Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Profile of Avi Primor
Where is hatred from? Mostly it comes from [...]
Avi Primor: Where is hatred from? Mostly it comes from fear. If man is not able to understand the other, if man does now know who the other one is, if man perceives the other one as something mysterious, man begins to ask questions. What kind of complot is going on - among the others, among the minorities, among the neighbour's, among the strangers? This strangeness arouses suspicion, this suspicion stokes fear, fear rakes hatred and hatred leads to violence. So there is only one way to avoid this - education. The one have to get to know the others, they have to know more about others, especially about the direct neighbours. Man should know much about the minorities living in their surroundings. One should not say they are somehow different, I do not even know and I even do not want to know how they are - far from it: One has to know more! The more one is able to understand others, the less one fears him and then there is no hatred and no violence any more. This actually is the core of the whole problem. Of course it deals with education and the problem is that the education is still very different nowadays. Every nation has its own history books. In some cases single clans have their own history, sometimes even families, and the history is not only antagonised against others, but it restricts to itself and this is a way not to appreciate, not to understand others and then suspect the other ones, fear, hate and fight against them. So we are to have education and as far as possible the same education for everyone.
This is a question of education and [...]
Avi Primor: This is a question of education and possibilities in life. If every young person has the same possibilities in life like the other, possibilities in education, in work and development, they won't join gangs. They won't follow a false prophet. You follow a false prophet, if you don't have any prospects, if you are frustrated, if you are hopeless. Unfortunately, a part of the young people is still in such a situation today. They are growing up in such a situation. So it is really the job of the states to organise economy and society in such a way, that every young person has some kind of hope in their life. And if they have hope, they are not looking for something different. Naturally, there are some, you cannot educate. There are some, you cannot convince. There are some you cannot give hope, these people you have to fight with the help of the police. It seems that we'll always need police. But for most of the young people there is an alternative. Free enterprise is indispensable for economical development. But it needs to have some guidelines too. It shouldn't be like a jungle. If it really has the right guidelines, controlled by the state, without limiting the initiative of the individual, then I believe we will arrive at a point where all young people have a future und then they won't follow a false prophet any more.
I find this question quite unfair. Why these [...]
Avi Primor: I find this question quite unfair. Why these trillion dollars spent by the United the States and not the other states? All of them are spending money for military budgets. Where are the Russians, who are not a global power any more and don't have any ambition in the world any more. Why they still have so many military expenses? How do you explain the expenses of the Iran? Not only for army, but as well for nuclear arms? And so many, many others? It seems as the Nations and the Governments assume that, either they need the military expenses to defend themselves or because they have any other ambition. As the Iran for example, who wants to attack and controll its neighbours. As long as there are still Nations, who are not a democracy, who are thinking, that they can expand their terms, their power, their terms of life, their fame, on the basis of military adventures, the other Nations, the democratic Nations, won't have an alternative than building, equiping armed forces to defend themselves. Unfortunataly there is no alternative. Otherwise you could have used the money in a different way, so much better and so much cheaper. Unfortunataly it isn't still possible everywhere. That's a question of the schooling and the education of the people and of the development of the democracys. Unfortunataly we aren't that far yet.
Well, I believe the reason is that there are [...]
Avi Primor: Well, I believe the reason is that there are fanatic people on both sides. On both sides. There was a time when parts of the people in the Middle East thought they could sweep away the others from the Middle East. I mean, some arabians thought they could destroy the state of Israel. As long as they believed this and were convinced that it was justified, they had no interest in peace. The state Israel had to defend itself in order to survive, but has its own fanatics, nowadays known as the "settlers" who want to inhabit parts of the palestinian region as they assume that this country is israelian property from a godly instruction which cannot be ignored. Nowadays, I believe, most of the people on both sides , i.e. most palestinians, most arabians and most israelian people do know that there is no alternative, that they have to accept the situation, the others. The israelians know that they cannot rule another country, that they are not supposed to rule another country. And the palestinians and the arabs know that they cannot sweep away the state Israel from the Middle East. That they are doomed to live with a state Israel. Nevertheless there are fanatics, fundamentalists on both sides, who always turn the situation to riot and violence and thus worry and devastate the population. I believe if we somehow bring the democracy into lead, if the will of the bigger part of the population wins, then we will have peace because the way is very clear, how we are supposed to walk it. There hast to be a palestinian state, and an israelian state, and both need to cooperate. This is the only possible solution.
