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