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

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jodie Evans: We passed it. We've already been destroying the country -- the world the planet. Already in the last 20 years some of our tigers and lions are close to extinction. Large fish in the sea are 90 percent lost. Things that will never be replaced; the aquifers, the rivers, the oceans, the lakes the ground soil -- we have devastated much of the planet already so I think that line has already been crossed. There is an ecological limit to unsustainable economic growth. It’s the definition. And our growth has been unsustainable.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

John Gage: There is a systemic ecological limit to the amount of energy use. Now, energy use is not the same as economic growth. There are ever more efficient ways of converting energy into the materials, the substances, the objects, the products, the staples that we as an industrial or post industrial civilization use in daily life. So, efficiency can substitute for increased energy use because there is a limit to the tolerance of the Earth for ever-greater expenditures of heat. If we have a way that allows each object that we create to carry with it a trail of information about the energy used, to create energy that will be used to dispose off it, so that it becomes part of a cycle, hopefully a sustainable cycle of material and energy through this economic system. Then, we may be able to keep the ecological limits, that is to say the sustainability limits for energy to use and balance in our overall ecosphere in the entire terrestrial energy balance, in energy exchange and that would allow economic growth within boundaries of today’s energy use. First and fundamental lesson to be learned from the currently economically developed countries is the immense waste inherent in the structures we build, in the operational budgets for both energy and for maintenance of these buildings, these automobiles, these trucks, these vehicles, these streets, the design errors that lead to immense waste of water, waste of energy and waste of the substance of the Earth must be rectified and [audio ends].

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jonathan Granoff: Of course there's an economic limit to economic growth. Up to seventy percent of the fishing stocks are at risk, because the economic growth has not taken into consideration the capacity of replenishment of the fishing stocks. It's the tragedy of the commons, clearly manifest in the modern age. The tragedy of the commons is when a sheepherder rationally decides to maximize their self-interest and overgrazes, thus causing others to overgraze, ultimately destroying the commons. Well we now know that the earth has living systems that are like that commons, that simply cannot be overgrazed. The rainforests are like that, the oceans are like that. So, when we set up - or, in the evolution of the kind of modern nation-state and the multinational corporation, we didn't have this awareness of the limits of the biological systems of the planet. And we simply cannot ignore them. We can't create economic systems that are not beholden, and obligated, institutionally, through law, to work in harmony with the living systems. Indeed, there is an ecological limit to the amount and the kind of growth that we have.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jonathan Meese: There are no limits neither of growth nor of economics nor of ecology nor of any other things that lie beyong the human consciousness and are themselves. At least we are not able to define these limits. We are the limits passing us. Nobody knows what ecology really is, nobody knows where it began and where it ends. Furthermore nobody knows what the economic growth is. Economics grows as it itself wants to, if we leave it on its own. It will become a natural cover beginning a new game. Nothing is limited. Man cannot create any limits. Limits create themselves and have to be eyed so. There are forbidden areas and this is good. In these forbidden areas paradises do exist, paradises unknown to us exist for others, but not us. There are the paradise of animals, paradise of plants, paradise of elements, paradise of systems, paradise of paradises.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jonathan Stack: No, there is no an ecological limit to economic growth. There is ecological limit to unconscious destruction of economic growth. Economy is going to grow. As long as there are people, the economy is going to grow, but it can't grow without there being an awareness and a consciousness about its effect on the environment. So, it is obvious that there is not going to be -- you just can't keep consuming oil. I am sure oil will disappear. You can't keep polluting the water. Eventually, we won't be able to drink. But, where there are problems, there is opportunities. And there is no doubt that the economy grows also when the ecology is challenged and the growth that's going to have to happen, the radical one is how are we going to counter the ecological destruction that has been going on. If we don't figure that one out, then obviously the economy is going to go down because the numbers of humans will reduce because we won't be able to sustain ourselves. For the time being, I don't see the ecological challenges so severe that there isn't still a solution and if there is a solution, then there is an economic opportunity and for the time being, the economic opportunity seems to be the engine that's moving this planet. Is that dangerous? I guess. But, is it human? Yes.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