It is quite an interesting fact that there [...]
Avi Primor: It is quite an interesting fact that there has never been a war between two democracies. One can think about it for a long time and try to find some counter evidence, but there has been no war between two democracies. There have been wars between two dictatorships, or between a dictatorship and a democracy, but never between two democracies. That means we need democracy. This is a means to avoid war. But why have there been no wars between democracies? Because democracies are influenced by the puplic opinion. And the public does not want war. The public opinion in a democracy cannot so easily be influenced by official propaganda as the public in dictatorships. In a democracy where everything is open, where you have freedom of speech, where you can follow the world news, can read newspapers, can listen to opinions, can be of different opinions, it is not easy to create effective propaganda, especially when this propaganda is to lead into a catastrophic war. That is why the population in democracies is able to prevent wars, and why it has been impossible for two democracies to wage war against each other. Thus, if we have really democratic governments, and this only depends on us, we will probably be able to prevent war.
At one point in the future we will probably [...]
Avi Primor: At one point in the future we will probably have a global government, and I believe that a global government will be necessary and efficient. But we are far from ready for this. Mainly, because we are all very much different from each other. We are not compareable. If we consider ourselves to be thinking in a european way, or in an american way, then we believe that we all share the same values and criteria and thus might possibly have a common or global government in the future. But this is not possible yet, we are not ready for this as well. We have to consider how long it takes to build the European Union. And the EU consists of states sharing a common history, a common culture, common experiences and a common knowledge from the Second World War, just having a lot in common. And even so the EU does not have a uniform government yet. The tradition is still stronger, the cultures, the languages. And if you now try to compare Europe and the Middle East, or Southamerica, or Southeast Asia, or Africa, there are huge differences. Sometimes those differences are as deep as an abyss. Well, a global government, very far from it indeed. But even if it will be possible to build a global government some time in the future, there will be huge differences within this government. Because in the EU there is a principle that can be made even more efficient on the highest level, which needs to be built on a federal system. And what will be more effective on a national level should stay on a national level or even on a regional level. It is important that every region should be capable to look after its own problems. So, even if there will be a global government, there will be increasingly autonomous power as well. But should we try to force a global government into existence now against nature or prematurely, we will not succeed. Because there still is the phenomenon of civil war, and even in a common national setting there is still the possibility of war breaking out. Thus, if there was a global government, there might be so-called civil wars between ... ?
Well, first of all I do believe that this is [...]
Avi Primor: Well, first of all I do believe that this is not true. This is not the case. If the powerful uses force, he can be or be regarded as a terrorist. Take the example of Hitler. Hitler or his regime have been considered a terrorist state, and the war has not been lead for reasons of self-defence. The weaker and smaller ones who had to defend themselves against Hitler were not regarded as terrorists throughout the world. Well, maybe by the Nazi propaganda, but in world history they are not considered being terrorists. Terror has a specific meaning. Terror does not mean guerilla. Terror does not mean the fight of the weaker one, the smaller one, but a fight against the innocent. Terror means to attack the civilian population, to attack the innocent, to attack the ones who have nothing to do with the fight. That is the meaning of terror. When palestinians hijack planes in Europe, that is terror. When they do send suicide attackers against the civilian population, that is terror. When they do defend themselves against the settlers, on the other hand, when they defend themselves against the army, the occupying army, then they are not terrorists but guerilla fighters. It doesn´t matter whether they are right or wrong, but they are not terrorists. Well, terror is a type of war that cannot be tolerated or accepted, and this has nothing to do with the stronger or weaker ones.
