Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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.

by Homero Aridjis

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

Jesper Green:

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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'.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:20:00 AM cite

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.

by José Manuel Prieto

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