Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Wow, this is a wonderful question and if I had the answer to it I would have shared it with the world already, but an economic system in [divide] that isn't in conflict with human, animal and planet rights. You know the very idea that economics in this society seems to be about profit. As I've said to a host of people that when the economy [inaudible] that there is not such thing as community. There is only economy. So this whole thing about economic systems and economic rationalism and the way the world is going is that it's very much in conflict with human, animal and planet rights because, as I said, it's about profit and often that means exploitation and it means control and it's power driven and it's profit driven. So, unless we -- I don't know -- we have to give up something in order or have to have a totally different system and that's going to mean tremendous change for us. It's going to mean that we may have to have a new language as Einstein said. You know Einstein said that the system we have used – the language we have used to build the system is not going to be the one that we are going to use to dismantle it. So it's going to be very, very hard. I mean this is the great challenge I think for the 21st Century. The question of survival without exploitation and only a percentage of the people at the top are benefiting all the time and to have an economy that's is not harmful at all to all the others that you mentioned in this question.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: This question is rather confusing. It’s confusing in the sense that one will not clearly understand the economic system that would conflict really with the human rights. But, we also find a situation whereby the legalization of certain acts towards animals is done. So, this depends on the system of the time. It depends on whether it is user-friendly and it also depends on whether this can be integrated with other systems. But, in short, this question really may be confusing in approach and the rights of the animals and the rights of the people. Can we integrate the two rights? Whether the rights have got the same rights as those of the human, whether we can integrate what rights do the animals have? Are we also able to depute the rights of the animals and integrate them with the rights of the people? This is all a set of questions that we need to address in order to get the right point in terms of this aspect and perhaps one need more information, which is integrated so that one is able to come with an informed decision. But, according to me, the animal rights and the human rights may not be one thing coming from one point.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: This is probably one of the most important questions at this conference. We are dominated by an economic model that is based on rampant competition and the Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest. It is based on infinite unsustainable growth. So we need an economic system that tells the ecological truth that reflects the value of the natural resources we are consuming. At the moment, it doesn’t and which is why we are in great trouble. We are in great trouble of swallowing up the whole earth’s resources and endangering our own life as well as the lives of all the plants and animals that inhabit the earth. And there isn’t indeed a way of doing it and it is to change a model from a unrestrained growth, unsustainable growth to a circular economy and which maximizes recycling, maximizes internal input and minimize waste. It is called the zero emission, zero waste model. We have it, we can make it work. Unfortunately, our policy makers are still in the old mind set. They still talk about competitiveness, whereas the real clue to sustainability is to maximize the reciprocal synergistic relationships, the cooperation among peoples, among everybody and we can have a really win-win situation.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: In a nutshell, you create an economic system that’s not based on profit, that’s not based on profit being the primary mover and motivation and drive to the system. If you don’t do that, then, inevitably, the economic system will clash with human, animal and planet rights. The principles of rights are in complete conflict with the principles of efficiency and profit.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: Any structures built by human beings are on the one hand in conflict with the rest of nature, because humans are predators, their are eating and destroying their environment, but that's part of the evolution, that's part of the plan. Now an economic system, any economic system, that is built by humans, will always have this basic problem inside. Humans will always use resources and will have an intense [intension?] to use them up. It's the name of the game, the name of the evolution. Now culturally of course we try to work against this, because now we know that consciously we shouldn't just use up all our resources, because it's going to kill us, but in the end, I personally believe that humans will never deeply care about their environment. If it comes hard on hard, they just going to care about themselves and this will end in deconstruction of the species, but that's not a problem, there are plenty of species left. So economically, I guess, there will always be a system of using resources as long as they can be used. So for example if people from countries that are a little weaker, they just are not interested in taking part of the globalization process as in the sense of an imperialistic globalization and maybe then they going to be happy and not being part of the deconstruction like some countries in Southern America, Colombia for example. They seem to be quite even with their environment and economy isn't that great, but there is room for improvement, they going to improve it and in the end maybe they going to balance it out all by themselves, maybe not globalized.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: We need badly an economic model based on solidarity and not on exploitation. A neoliberal economic model based on excessive profits violates human rights and is detrimental to the nature. A neoliberal economic model has ended solidarity and has made our peoples individualistic. A neoliberal economic model is detrimental to the environment because of multinational companies which exploit our natural resources and our people. That´s why we have to change the model. I´m from Paraguay, so this neoliberal economic model is also detrimental to our aboriginal population, our natives, our peoples, as in their territory normally can be found petroleum and other valuable natural resources. We have to avoid that in order to end exploitation and promote solidarity.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: I believe that each nation on the earth should have awareness of living within a "community bound together by common fate". It is wrong that human being insists upon a right and be on the top of animals and all living things. Because of the mistake of human being every present problems are happening; such as the earth abnormal weather, the pollution of the earth, water, air and so on. This is also because of the human being takes the nature as theirs and kills animals, harvests plants, and pursues them. And people repeat greed without evil only for oneself and violate the earth without thinking about the situation which even the same economy produces in various ways. For that reason, the animals and natural environments are violated. To change that, humankinds should thank to animals and have a modest feeling that we take their lives away for our survival. Further more, if we reach the sense of heart that we are living in the earth life community, we are all connected, we are the one together; then animals, plants and human being will be able to live together and harmonize. Therefore, it is important to live with the awareness of the "unification", the consciousness that all is connected as a community bound together by common fate. Also the wealth of a things, the richness of a heart, gratitude, sympathy, and

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: I think that all human, animal, and planet rights, I think it’s a basic things. So, economic systems should be respect all the three things. I mean it’s important for this world, to live in this world that we should respect the human dignity as much as animal and as much as planet rights. And I think that we have to -- and it has to be sustainable and it has to be complement each other and I think it’s a system should be really, really respect three rights and I think that’s very important.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: Tough question. Economic systems are things that we don’t understand really that well, very complicated. We have to understand why is it that an individual does something? And how does the group of individuals come together? How will they plan their futures together? Are they making the decisions based on the short-term gains or the long-term gains? And invariably, the problem, they never see such conflicts as the rights of people or animals versus profits of some people, they go for the short-term. There are lots of studies done which show that human beings will do that. That the person who works in mega-corporation, when he or she goes home, of course, they’ll take care of the children, make sure they live well, make sure that children get organic food, they are healthy, they are cared for, they love the pets, but the same person we go to work in the same corporate next day during the day to the job in their corporation. And they may actually fight tooth and nail to make decisions which will make more money for the corporation, and in the process may destroy all kind of animal life or even human life in their neighborhoods or even more easily in different parts of the world. So that’s the paradox can be simplified instead of looking in the large groups of people or economic systems into the behavior of a single human being. Why is it that people who generate this corporation, which are average human beings, like you and me, who clearly love the children and will clearly want to bring up the children in a healthy world? And who themselves want to remain healthy? Why will they promote decisions during the day time which will hurt the children and their own health, well being later on? An answer once again lies in short-term thinking. And the only way to solve this problem instead of thinking globally is to think locally and figure out what kind of education we can give to people. Such that, they think much more in terms of not just their daily or short-term profits but long-term profit, this has to be something that start systematically to us. It doesn’t come easily. It’s much more easy for us to think of immediate advantage, so it’s going to be a long solution.

by Mayank Mehta

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 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