Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: This is very important. But, one should know that you can devise some social systems which can be friendly to planet, animals and human beings. But, when it comes to economic system, it's very hard. Rather, impossible. The economic systems are not meant to preserve the nature and preserve the animals, but more to make profit out of it. So, the maintenance of economy, the growth of economy and all the parameters which are set for the economic structures and economic systems are meant to grow more and more profit and more and more production. And, these profits and production are unfortunately badly affecting our nature, badly affecting our planet, animals and human beings. The economic systems are diminishing or dismantling some of our human values, as well as our cultures which promote human values for the benefit of a fewer people who control the economic system. So, it’s very difficult to devise any economic system which can really help. Look at the meat business, look at the fish business, look at the new economy and food market. The animals are being killed and people don’t think about it. And, you cannot think of a situation where the people will suddenly become vegetarian, they will go for more biodiversity productions, agriculture productions, and will forget about killing the animals and killing the nature. And, the economic systems also devised on the basis of consumerism now and making the life more easy in that sense, but that making life easy and consumerism need lot of energy consumption and that is also adversely effecting the planet.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: Hi, Jens, how are you? Up there in Sweden? You in Stockholm? Hi! So, I am Danish. How should it be devised? I think you should know some part of the answers because looking into the Scandinavian Welfare Society that would be one idea. The basic idea of the welfare societies in Scandinavia is that the broadest shoulders should carry the biggest loads. Another idea is that people should have covered their specific needs. I think that’s a way to look into a new and different economic system. Does it cover animal, humans, or planet’s right? I don’t know, but one basic element in covering the rights of everything on earth is democracy. And then you could say but democracy is not always wise. No, you’re right. Democracy is not always right and not always wise either. But this is the only way as I see it. So a basic solution would be to create international and global economic systems where the biggest and broadest shoulders carry the heaviest loads.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: Human rights are proclaimed and defended by human rights organizations very articulate. We shouldn't cheat on nature. We shouldn't try to subdue nature. Nature is much stronger than we are and it starts to take revenge through floodings, fires, earthquakes and the like. By these incidents nature makes us aware that we have to take care of it and that we have to protect it. Human rights are succeeding anyway.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Human economics has always been about trafficking. Human economics has always been about the moving of merchandise from those at the bottom of the ramp to those who have placed themselves somewhere at the top. Until a time comes when economics can be about more than just building glass house powered by evil, until such time as the human being is not governed by the need to destroy in order to build it own self, there will never be an economic system that could be put in place that will not conflict with the basic human needs, basic principles that I [guess had] pulling us all out of this mire. When we can devise weapons designed to destroy the entire parliamentary system upon which we have some hopes to subsist, when you can first of all stop regarding animal life on this planet as being dependent upon our wilds, when actually the human being can restructure its own standing and its own mind and economic system shall ever forever remain out of bounds that is designed to create human understanding. I don’t believe in romanticized notions of what constitutes that trafficking of mind, the trafficking of ideas, the trafficking of products, the crawl out of the got of humanity, I’ve…

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: A better economic system should be devised with consideration with other cultural and humanistic values in mind, and again, I think this is a case in which we see the need for industries to present with better studies that economist, not just the economist who is only carrying his own limited skill, but also he has to have the knowledge of what is happening in the world, to conserve more human, animal and planet rights. So for the economist it is quite easy to develop the economic system that suits, and also what the politician [shall], he should have consideration for other humanistic aspects and could not be limited on the financial aspect, has not the money or financial, but rather how they would affect the life of the other creatures on the planet.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: I don't know how man can become a plant or an animal so as to expierence their positions. Therefore, the so-called "economic system", which focuses on human beings, can hardly consider the situations of animals and plants. Maybe we can ask the animals or plants to build their own economic system. In that case, everyone may live in peace with each other.

by Lijun Fang

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 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