Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1270 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Question |
|
||
|
How should an economic system be devised that isn't in conflict with human, animal or planet rights? by Jens Vosch |
postings
|
by Fernando Solanas | 0 votes | 
|
 
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
Helena Norberg-Hodge: From my point of view there is no doubt that what we need to do now is to shift the direction of the economy, shifting away from globalization towards localization, to protect human, animal rights and the natural world. It is very clear that the system of centralization of power that is being imposed in the name of globalization is imposing everywhere a standardized monoculture. It is a monoculture in terms of seeds the species of plants, in terms of animal varieties that are being imposed worldwide. The jersey cow is being imposed at every corner of the globe. The standardization and homogenization of life goes against life itself. In human terms, this corporate consumer culture is also imposing a monoculture, a stereotypical way of being. One language, the English language, is being imposed worldwide. Supporting life means supporting diversity. The diversity of species and the diversity of human beings. The uniqueness of every individual. That can only happen if we shift direction towards localizing instead of globalizing. Localization means shortening the distances between production and consumption. It means revitalizing strong, diverse, local economies. In terms of the greatest crises we face today, global warming and global [terrorism], localization is the solution. Localizing means rapidly reducing our dependence on scarce oil supplies, reducing the CO2 emissions that threaten life itself. It also means, allowing cultures to shape the economy, reducing the scale of business. Localizing means reducing the scale of economic activity to be subsumed under spiritual, cultural, and ecological values. It means therefore, that cultures that today feel themselves threatened… |
Homero Aridjis: An economic system that doesn't damage the human, animal or planet rights could be conceived with an protected ecologic system. Especially where the human, animal or planet rights are respected. |
Irina Yasina: It is a serious question, which to be honest is not clearly formulated, because economy comes in accordance with all this with its development, if it happens in a democratic society, because in a country whith normal democracy and normal parliament and where people can insist on their rights they bring their economic system into a reasonable form. We already answered the question about globalization: with the increasing globalization and in accordance with it, with development of the appropriate system when everybody can demand his rights, human rights will be respected and thus not only human rights but also animal rights and, as it is formulated in the question, “planet rights”. It’s because someone cares about those rights as if they were his own rights, that’s it. May be it appears as if I am an idealist but if there is a system of normal human right expression, a system when people demand their rights, with appropriate laws and freedom of speech there is no alternative for economic system as to come in agreement with it, there is no other way. But there should be democracy for that. by Irina Yasina |
|
Currently video only.
|
by Jerry Mander | 0 votes |
|
Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon. by Jerry Mander |
|
|
by Jesper Green | 0 votes |
|
Jodie Evans: Very good question because really it is about creating a system of checks and balances where the values of the economic system that we have right now are leading us to destruction because it's kind of like the cancer is moving out and what we need is a sense of values, "Is this process nurturing life or destroying life?" So that when it's out of balance, when it starts to be measured in such a way, if the measurements are created in such a way that it exposes that we're destroying the capital that we have, we're destroying humanity, we're destroying our earth, you know right now we're in a major crisis about the extinction of many species. But that's not taken into consideration when you look at the economic structures. Instead, they're measured by how fast can we destroy, how fast are we using up, how much can we basically destroy what enhances life. And we'd have to back off-- I mean what it would take to back off of that is an enormous shift of power and the question is, how do we get the people of the world to understand that and not buy into the other economic structures that are only available to support the few. And that's an education process that I don't think would take very long but it's literally being able to give the tool to people who are being destroyed by our economic system, and saying quit buying into this. And I, I think that once you do that that the shift would happen quickly. It's that there's too many people that feel powerless to the system but haven't been able to find the lever to shift it and not buy into the system that is in rampant destruction. by Jodie Evans |
John Gage: Economic systems develop. Economic systems are not devised, they emerge. Human interaction is the basis for economic structures, and human interaction derives from the ideas we have of how commerce, of how exchange, of how markets, of how behavior should take place; how reward structures, how investment structures, those are the essential elements of economic systems. So, the existing systems we have, based on market principles, fail in the areas of planet rights, environmental impact of human action, fail in animal rights and the impact of what human action extracts from the animal, from the natural world surrounding us. Why does this happen? Misperceptions and misapplications of the machinery of economic structures. Today, we summarize everything in a single number, a price. We could add a second number, a time of availability. So, those two components of every object, every product, every commodity, everything that’s exchanged, price and time of accessibility to that object, those two disregards the network, the framework, the fabric of interaction of everything that humans make, everything that humans shape, and everything that humans do in economic exchange. So, the accounting system is wrong. So, how do we begin? We begin simply not changing any of the existing ideas of how markets work, but adding to the market idea the correct costs, the costs of the food we eat, the costs of the water we consume, the costs of the energy we waste, and the costs of destroying the fabric, the natural environment which we’ve used for so many years, which has allowed us to – as a sink, as a depository, as a recipient of the excess of the waste products of our production processes, we’ve not allowed ourselves to judge the costs. As we begin to value things in a way that allows the costs to make market mechanisms work, we will become closer to an ideal of respecting human, planetary, environmental rights in every economic system. by John Gage |
