Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Eddie Glaude: Absolutely. Absolutely. It just seems to me that we can only consume so much without the world giving way. We understand the impending oil crisis; we know what is happening in terms of deforestation. It is certainly the case that continuous economic growth, a relentless pursuit of that growth without any attention to the circumstances of our world, the condition of our planet, can only result in tragedy. So, absolutely, absolutely there is an ecological limit to economic growth.

by Eddie Glaude

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: We are living in an economical system that accumulates money and goods. And in reality this is our economy, independent of society. So all good things that we do our children will receive as well. When we destroy things we also destroy our planet. The economical growth has to be proportional to the level of the preservation of the planet, of the water and of all things of nature. Everything that passes the limits destroys also. The economical growth should be equilibrated to ecological aspects and to the ecology itself, to the environment and the human beings. The human being should have a balance between the economical growth and the environment by leading himself and participating on the economical growth without destruction of his environment. An economical growth, for example of an industry of petroleum, is not rentable if it destroyes at the same time the environment or the life of people. So it is necessary to have a blanance and no contradictions.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Yes, I think there obviously is. I think there is probably, since forms of alternate energy have barely been explored, there is probably not an ecological limit to things like energy produced by the wind and water and so forth. Where you do have the ecological limits of course is particularly in things like pollution and waste. What are we going to do with all that junk? So, clearly, there is a limit.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: I believe it was 1973 when the Club of Rome first published it’s book, “Limits to Growth,” which clearly stated that there are economic limits, that there are ecological limits to economic growth. That book was published after the first big computer study that could predict where our economy is going if we continue to use resources the way we have been using them. And it was clear then, ’73, now it’s ’83, ’93, 2003, more, more than 30 years since and we haven’t stopped slowing, we haven’t started to really slow our economies down. And we have to do a tremendous amount of work to reduce economic growth and yet make life good for everybody. We all know that if China and India all wanted to live the way the United States does that it would take 5, 7 planets to supply us. So it’s completely impossible for us to do that. But there are many ways for us to grow. We can grow new technologies. We can grow cooperation with each other. We can grow in our inventiveness. We can grow in our caring and our ways of sharing on this planet. We can develop lifestyles of what I call elegant simplicity. Let’s only make things that are lasting and beautiful. We don’t need closets full of junk. And in the highly developed world as we call it there’s a huge amount of waste. Look at our production. We make a lot of things out of hydrocarbons, out of the fossil fuels that were buried in the earth. They were buried for good reason. We’re not supposed to be digging them up and polluting the atmosphere and causing global warming with them. So what do we do? We use heat, beat and treat methods, we actually waste 96% of those hydrocarbons that we dig out of the earth just in the production process. And then--

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: Yes, there certainly is, but what that limit is depends on what kind of growth. There is classical growth that reaches its limits much faster by using up resources very fast, by polluting very fast. There are alternative forms of growth. Those are more ecologically compatible where those can have a much greater limit of tolerance. So, the limits are certainly there. But whether they are growths already being reached or as yet in the distance future, depends on what kind of growth, what it is that is fueling growth.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru:

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Fernando Solanas: There certainly must be a limit for economic growth, for economic growth and for the greed of gain, because economic growth is motivated by the ideology of business. Economic growth cannot change the continuity of the ecosystem, be it because of business or because of any other reason. The current generation cannot destroy the ecosystem, it cannot change the laws of nature because the generations to come also have the right to enjoy the benefits of nature. We are standing at a huge crossroads because what is changing the economic equilibrium is the excessive economic growth and the leading nations which are driving this growth and which are causing this ecological damage, and until this day they have not shown any intent to change their politics. Altogether, considering the situation of our world today, we are standing in front of the downright ecological destruction, spurred on by a growing economy, which is a vast irrationality.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Fred Matser: In itself, I think there is a limit. I think already in many -- on many levels we have passed the limits and it's reflected in global warming. I think, again, we have to look back at the cyclical evolutionary laws of nature and you can see that there is certain power that is in the birth or the flowering, the decay and death. And if we really on a deep level connect our consciousness and our knowledge with what is happening in nature and mimic these laws, then that can lead to a different attitude and can really make changes. And so, if in our processes, our human processes, where we take away things of nature and bring them in other formations where we take elements away from nature, bring into other formations, we really have to use those elements in a sustainable way and help to recycle them back to nature of which they are an inherent part. And yes, there are what we already said in the beginning, there are limits and we have to not allow any more to be dictated by scarcity and by fear, because if we allow ourselves to be dictated by fear, we really lose our own clarity and our own sensitivity to those natural laws and we get lost.