The question is whether one really tolerates [...]
Avi Primor: The question is whether one really tolerates war, i.e. why does one tolerate war. Maybe there is simply no alternative. Because war is not only war of soldiers, war has become a war of the nations, and war of the nations does not only mean a war of weapons, but as well a war of the economy, of the sciences, everything is mobilized in the war, and as well the civilian population. Without the civilian population, without economy, without sciences, without background, infrastructure, without the support of the civilian population war cannot take place. And thus the civilian population is involved in the modern war. And for this reason the civilian population must prevent war. This is often the case in democracies, and, as we have already discussed, there is no war between democracies. Not only, because the civilian population is involved directly in the war, but as well because the population understands better how horrible war is, and not only adventure and fame, as it once was. So maybe the involvement of the civilian population might even be a chance to prevent war.
I do believe that apart from people who love [...]
Avi Primor: I do believe that apart from people who love adventures, that most people will do everything necessary to have security. And that they are going to do a lot, to sacrifice a lot for it. It is hard to say how much they would do for it. But I think that in the end the need for security will win. And we will always say that yes, for our security, we will give up our comfort and convenience, maybe even parts of our freedom, give up travelling and pleasures, give up a lot. I believe that this is an instinct, that people do need security and fight for their security. For people their security is of utmost importance. Thus we will give up or sacrifice a lot for our security, even if we do it unconsciously or unknowingly and would never admit it.
This question alludes to the fact that the [...]
Avi Primor: This question alludes to the fact that the ones who live in a democracy are so convinced of themselves that they are not able to understand the other ones. We do live in democracies and say yes, we have found the truth. We know how to live, what is right, what are the right values and criteria, and all the other ones are living in an erroneous way. Why do they live erroneously and don´t understand that we do have the truth? But the other ones think along the same lines. The ones who do not live in democracies do think as well that they know the truth. And that they have the right values and criteria. What did the Europeans think 200, 300 years ago? Or 500 years ago? Wasn´t it evident that absolute monarchy was the only value, the only truth? Then we have evolved, have developed, and we believe that we have developed in the right direction. But the others may see it differently. And the others might develop as well, might go in different directions. Thus we need to have sympathy or comprehension for the fact that the others do not see our truth as truth, that they have a different truth that we see with other eyes. Only in this way can we deal with each other.
What actually does "the decent people" mean? [...]
Avi Primor: What actually does "the decent people" mean? How can "the decent people" help each other? Who are these "decent people of the world"? Who decides who is decent and who is not? Do we all have the same criteria? If I think that someone is decent, can I, may I assume that others think that this person and his behaviour are decent too? Who decides this? What is "decent"? The governments - are governments against the decent people automatically? Are governments indecent at heart? No, this question points that there are people who think that they know the absolute truth. They "know" correctly what is right or wrong, what is decent or indecent, what is worthwhile or worthless. But this is not the fact: How can different opinions, the different people, different cultures and the different natures live together in peace? This is the question and the answer is democracy. Not because democracy is the absolute truth or the perfect solution for everything, but just because today democracy is the best method we know to allow a collective life, tolleration and respect to each other and this actually is almost the best we can get: Respect and accept the others as they are, not wanting to force them to live after our criterias or as we want to.
Yes, we should have this right. Everybody [...]
Avi Primor: Yes, we should have this right. Everybody should live there where he wants to, everyone should be allowed to live there as he wishes. But this has its limits too. One is not allowed to enter any other's house and just decide: "I want to live here at yours house'." It is not such simple. One should be allowed to live, to stay and to go there where one wants to, as long as one does not disturb or do harm to others. So you have to be considerate of others. But as long as one does not disturb others, one should be allowed to live there where one wants to. Sayings such as "You are born in a country, so you belong to this country." are mindless. Country, state and nation do exist for the individual and not vice versa. Every individual should select his own life and his way as he will. So again: As long as he does not disturb others.
