not civilized yet. We are on the process to get civilized. One day we will be civilized. And then we are going through this moment of dictatorship of economics. And we think that we have – and that is the system and we have – we have to be more subversive. We have to be more subversive. We have to reverse and subvert that system of – the system that is called the economic system. And until that is not going to be done when we will put another reason to rule our life. Then probably, we will be on the way of civilization. Probably the fact that we think that the world be androcentric that we put man at the centre of the world – of the creation. Probably that’s the real problem.

by Oliviero Toscani

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Oscar Olivera: An economic system should essentially respect the cultures, the values, the traditions of the peoples of the world, above all the aboriginal, indigenous and rural peoples, who first of all understand themselves as beneficiaries of our planet, of mother earth, in contrast to the western, capitalistic ideology which considers man as the centre of the universe, as the owner of everything that earth has offered us generously. And I think that, above all, there is an emerging recovery of the projects of society, of the values and the cultures of the indigenous and aboriginal peoples, fundamentally based on a new kind of relationship, the recovery of the relationship between the human beings, the animals and the nature, fundamentally based on what the communities and the peoples have clearly evoked: mutuality, solidarity, transparency and respect. You can create a different world, if you consider that we are beneficiaries of what mother earth gives us generously, and by no means should we consider us as owners of what life has offered us generously.

by Oscar Olivera

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Paul Knight: I think firstly we need to look at community instead of individuals. Because once we start looking at communities we start looking at the collective. We can more focus on sustainability of the planet. We can look at how we can support each other rather than competing against each other. The systems that we’re in are so focused on competition and being better than somebody else or in a better position than somebody else that the opportunities for people to really focus on the widest view of the environment, the position of their people, or the human race in general, becomes very difficult because it’s not the way we’re able to look at things. It’s not the way that we can ensure that people really understand what’s going on out there. And why should they be under this current environment where it’s not their issue because they’re an individual within that process. In saying that I think there’s opportunity for us to, under the current economic environment, to start to create that change as people understand the benefit and the relevance of sustainable communities and sustainability of the human race. The reality is why should we continue as individuals in what we do unless we’re going to be here? At the moment I think we’re very much focused on the short term rather than on the longer term issues and developments. And we really need to be turning that around. I think as far as the economic model it basically comes down to systems that focus on community, focus on the development of holistic communities where they work with the food production, where they work with the economic development.

by Paul Knight

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Pauline Tangiora: To you, Jens, I would suggest that you look on the Internet for the Earth Charter, the Earth Charter, which was put together actually addresses this issue in a wider scope. And if you would read this in its totality, which we don’t have time for here, you will find some of your answers. Thank you for your question.

by Pauline Tangiora

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Pico Iyer: It's almost impossible to honor one right without trampling on another, in the case of human rights and in this case of right and wrong. If we give humans the right to eat everything that they wish to, that's violating animal rights. If we give animals the right to observe the laws of nature, that may damage the planet and damage the rights of the smaller animals. If we were to try to protect our planet by, for example, eliminating all cars, that may be seen by some as trampling on our rights to be able to move around as freely as we would like. And so I think the best solution is to look to something other than our economic systems to give us the world that we want - to look to our strengths, to look to our powers, to look to that over which we can take responsibility. An economic system is based on unfairness and it’s based on competition and giving some people things at the expense of others. But there are other systems, such as that of community or family which ideally at least, are based on sharing, on something other than the sense that to give to one person is to take away from the other. If we're going to think about the world of rights, I don't think we can look to economics to honor rights or to honor right and wrong. I think we have to look to something much wider, more inclusive and more expansive.

by Pico Iyer

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Rachid ElDaif: I think that would make no sense. I don't think that could exist. You can always make it better and always be better but such a system would be the end. The end of mankind. That is not a pessimistic view, not at all, it's a realistic view let's say. I think that an economic system that doesn't cause harm is not viable. In this case it is the human condition itself that has changed. And then you can't say how it will be. Paradise, what is paradise?