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Galsan Tschinag: There simply has to be such a limit. The last two world summits of the leading men and women concerning the topics environment and climate give us some hope but they also create doubts. On the hand, the urgency of these questions was shown by the fact, that such meetings took place. On the other hand, the outcome of the two summits is unfortunately very meager until now considering how much money they devoured and even more how much expectations they created.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Geert Lovink: I don't think there is an economic limit, and first of all, depends on what do you mean by this -- economic systems change all the times, output changes all the time. So, I am not concerned about that so much, if you put it in such general terms. Economic growth for instance can be completely fake, can be -- who defines what economic growth is? Are you looking at GDP levels? Or are you looking at real income, disposable income? Are you looking at what people actually buy? Is the whole virtualization, mediatization also taken into account here? What are the ecological effects of the whole digitization and virtualization, the kind of dematerialization, the growth of the whole experience economy? How ecological is an experience? It can be completely disastrous, even though you are not buying a commodity in the strict sense.

by Geert Lovink

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Giora Feidman: What is more important, ecologic limit or economic growth? Very simple. No question about, no question about it. We can find the absolute balance to deal with this matter. Already there are many cases in society where most taking consideration that two matters and the results are an exceptional positive. It is not a question if we can find it; it’s a question of need, urgent need to be in peace with the planet.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Gladman Chibememe: Yes, everything has got a limit, because once you overburden the ecology, the environment, it will actually collapse. And in this case, if we over-harvest from forests, the expectation that this forest will get depleted. If we over-pollute river systems and river channels, the answer is that those river systems and river channel will obviously lose -- obviously be degraded. And in that case, there is a limit to economic growth. Economic growth has always been associated with destruction of the environment. As I understand it, in order to build a house, you have to destroy the environment. In order for you to construct a road, you need to destroy trees. In order for you to do tourism, you have to tamper around with the environment. In that case, that would result really strategically and directly to the destruction of the environment. So, in a way, economics have got a lot of impact to the environment and there is no question about it. And, it is very clear that if we continue to overstrain the environment by our development and economic activities, then we will run the risk of having the environment collapsing. And, it is not going to collapse alone, it will collapse with us. We will all collapse, including the environment. And as I reiterated in the last question, the collapse of the environment is the collapse of humanity. And, we are part of the ecosystem as we are part of the system.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: Yes, surely. There is an ecological limit and there is an ecological cost to economic growth. One need not have any doubt about it. Just take the case of India. We have more than 6,200 medicinal plant species, out of which in the southern part of India more than 200 medicinal plant species have already got into the red list of endangered, rare, threatened species. How has it happened? It has happened, #1, because of our inability to conserve nature. It has happened because of our lopsided understanding of development. It has happened because of our unsustainable levels of harvest in the wild. So, what is the result of this? The communities, the traditional communities, the tribal communities, the marginal communities in our country who depend so much on these medicinal plant resources for meeting their healthcare will be unable to have access to their own biodiversity. It doesn’t affect much the rich, but it affects the poor directly and in an impactful manner. If we don’t see this as something that as one drives a vehicle, you see the red mark beyond the sustainable speed limits, because once you cross that red mark you apply brake at whatever speed that you want to bring it down, it will take long time for you. But that is the case of a vehicle, but it never happens in the case of nature. What you destroy, you can’t recreate. It takes millions [audio ends]

