Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: Let’s see, so no, does it? Do you think so? Of course it doesn’t depend on, is it a direct consequence of our wealth that other people are poor? In some questions it is; in other questions it’s not. During the colonizations of other parts of the world, yes it was a direct consequence. Now the world is very, very, very different. Now it is not a consequence; it is a problem of distribution. It’s a problem of planning. I think what could we do? What you’re aiming at is of course that some parts of the world are starving; other parts of the world are not starving but live in excess with everything they have around them, so what you’re aiming at is of course this question. So what should we do about it? In fact, should we look into the whole system of distribution and planning? Should we also look into the system of the western world throwing money and lots, lots, lots of money, into what was earlier the state referred to as undeveloped countries? If we look into all these systems and the responsibility of looking into this system would be the global society, so what is the global society? It’s first of all the government. It’s the overall governmental institution like the UN and then it’s the people. So, in fact, it’s not a part of it. We can easily, easily having the whole world being not poor like UN is aiming at in the Millennium Development Goal. So it could easily be solved. Who should solve it? The international society which is basically people. So everyone should take care to take part of this. For instance, I come from the science community and we know that scientists around the world are working also on this goal to find out how could we do this differently.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: The hoarding of wealth is a basic need of human beings, which is connected to their will to survive. But the fact that we all have to die but never know when, should make us consider why it should be important to accumulate wealth if there is an unjust distribution of ownership in the world. If the satisfaction of basic human needs is possible financially, the governments or the organizations in the world should take care that these needs are satisfied.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: In order to answer this question, we have to go right back to where we started. Hypocrisy, human greed, one sect of humanity deeming itself more important than another makes it possible to reduce the lives of others to nothingness in order for yourself to be something. It depends on the negation of society in itself and probes up the self, the one, solo, the ego, the capital. It’s socially acceptable to that sect of humanity. It’s not socially acceptable to all of us. In the United States, the Western world has let itself believe that for you to be human you need to dehumanize. That for you to be on the positive side of things, you need to embrace everything that is negative. It would never be acceptable for one person to grow fat on the dehumanization and the sucking out of another. But, this world has convinced itself that that is indeed exactly what it means to do. Writers set out to promote values of death, make death music, write death goods, watch death TV programs. We embrace materialism. We let children believe that driving around an expensive German limousines and living in splendor high up where you can indeed be able to look at the rest crawling at your feet down there. That is the thing indeed to go out in search of and so because these people make the rules, then they can dictate and determine how others live.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: The ideal way of course is to be able to distribute wealth more equally. So naturally, there is a question “Why is it socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic need?” But when we look at this question, we should think maybe, on one hand, while it is necessary to help more to go with basic needs, but on the other hand, it would be dangerous as to accuse the others who are able to hoard wealth. Because if we look back at the history of socialist country of China, the communists’ ideal was to have equal distribution of wealth for everybody. But with this ideal, which is a good idea in the first place, but in the past issue with China, actually in practice, that it was reckless to [forced distribution] of enough wealth, and they went into disaster and other kinds of dictatorship by distributing the wealth according to the rules of the government and it leads to another kind of disaster, which is undesirable as well. So while we are sympathetic to the [left] basic needs for a lot of people, on the other hand, we have to be careful how to develop more, better practice to make the society a livable place.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: I heard human beings are society motivated. One of the human natures is to choose the group they belong to or to choose the master or leader they are affiliated with. Since it is human nature, how can people not choose the wealthy leader or group, but follow the poor ones? In addition, the uneven distribution of wealth is inevitable in the current world, why does someone end up into the poor group, instead of pursuing the rich one?