In my opinion there will be hardly [...]
Avi Primor: In my opinion there will be hardly differences barring that the Americans probably now have a better conscience, that a lot of black Americans have bad memories and a historical hatred. There will be african based Americans because there are migrations in America. There is a constant migration - people change their homes, travel around, marry each other. They do not all stay in the area of nation, state or continent. So in this respect I think there will be a lot of Africans in America who are Americans today even without slavery, but of course without this sad background. But there will be black Americans and therewith there will be racial problems in the course of time that have to be overcome. Man would overcome this problem as man did in the 60s in America. Perhaps it was not ideal, but we have reached great improvements and it has not much to do with slavery. The point is that man always has problems to accept others, those who are different and he has to learn to deal with this, with or without slavery.
Well "Is there something better than [...]
Avi Primor: Well "Is there something better than democracy" - I think "Is there a better political system than democracy" is meant - probably not. There is the famous saying by George Julian: "Democracy has all kinds of mistakes and disadvantages, it is a totally bad system." But we have not found anything better yet. In fact it is real. Democracy is not a final term. It is a term still in development. The democrary brought into being by the French Revolution has developed so much since then and now looks totally different than at that time, so that the democracy of these two times are not comparable at all. But even if we compare the democracies developed after the Second World War with our society nowadays, we will see large differences. A lot of terms have changed. People have other values, other criteria. But the principle has stayed: Not one person is able or allowed to decide for others, but the general population takes part at the decisions, politicians know that they have to please the populatian to be successful and this is the principle of democracy that is still developing and does not have anything better than this principle and this starting point.
I don´t believe that there is something like [...]
Avi Primor: I don´t believe that there is something like a holy war. That is a strange invention. What does it mean, holy war? This should be a war in favour of god. I am not so sure that god is wishing for wars, against whomever. This is an invention of mankind to justify aggressive wars. So, there is nothing like a holy war, I don´t believe in it. A justified war, yes, you would call that a war in self-defence. If a country defends itself against enemies, it wages a justified war. When the Nazis attacked their neighbouring countries and those countries defended themselves, they lead a justified war. This is a typical classical example. But when fundamentalists in the arabic world want to attack someone and try to justify this, they say that they are leading a holy war, i.e. they are doing this for god or in gods name, this is hypocrisy or even much worse. And sometimes there are wars, "normal" ones for nationalistic aggressive reasons, which are defined as holy wars by the politicians who started the war, for reasons of propaganda or "advertisement", in modern terms. This has nothing to do with reality. There is no such thing as a holy war.
Well, if one does think that America should [...]
Avi Primor: Well, if one does think that America should be the world´s police force or can be the world´s police force, then I believe that those do not really understand the world. This world force America is not such an unlimited source of power that it can do everything or secure everything. Thankfully America is a democracy and not a dictatorship that wants to rule the world, although many want to see it just like this. But America cannot decide alone, and this is a good thing. Because everyone who makes decisions all alone, even in a democracy, will in the end cause catastrophes. Decisions need to be made within the community, democratic decisions. Lets compare the first Irak war 1991 and the second 2003 as an example. In 1991 America has prepared this war together with its allies, european and arabic. There was an international alliance against Irak and Saddam Hussein. Among the international allies were the Europeans, the Japanese and most arabic countries. It was a common decision. The second Irak war in 2003 was a decision of America without really discussing it with its allies. This just caused a gap between America and its allies, alienated them. And this lead to a catastrophe. Thus even America is not a force that can or should lead the world on its own. The world needs to be lead by a community, by common decisions. It is not so much of importance which nation is the leading force, and who´s second or third, but the main point is that all the decison making forces are democratic, and if they are democratic they will be able to make common decisions and cooperate.
Terrorism is no guerrilla. Terrorism is not [...]