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: Yes. The earth is finite and we cannot use it any way we want, now it is finite. We have to make it clear that the resources we have on the earth cannot be extended. The end of the economic growth doesn’t mean a physical, material growth. The intellectual growth is not affected by it. The only additional resource that we have is actually solar energy. Solar energy may be used, as it just falls on the earth surface and if we don’t collect it, it reflects back into the space. So the solar energy is something what we can think about. The present situation is if we pass over the limit of our energy usage, we could not only have problems with our resources but also we would notice the rapid destabilisation of our bio system and the fact that the number of species is decreasing. That means that we already reached the higher limit. We cannot go on trampling on earth like that. So those who nowadays use more resources than the average should go back in order the others who use less have a chance to improve their life standard. If we don’t reach this we’ll have great difficulties.

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Harry Wu: Yes. Economic growth is retricted by the ecological environments in some way. However, the change of ecological environments can be made different. The ecological environments can be changed due to the economic growth. The two of them conflict, yet also share a harmonious relationship.

by Harry Wu

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Helena Norberg-Hodge: Without a doubt there is an ecological limit to economic growth. Economic growth depends on the use of natural resources. If natural resources are limited of course there will be limits to the growth. In particular, an economic growth the concentrates power, that concentrates production in the hands of fewer and fewer businesses eliminating the potential for literally millions of smaller players to produce things in a way that is more sustainable using a whole range of diverse materials and resources. This form of economic growth is close to seeing its final end. It cannot continue much longer. It has been predicated on so-called cheap oil which was never cheap, but was heavily subsidized. So it is absolutely vital that we now start recognizing that there are limits and we redefine growth. We need to examine what the growth is our governments are promoting. Do you know that if you go home tonight and find that your house has been robbed, your washing machine, your television, your car are all missing, this is good for GDP. This is how we measure growth today. Do you know that if the water becomes so polluted that everyone has to buy it in bottles, it's wonderful for GDP because we have to go out and buy water just like going out and buying new products is good for GDP. We must distinguish between a growth that really benefits people and is able to sustain itself over generations and this type of madness. We shouldn't call it growth if what we're talking about is reducing the number of businesses, reducing the job opportunities and destroying our natural resources. Let's call it destruction instead of growth.

by Helena Norberg-Hodge

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Homero Aridjis: On the contrary, I believe that there must exist a limit to economic growth, that it must be regulated by the ecological balance.

by Homero Aridjis

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jerry Mander: Well, obviously so. It’s so obvious it’s amazing that people are not doing better all the time. Economic growth is based upon the constantly expanding use of resources from nature. That’s okay for a while as long as you don’t complete the resources, but right now the world is facing shortages, of course, in oil most importantly. But also in most minerals that are important to the industrial system, as well as forests, as well as the genetic diversity, as well as fish from the oceans and arable lands. These things are all beginning to reach their ecological limit. The most important crisis is coming about with the shortage of oil. We’re seeing the cost of oil increasing very dramatically and that’s potentially capable of bringing a major breakdown in all of our economic systems unless we make a very important adjustment. So, the idea of unlimited resources is a completely preposterous idea. There are no unlimited resources on a finite planet. The planet is only so big, it has only that many resources, and the limits of nature are already clear. So, the concept of economic growth based on resource use is very, very passé and is bringing us to an imminent ecological and energy catastrophe and commenced adjustments are going to be necessary toward different forms of ecologically oriented sustainable systems that emphasize less impact on our planet, less resource use and more locally organized economics. Because local economics is not nearly as impacting on nature as global economics where it requires a lot of transportation and shipping and so on.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jesper Green: Yes, there is an ecological limit to economic growth. When there are no more natural resources then it will do tremendously damage to the economic growth. So we still want to have some kind of economic growth then we have to be very careful with ecological system because we are dependent on natural resources to produce our goods. Societies where there is only eroded lands there’s no economic growth and you can put that in a bigger perspective, in a global perspective and then if there’s no more natural resources then we can’t grow any more.

by Jesper Green