José Manuel Prieto: Is there an ecological limit to economic growth? I think there isn’t. I believe there could be a tenable and from the ecological point of view conscious and coherent development, in order that the ecological challenges that would emerge, would be resolved by the same technology. There may always be changes. I believe that the important thing is to become aware of that and to apply from the beginning [] strategies that have the ecological element in mind. In the case of Mexico, e.g., where I have been living some years, air pollution is an enourmous problem. Nevertheless, during the last years an improvement could be observed, due to the creation of awareness of the programs that have been implemented and carried out. I believe, what has to be done is to introduce the variable ecology into the economic cohesiveness, so that it will be an element that we should always have in mind and that should we should always consider. The citizens are the ones, who most of all become aware of the negative impact of those technologies, at the level of their areas, regions and their own cities, and who have it in their hands to promote agendas that clearly show the impact, and also to tackle possible solutions as they see them from their perspective as citizens. I think this is important....

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: David, I believe there are no ecological limits because it regenerates itself by itself. But it depends on us and on you how to use this ecosystem and help in economizing it in the right way. That is what I believe.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Definitely, because we must not forget that this planet has limited resources. If the water is limited, if the coal is limited, if the gases are limited, if the petroleum is limited then there is always a limit to economic growth. Because today’s economic growth is interpreted in a manner where you talk of per capita energy consumption, when you talk of per capita income and those things eventually harm the nature. Because if we look at the equation between the energy consumption or wastage of energy as well as the energy reproduction, it’s minimal. So, we must know that there is always a limit of uses of energy and human -- and natural resources on one hand that will definitely result in limiting our economic growth. You can go to certain extent, but when the coal is exhausted, when the petroleum is exhausted, when other natural resources are exhausted, when water is polluted in such a high quantity then suddenly you have to stop it. So, that’s why we have to bear in mind that there is a limit to economic growth; you cannot keep on growing yourself economically until and unless you preserve your resources, your energy, and your earth planet.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Kigge Hvid: Hi David. Yes, there absolutely is. And it is visible now. The way it is visible, actually is that our icebergs melts. The human race is more and more affected by allergies, more and more people are getting ill, more and more natural disasters occur. We still are not absolutely sure that the natural disasters, the flooding, the storms, have anything to do with the ecology. If it does have anything to do with it, we now have visible evidence. Then you can ask - what do we do about it? How do we respond, when we see that there actually is an ecological limit to economical growth? Again it is all about new solutions, we need to think differently. I believe it is absolutely impossible to convince humans to decrease their welfare, to decrease their wealth. Actually there are too many advantages in great economical wealth to convince the human population to not wanting to have it. One neither can convince the ones who have not got it, to never getting it. It is hard to convince people to not having a car, when they really would like a car. This is one thing which is important, to accept that we need to find other solutions, instead of expecting a fall in living standards. The other thing which is super important right now, is making sure history does not repeat it self. At the moment a long list of very, very large countries is being industrialised, countries that have not previously been industrialised. What we can do is to make sure that this industrialisation does not affect the environment in the same way the environment have been affected by the western world’s industrialisation, those things of course must be done. That is a question about influencing governments, the United Nations, supranational units, organisations, companies etc. etc. And sharing knowledge besides.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 2:15:00 PM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Economic growth necessarily carries with it the potential to reduce the space in which we live. Economic growth calls upon them who stand to profit by it, the destruction of entire forests, the cramping out of living space, the reduction of what is available to breathing, living beings on this planet, that’s what economic growth is all about. And pushed to breathe beyond itself, indeed the earth will collapse, the earth will come to an end because there will be no air to breathe. There will be absolute no place to stand. All these buildings, all these metallic structures, all these non-organic, non-breathers will cramp life, human or otherwise out. So, what that then means? Pure arithmetic is the fact that the entire earth will collapse under the weight of money. There is a limit; there is an end to which ecologically we can be sustained. The major negativity of all this is that human beings need profit-making at whatever expense.

by Lesego Rampolokeng