Avi Primor: Terrorism is no guerrilla. Terrorism is not a small war against an occupying power or even against an aggressive one. Terrorism is a fanaticism with an aim. Its aim is to serve somebody. Those who agree to be suicide assassins do not profit from their action. Probably they are that they profit, but this is not true - they die and no one knows what will happen in heaven. But the manipulators with political aims do profit from terrorism, sometimes even economical. A man like bin Laden is immensely rich as we know - and he is not just really rich by accident. So terrorism is a way to seduce people, to kill them by fake propaganda and this is as disastrous as the "normal wars" in the past, which were fought for the fame of kings.
In my opinion courage means moral courage. [...]
Avi Primor: In my opinion courage means moral courage. For me courage means to be strong enough to fight against the own environment too. You are brave, if you fight against your enemy, if you fight for your nation. This is a kind of bravery that is connected with the general public. You are doing what everybody else does. You swim with the current, you go together with the others. You are brave, if you stand alone - against others and especially against your own people. So members of Resistance during the Second World War were very courageous people. Resistance fighters need more courage than soldiers on the battlefield. But members of Resistance in Germany not only had to fight against the political power, the public authorities, the state of terror, but they also had to resist the contempt of their own friends, neighbours, of society, even of their own family - they were really courageous. Moral courage is very, very difficult. Not only because it means something for others and for your own people, but also because it lasts for a long time. A battle can be short - you can lose your life there. But to offer resistance against your own society, your own friends for years - for this you need a tremendous amount of courage. Once again: In my opinion courage means moral courage.
Weapons are inherently dangerous - [...]
Avi Primor: Weapons are inherently dangerous - obviously. The more devastating the weapons are, the more dangerous are they and nuclear weapons are more dangerous than "classic" ones. In this respect they are of course more disastrous. Now there is one more question left: In whose hands are these weapons? If they are in hands of responsible people, i.e. those who need the weapons to defend themselves instead of attacking others, the weapons are less dangerous - of course they are still dangerous anyway. If they are in the hands of fanatics, then they are extremely dangerous. A nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran perhaps would not have to be excessively dangerous, but a nuclear bomb in the hands of fundamentalists, in the hands of fanatics who directly want to dominate their neighbours is very dangerous. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a Hitler could have been very, very dangerous - for the whole world. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a democratic regime in America or in France can just be used for defence and till now it has been used therefore only, so it is a deterrent. In the hands of Israel it is an instrument of defence too, an instrument of deterrence. Israel is not even able to afford to use nuclear weapons as it is so small that others can respond by immediate retaliation, destroying the whole country. So in the case of Israel nuclear weapons again are just an instrument of deterrence and they are in the hands of a democratic government. But Iran is not ruled in a democratic way, Iran fosters since thousand years a dream of an imperial Persia. Iran wants to dominate its direct neighbours. If Iran succeeds, they would ...
Well, you can't claim that there is no [...]
Avi Primor: Well, you can't claim that there is no mechanism for international law. First I have to say that there is a mechanism which isn't sufficient and somehow still restricted. That's right. But there are many more mechanisms than before. For example between the two world wars and definitely if you compare the situation today with the 19th century. So there are many more. There aren't only international committees but also sometimes international forces and there is the international court of justice. There is everything. The question is if that is sufficient. And it isn't sufficient. We have to develop and enlarge it. That doesn't mean what we have today is worthless and has no meaning, that only means that we haven't yet come far enough and that has something to do with development. And this development comes from the consciousness of people and from education. If the people get more and more international education and they become more and more democratic and they live the democratic values then such mechanisms will develop. That's how tribes, states and nations developed and that's how the international community develops. So it is a question of development. I think we are on the right way but it is a difficult and long way.
I think that the connection between violence [...]