by Rachid ElDaif

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Raymond Federman: Natural products, what nature gives us, belongs to all of us on this planet. That it happens that some of these products allocated in countries which claim that these belong to them is wrong. In order to achieve an economic system that profits everyone, the natural products should be, just as much as air or water, belongs to all of us. But we have come to a point where we abuse nature, animals, and other humans in order to profit. It is always a matter of profit in order to have more than the others. How to resolve such a problem? We must as people living on this planet. We must assert ourselves and claim what is ours. What is ours is everything that is buried into the ground of this planet. That belongs to us. That some people profit from it and others suffer from it is not normal. How to that? One will almost say, well we need a world revolution. That we go and take what is ours. Just as we breathe the same air and bathe in the same water, the same thing should apply. We should have also more respect. We are only [family]. We are only one species of life on this planet. The fact that we have gained some kind of consciousness of being human doesn’t make us superior to certain other species from whom we could learn a great deal in the way they associate with one another and how they conduct themselves.

by Raymond Federman

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Robbie Conal: I have no fucking idea. Maybe if we could actually agree on the definition of common humanity, it would be a good start. I don't think we think of other people far away from us. The farther away they get from us geographically almost, the less human we seem to think they are. What’s up with that? Do you think they would be exotic and it would be desirable to go, see them and meet them like this, this is really fun because people are from all over waiting to meet them and get fresh ideas and a little shot of another perspective on living in the world, but it seems to me that we stick with our tribe and it’s such a small view of humanity. Humanity is just us, to me it's like me and my family and everybody near me. We need to get to rid of that and just say, hi, and be excited that other people are doing things other ways. I think we can handle that. But, I really think that economics has to -- not be based on a profit motive more on a distribution of goods and services and health education and welfare, and needs that people have all over the planet like life insurance. What the hell is up with that, when you get people to bet against their own lives? And they pay a life insurance company all their lives, betting on them, getting sick. I am getting sick thinking about that. That’s not economics. That’s immoral. Think about economics in a different way, probably I mean, I think mostly as a means of distribution.

by Robbie Conal

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Rodrigo Baggio: This question is very important and very strategic for the future of our country, of our planet. How can we develop this natural capitalism or neosocialism, how can we balance the economy with social and economical development of our nations? It's very important that we appreciate the value of citizen rights and also respect and balance it not only between the human beings, but also between the beings living on our planet, the plants and animals. There is and there must be a limit for destruction of the environment and saturation of our lands and our planets. I live in a country, in Brazil, where we have decades of destruction of the Amazon Forest, where the economic interest is used to clear the Amazon Forest for the construction and the promotion of an economy based on the animal husbandry in which people try, besides raising the cattle, also to make agriculture, and then they cause forest fires, eroding soil. It is very important that responsabilites and rules be accomplished. I feel that our Earth today is like a car in high speed going to abyss. We have to slow down and change the direction of this car. Every day Earth produces three "Sugarloaf" Mountains of rubbish. “Sugarloaf” is in the city of Rio de Janeiro one of the highest mountains. And so, this kind of using Earth, the indifferent production of rubbish, the killing of animals, the destruction of our forests and the disrespect for the rights of the human beings, this limit needs to form and compose, in a balanced way, a new economical and political system which has a long-term view toward the humanity of our planet.

by Rodrigo Baggio

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Roland Berger: I think, there must be such an economic system that firstly really respects people, that is, a system which enables people to develop their skills and abilities, to use them in full and to emphasize them. And this, of course, requires that this system guarantees possibly fulltime jobs and prevents unemployment. That's the first point, secondly, this economic system must show respect for the using of the resources, that means, it must avoid any kind of wasting of natural or human resources, it must if possible use the resources, which can be used several times, which are regenerative. In other words, there must be such an economic system which is characterized by its respect for the people on the one hand and by its respect for the natural resources on the other hand, which uses people in the possible way, which gives them chances to develop their skills and which uses the resources economically, and also in the form that these resources can regenerate themselves.

by Roland Berger

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Sanar Yurdatapan: Yes, laisse passé, liberation and economy and society never ends with wealth for all the world. The big concerns who are taking care of their own interests can even ruin the whole world. On the plane when I was coming from Turkey to Germany, in the news I saw something new, the photographs of [inaudible], the glaciers are 20% smaller than they were 10 years ago. They are melting and this is a very great danger for all the world, all humanity; and yet the big states under oppression of their big companies, over their industry, using the excuse, they reject to sign under Kyoto agreement and the rest of the world should do a lot to force them to do that. Otherwise, there will be no earth to fight to govern anymore.

by Sanar Yurdatapan