Jonathan Granoff: Well, you know I don't want to be Utopian and jump too far ahead, but the main economic institutions that we have now are corporations. And corporations are fabulous ways of organizing talent, and energy, and capital. But the bottom line of the corporation doesn't include the realities of the world. It doesn't include the effect of business on the environment. It's not included - it's not included in the corporate statements. It's not included in our accounting principles. Make it really simple. Let's say you're in the fishing industry and you're over fishing a fishing stock. The fact that that fishing stock will deplete over time is not included in the bottom line. So if the bottom line also included environmental responsibility, then that - that price in a sense would show up. Similarly, accountability for the effect of- on human beings, human rights, the effect on workers, all the stakeholders of the corporate enterprise, need to be put in the bottom line. We need a corporate bottom line that includes caring for the community, caring for workers. Right now, the bottom line is an accounting only of capital to shareholders. The corporation is a strange entity in which the group to which the corporation is accountable, one is the state and the other is the shareholders, is not necessarily the group that the corporation effects. The corporation can be affecting the environment, it could be affecting the workers rights, and the rights of the community and consumers, but it is accountable mainly to the shareholders. We need to have our economic institutions have a sense of accountability to the full range of stakeholders. What's interesting is often when there is an economic enterprise run by an entrepreneur, by an individual, because an individual carries within himself or herself the dynamic of conscience, the business enterprise will often take into consideration the effect on the environment, the effect on workers, the effect on the community. But when the economic enterprise is only a [inaudible] enterprise, a creature of the state, a corporation, then its accountability is to the shareholders alone. And there is no institutional context for this precious dynamic of conscience. So the market - the market institutions must find a way of bringing to bear all of our human qualities and accurately reflect the bottom line. We need a new bottom line. |
Jonathan Meese: Economic systems should be so as they want to be. We have the economic system of animals, the economic system of plants, the economic system of rocks and the economic system of the nature. The economic systems complete themselves. The human economic system is irrelevant to that of animals. Let political halls be built for animals as well as for the art of tyranny of the thing, for plants as well as for nature of the business. The hall is the location where every economy is able to proceed as well as every politics. Art itself may be the political power in the future. Neither the opinion or existential orientation of the artist nor the wish or the state, that leads to anything, is decisive, but only the affair itself, the utopia of the affair. That means: Art will take and use its power by its own rules. Human being does not play any role. In the political hall of animals everything is about animals, in halls of plants everything is about plants. In these halls human is only a guest. He may take a look into the inside through the window and then he is to leave. He does not play any role. If the economic system is left to itself, it always will be fair. As soon as the human being has a finger in the pie, everything will break down. Human is the most unsavoury animal - he is neither a predator nor a fish. Art is the predator loving us, e.g. 'Zardoz', 'The Being Damned', 'A Clockwork Orange', '120 Days of Sodom', 'Ezra Pound: The most dangerous animal in the world'. |
Jonathan Stack: I don't know if a conflict -- can we exist without a conflict? Can a world exist where economic system isn't in conflict? I mean just the nature of life is that there is a conflict. This creates energy; this struggle between what you create and what goes into my mouth and through my system and eats me and turns into soil and then create life for new tress, I don't think the question is lack of conflict. The conflict is positive. It's how we manage that conflict and how do we harness the energy that conflict creates that the economics can do a better job of. I think the problem is that we underutilize the power of conflict, not that we want to get rid of conflict itself. I have learned, one of the things I try to do is I put myself into positions of conflict. I have done it consciously and I have done it unconsciously, and either way, I had to figure out a way to take responsibility for the conflict. Now, on a creative level conflict is at the heart of almost all the work that I do. It is basically take the chaos, the sort of disorder, the infinite possibilities of the energy of life itself and then see if you can order it some way that becomes communicable to somebody else so that they can find their own ordering, find their own way to harness the energy of conflict. Personally, that conflict thing is like I have to struggle between conflict and no conflict is my thing and the economics of it is, can I find that sort of zero-point of just to take care of what I need to take care of, so that I don't have to have the anxiety of money, so that I can live according to my own needs. And I will say, when it comes to a person like [inaudible] either earn -- you need to either live according to your needs or earn according to your dreams, and one way or the other, if you can find that sort of harmony, then you can deliver yourself to bigger ideas. |
José Manuel Prieto: From my point of view, the most important thing to achieve this goal is a participation, a consultation, a elaboration of a system that takes into account the opinion of many persons: animal lovers, philanthropists; people who monitor, who keep an eye on human rights in a way that no one would be ignored. The model would have to be self-regulating, a model that supports its own relativity. It would not be a extortionary model. A model that strives to restore the ecosystem, that took into account the damage that might have been inflicted. But I do not think an economic model like this that is appropriate designable exists. Or could be imagined in an abstract way. I think above all this model is a model with a high degree of feedback, a model that allows for a flexible adaption to upcoming challenges in a way that the most important thing is to account for which these challenges are, what the needs of the different groups are and to design a system that allows a daily control and a daily adjustment of its norms and its behaviour in order to comply with all the necessities of all these groups. It is a system that listens to its citizens, that listens to their opinions and that seeks control and a daily feedback and keeps in contact with its citizens. |
postings