Avi Primor: I think that the connection between violence and politics changed several times in history. Basically the politicians in the past used violence because violence was glorious. Violence was a way to become famous and popular. The violent persons in history have mostly been admired and popular. But I think today the things have changed. I think that most people in most countries understand that violence is in fact disastrous and that they only use violence when they think that there is no alternative and they use it to defend themselves when they are being attacked. But who is being attacked and when and why? The common citizen doesn't know the answer to this question. The politician often explains it to him and it is true that politicians could have an interest in being violent and to say to their people that it is being attacked and that it has to defend itself. And if he succeeds he is successful and glorious. I think that you basically have to separate violence from politics because the formation and the education of humans help them to decide whether a war is important, necessary and unavoidable and not that it is the politician who tells him that. And then politics will have a different meaning. In Western Europe we have already come so far but not in many other parts of the world. And that has not only something to do with experiences in the past but also with education and culture.
There are two meanings of colonization. On [...]
Avi Primor: There are two meanings of colonization. On the one hand it means to rule over others. On the other hand there was also the aim, at least partly, to help others. Today that sounds strange and odd. Why has the colonial power had the aim to help others? Originally not of course. But with colonization came modernization and education. I don't think that today this kind of colonization still exists. I don't think that today there are persons like Kippling who think that the civilization is brought to, well let's say "backward peoples". Some people really did believe that. I don't think that this kind of persons still exist today but what does exist are persons who want to rule over others. And if it isn't with the help of the military or Muslim, Jewish or Christian fundamentalists it's with the help of economy. There are still international companies who think they can rule and have to rule over others to get more power and to make more money. Today we can see how the big companies exploit simple people in China but also elsewhere. There have to be guidelines. The freedom of economy has to be maintained but there have to be guidelines which somehow ensure the same working conditions for all people worldwide. And that's what can influence the modern economic colonization and give limits to it.
Freedom means that you can do what you like. [...]
Avi Primor: Freedom means that you can do what you like. Everything you like. You can say everything you want. You can behave like you want. As long as you don't harm anybody. As long as you don't damage anybody. Freedom goes up to this point and it has to be absolute in every part of life.
The question is of course, what does society [...]
Avi Primor: The question is of course, what does society mean? What is society for? Why we don’t live alone like in the jungle? Why we need the other ones? We need the other ones to give ourselves a hand. We need the other ones to improve our own living conditions. We depend on each other. Well, the human being is an individual, that’s right. The human being goes for his own interest. This we cannot change. This will go on. But, to support our own interest, he needs the other. For this purpose he has to do something for the other one. Yes, common welfare, social responsibility, this has to be connected with the interest of the individual. Both have come together. It is like a good business. A good business means that when I want to run a good business, then I don’t have to betray the other. It doesn’t has to come to this that the other one is suffering, that he is loosing something, by the aim, that I am winning. This could be a success, but a short success. The right success is, when both are winning in this business and when we both get something out. It is like that in every part of life. When we work together and therefore earn both, when the community is earning something, the tribe, the family, the Nation, whatever you want. Then we all get something out, then me as an individual get a lot out of it. And that’s right. There has to be no contradiction, quite the contrary.
I believe the question is when do we really [...]
Avi Primor: I believe the question is when do we really have to resist? When is resistance justified? Do you always have to resist? If you are treated wrongly, treated unfair, does it have to come to resistance immediately? Perhaps you can negotiate? Perhaps you can speak to the other? Perhaps you can seek for international help? An arbitrator? Or the international community in general? Resistance has a large meaning. Resistance against whom? Against what? What for? Why? Today we are using the idea of resistance in a totally open way. Nobody knows anymore what it means. Everyone who is fighting against somebody, believes to be a resistance fighter already. But it isn’t so automatically or generally. So you have to consider every case. There are cases, where it really can help to resist in a peaceful way. There are cases, where it doesn’t help, where you have to fight. Under the rule of the Nazis there wasn’t any other possibility then to resist in a violent way. There weren’t any other possibilities. In other cases it doesn’t always have to come to this. So you have to judge every individual case und there aren’t general guidelines for all cases of resistance or what calls itself case of resistance.
As I mentioned before - in my opinion heroes [...]