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Yeah, well I don't think that it is socially acceptable but it actually does happen. And because this idea of, you know, hoarding wealth. I don't know, it's -- I guess wealth gives some power some how. It's all about power, property and prestige in our society and the more wealth you have. I don't know if it's actually hoarded. I think it's invested in many ways because we have billionaires in Australia who have this enormous wealth and they're constantly buying new media outlets or newspapers and things like that. It's like I said, the more you own the better you are seen as a human being and yet again we are defined by the external of wealth and image, and power, and property, and prestige. Sometimes I think, what do you do when you have that much money? I don't know whether actually people hoard it. I think they adore it and they accumulate it, and they probably reinvest it or invest it, but it just seems it's out of proportion and there's something very indecent about having, I think, it's very indecent about hoarding wealth if that's what people do. I think it should be about sharing and it should be about helping and yeah so, to mean to hoard wealth is not socially acceptable.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: This aspect is all about governance and control, monitoring, which is a crosscutting issue in terms of governance. In order to balance the social aspects and of the livelihoods of the world, it is imperative that this aspect of social, economic hoarding of wealth to be implemented, so that it is there to monitor and control how certain aspects need to run. For example, if everyone is having a balance situation, can one say that that is a balanced government? And indeed, no. It means that there will be some other people who will have a lot of wealth and giving others, so that this issue of ecosystem is balanced properly. Those who will not have enough will then depend on those who will have. The haves will give the don’t haves and, as such, that’s my theory and understanding. That all of us cannot have enough, though the others who would be having more than others and, as such, that will be the practice of the day.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: I think it goes back to the first question on why brands are more powerful than governments. It is this culture of consumerism that is being promoted to support corporate capitalism. We are told everyday that we need the latest brand in trainers, the latest brand -- our children are being told they need the latest brand in trainers, in bikes, in whatever. And, all these manufactured needs are creating also the notion that if you have more and more money, you can consume more and more. So, I think it is disgusting, that it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs. But that is the nature of the dominant model.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Because we are in the era of the individual. It is the individual that matters. It is acceptable to hoard wealth if it serves your individual interests. We see everything in individual terms. Our market is in individual terms. The way we market products are in individual terms. When we want to sell something, we think of the individual consumer, not of the collective consumer. When we talk about rights, we think of individual rights, not of collective rights. This is a big debate in rights discourse. Should individual rights take precedence, so much precedence, over other principles and concepts like collective rights? As it stands now, the concept of individual rights wins, speaks the last word. But when we think of the individual and the individual needs first and foremost, then it becomes socially acceptable to hoard our wealth. And it becomes far less important why, how, to what extent so many others go without basic needs. This is a cultural problem. This is a social problem. This is a political problem. This is a problem for all levels, and you see different facets of our societies reinforcing the individual. You see it in our culture, in our art production, in television programs. Very often it is the individual. And we’ve lost the significance of the collective. The collective takes on meanings of backwardness, tribalism. The individual takes on meanings of modernity and progress. These are definitions and concepts that need to be rethought.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: It is due to the neoliberal economic model that global wealth lies in the hands of a few ones. This model is not socially accepted, on the contrary, currently it is seriously called into question by the example of Bolivia. Bolivian government fights in order to get back its energetic resources and to put it at disposal of its people again. Cuba is another example: earlier sugar was an object of interest of First World countries, nowadays Cuba exploits sugar for its own people, which means that the model is not accepted.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: The acceptance of wealth is permitted by only the people who enjoying the wealth and not by the people all around the world. This (i.e., to hoard wealth) happens because of the thoughtless process of human race i.e. lack of consideration of distributing the wealth, because of insistence of one's right of freedom, and the insatiability. Again, this only happens due to the people who accept to enjoy the wealth. But if those people awake their inner thought, heighten the awareness of their selfishness, and endeavor to consider the people who endure the food, clothing and shelter, then the world becomes more peaceful. However, the main reasons of such problems are our mind of egoism and one's greediness, which should be changed to create a peaceful harmonized world. I think it is important that the people who are living in wealthy countries reflect on their life and consider poor people.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: Well, I think that we should be ashamed of this. There are so many people in the world without their basic needs. So, I think it's a duty of every human being, whichever part you are, whether you are in developed country to see that everyone in the world can have their basic needs, three times a food, children can have a better life, and they can have health and education. So, I think it’s -- you know, the wealth we have, we have to distribute it and make our world live peacefully. Don't say that one part of the world is wealth and other part is not wealth. I think it's so important in today’s world that make people feel they are part of this world and we have to care as a human being that what is other part of the world need, the basic needs. So, I think it's just very sad, very sad.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: The simple answer is nature and nurture. So, why people hoard wealth? It has to do with two basic reasons: One is, [worth]. The normal human being left alone will do because of the instinct perhaps encoded in the genes. And second is culture, which of course is not always independent of the genes or the nature. And then there are cultures which encourage people to be powerful, to be leaders, to be at the top or phrases like that, enhance the [inaudible]. And right now it’s very hard to decide for which one is it, my guess is that it is both. It’s in our selves; it’s in our genes perhaps. For us to come out at the top of the social hierarchy in the best way to get at the top social hierarchy is to hoard as much wealth as we can. If you have any doubts you can just look at the behaviors of animals in the wild. Invariably, the alpha male hoards wealth which is women or females in their species to the extent other males have no chance. I think this perhaps the hoarding of wealth in human beings to the extent that others don’t have basic needs, others basic needs are not met, it’s kind of a reflection of the same behavior. So, perhaps it is in our genes and will have to really get educated and see other long term good of humanity and of ourselves, to feel that doing these things in this way or just hoarding for oneself is perhaps good for ourselves and for one or two generations of our own. If you hoard enough billions of dollars, but probably not good for us in the very long-term. And the way out of this would be is only one way in fact, if it all that’s the way, I’m not even sure that this can work, is to educate people and show them that by being secure and interdependence or interdependent existence across the world, they will be able to live more happily rather than being on isolated on their own.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Michael Laitman: We exist in our nature, which is egoism that constantly develops. It is the source of all our misfortunes and problems. We can fight with everything that appears here before our eyes: with poverty, illness, lack of equality, oppression, drug-addiction, depression and so on. However, in the end, all of these are the results of our egoism. Human egoism has been developing since ancient times, when man had merely wanted to provide food for the body—to the aspiration for money, honor and knowledge. In addition, knowledge—is information about how to manipulate others and the whole world. And so, money is equal to all the other pleasures, because everyone aspires for wealth or money. This is why in our world, only money gives a person the feeling of confidence in the present and the future. If society did not value money, a person would not accumulate it. If we knew that our life depends on attaining nature's eternity and perfection by unifying into one man with one heart, that precisely by means of altruism between us we come to achieve another level of life, another guaranteeing of life—then we would be able to change our approach to money and stop looking at it as a value that surpasses everything else. This is why we must realize what the general law of nature, the law of altruism, is. Only by becoming equal to the law of altruism can we merit perfection and eternity. This is the only way that we will merit the fact that money will disappear from the world.