Avi Primor: As I mentioned before - in my opinion heroes are just people who have courage, people who have the heart to be different. People who not only want to be similar the others to be assimilated. Yes, people with courage. Moral courage - this is heroism to me. There are diverse kinds of heroisms, but I think the only one that has to be admired is moral courage because moral courage expresses oneself against one's own environment, surroundings, one's own friends and families and because moral courage has to last for a long time. It is not just an action and then it is over. One has to remain true to it, repeatedly, one has to be able to live under pressure, sometimes even to be scorned. But these are the real heroes. I do not see any better ones.
Your question could refer to all areas of [...]
Avi Primor: Your question could refer to all areas of life. Why have rules, why have laws? Why restrain people? Let people do what they want. Let a car move in the city disregarding red traffic lights. Why not? Everyone should do what he wants! But yes. But if one tried to live one's life in this way, one would destroy each other - in all areas of liefe, even where one is seeking freedom, absolute freedom. We do have limits, we must have limits, and the limits are limits of freedom that starts consztraining the freedom of others. And it is the same thing with technology development. One must know how to progress without destroying the others, without limiting the others, without constraining the creativity of the others. You cannot do everything, you cannot do what you want. We are a whole, we are part of a whole, we do not live alone in the world. And if we want to live in a country, in particular, if we want to progress, we must live in a co-ordinated manner, and co-ordination among humans requires rules.
There is no ecological limit for economic [...]
Avi Primor: There is no ecological limit for economic growth, there is none at all. We have to pay attention to ecology; we have to do everything, which is possible. To save the environment we have to do what is necessary. But that doesn't mean that there is no growth rate possible. That doesn't mean that economy cannot grow any more. It has to grow within limits, within guidelines like it is in every part of life. That doesn't mean that when you have to grow then everything is allowed. A hundred years ago all factories looked as if they were old locomotives, full of smoke. A factory was always full of black smoke, surrounded by smoke and it was even said that people worked there and that this even was a virtue. By and by they understood that they don't need the smoke and they even understood that smoke is harmful. Therefore, they started to consider environment. We can go on like that and nevertheless continue to grow. We have done it like that; we will do it like that. Without it, we all will be ruined.
Not at all. We will be less intimidated. [...]
Avi Primor: Not at all. We will be less intimidated. We will be less controlled, as the internet is a private connection to the world. The secret police, the so called teachers, the so called guardians of moral – they do not have an access at home where we have our internet. So, I believe instead it will be more and more revealing. And in consequence it will make us safer. We will be less controlled, but maybe we will control each other, because we will understand better, we will know more. And we will understand the other one better. This is the key to relationships and therefore an improvement of life.
No, I don’t believe that this will happen to [...]
Avi Primor: No, I don’t believe that this will happen to us, because the human being is ambitious, because the human being is like a beast concerning competition, because the human being is never really content. A domestic animal can become content, if it has enough food, if it doesn’t have to hunt, if it doesn’t have to take care, then it is completely content and happy and doesn’t need anything. The human being is never really happy or he is never enough happy or completely happy or happy on a continuing basis. He needs always new challenges and if he doesn’t need challenges anymore, he is getting old and then he is dying soon. So, the human being won’t become a domestic animal. This doesn’t fit to his nature.
Resources will never be spent faster than [...]
Avi Primor: Resources will never be spent faster than they are produced or if they are spent, there will be others, which will replace them. This is just the power of demand. I don’t believe there can be any power, which can manage all this and which says: “We are allowed to eat so-and-so much from that, but not from that! We are allowed to spend so-and-so much from that, but not from that!” A lot of dictators tried this. Maybe something like that can work in times of war, but it doesn’t exist in everyday life. The market, the demand, they will arrange this and the resources will be there forever. If there aren’t any left, we will just use other resources or we will create new resources. We can do this with the help of our funds, our research and our science. We have to take care for this.
We can argue about water, we can fight for [...]