by Michael Laitman

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: It’s something that has been going on for centuries, otherwise, we wouldn’t have things like the seven deadly sins. Humans, it seem, have shortcomings that find satisfaction in consumption, endless consumption, conspicuous consumption. It’s almost as if all of these devices that we purchase are genetic expansions, exo-skeletons or exo -- whether you think of a car as a more -- a larger protective outer layer. We tend to define ourselves now by our biggest houses and biggest cars and the amount of vacations we take. It seems that here also our leaders, our moral leaders, and churches if anything promote financial wealth as a sign of religious well being. It’s very offensive and we have lost all sense of the simplicity of life. When we see a President like in the United States, George Bush Sr., with his motorboat, a cigar boat as they call it, a cigarette boat, what a contrast to somebody like Thich Nhat Hanh who does simple walking meditations for his enjoyment. We seem to have lost how -- the art of the simple treasures of life, whether it’s gardening, or taking walks in the countryside, spending time with the family, and playing games, creating art and music. But it does require us to confront, I think, this whole conspicuous pattern. There's a very revealing last words of Jesus Christ when he said, “I am consummated.”

by Michael P. Totten

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mohammed Arkoun: Yes, is it this legitimate to amass material goods whereas there are people who are not able to? That is the question. As it appears, it seems that the author of the question accepts the idea that it is legitimate to accumulate material goods without thinking about an equitable sharing of material goods in order to allow the others to benefit from it in the same way; and therefore there is an important matter of political legitimacy. And this is a question that touches the organization of political systems which accept to see inequalities developoing inside a same society; and to make accumulation on the one hand and to let people become impoverished, so that there is a monopolization of material goods by a class that provoked in history, since the 19th century, the famous struggle of classeswhich has been theorized by the marxism and which has created all the Communist movement that rested on the working proletariat as the industrialization started in Europe; and we know the consequences of this accumulation of goods in the hands of reduced social groups, of families, of big families, for example, or even now of developing corporations capable even to impose their power on the states and to weigh on the political working of states. So this is the posed question of this legitimacy and we must think about it, and unfortunately the struggles for the proletariat to emancipate societies, to emancipate exploited workers, and to change the way wealth is being distributed in societies...

by Mohammed Arkoun