Avi Primor: We can argue about water, we can fight for water, but this is not producing more water, we won’t have more water. We have to care for water, in the first instance we have to care for our water resources, to keep them clean and to treat them right. We have to care for not to waste water. There is an immense amount of water which is wasted and after all and first of all we have to produce water. There won’t stay enough water resources in the world, if we are not producing water. To produce water means particularly to desalt water. This is absolutely possible. Maybe, it isn’t always profitable. That’s because we don’t invest enough and because we don’t produce enough in particular. The more water will be desalted in larger scale, the cheaper it will get. Well, to care better for water resources, to waste less water, to use water right, especially in agriculture, to clean water, to clean waste water, that’s absolutely possibly, especially for agriculture, but after all I am repeating: First of all let’s desalt water!
Avi Primor:
I believe the world´s public needs to be [...]
Avi Primor: I believe the world´s public needs to be educated, it needs to receive information. The public needs to realise what is waiting ahead of us. And what is coming in the future is not necessarily tragic. All of these problems are solveable if dealt with in the right way. There were times when is was assumed that there will not be enough wood for the industry, for heatings. Then there were worries about whether the coal supply would be sufficient. Now we worry about the oil supply. Everything is replaceable. It just needs to be done properly, people need to get used to changes in their way of life, but that does not necessarily mean that life´s standard is going down. Maybe even in the contrary. One needs to realise and understand the development of the energy situation, of the world´s development and to adapt to it and maybe even benefit from it. A change in the climate, that only is caused by us, by how we are using energy and what energies we are using for our industry. We are the reason, and we can control it. Diseases... We have overcome almost all diseases until this day, or we are on the verge of overcoming them. There will be new diseases that need to be examined and studied. We will always have to face new challenges in all those fields...
Avi Primor:
We are not taking a risk at all. We just do [...]
Avi Primor: We are not taking a risk at all. We just do what we have to do, what we cannot prevent. It is as simple as that. We are not able to prevent it. We have never been able to prevent a technological or medical scientific development from happening. We are just not able to. It would have been much better if we tried to get a grip on the consequences of these new methods, if we tried to understand all of this a little better. If we had tried harder to keep the development limited, to keep it in the right direction. But to change it now... We are not able to. We have never been. We have never been able to change new developments and technologies. And in the end this has always been a good thing. The new technologies have almost always been a blessing. As soon as we knew how to rule them, how to use them, they have always been very useful for us. I just hope it will continue like this. We just need to realise the chances of the new technologies in a reasonable way.
As objective as we want it to be. As [...]
Avi Primor: As objective as we want it to be. As objective as the scientists want it to be. As objective as society wants it to be. Science does not have a will. Science is a tool in our hands. We decide what is going to happen with it and in which direction it will develop. And if we make the wrong decision we will pay the price.
Well, you just simply need to create a [...]
Avi Primor: Well, you just simply need to create a consciousness in the people. And this is possible. If you have a look at the Hollywood movies of the 1950s, you will notice that everyone was smoking everywhere. In the offices, at home, in the street, men and women. They drank alcohol and smoked. Some guy came home, and first thing was to get a whisky and to smoke a cigarette. Nowadays smoking is almost condemned. People are still smoking, but it is far from being socially acceptable. And on planes it is forbidden to smoke, in most public buildings, in restaurants, at least in America. And why? Because people realised that smoking will harm them. And this happened because some people really thought about all this and lead other people to realise this as well, they created a new opinion, a new public opinion, and thus they forced maybe not the tobacco producers but definitely the authorities to not really ban the smoking, but to limit it in public places. This is possible. Of course the authorities will not act on their own behalf concerning the climate, the global warming, the environment or the air pollution. It is about the money this would cost, and the authorities don´t want to have difficulties with the companies who will make less money when caring for the environment. That is why there needs to be pressure from below, because there will never be any pressure from the upper levels. The pressure needs to come from the population, they need to put pressure on the authorities, and the authorities will give in and will force the companies to follow the necessary steps.
Today’s energy resources won't be sufficient [...]
Avi Primor: Today’s energy resources won't be sufficient anyway. Even if Americans waste energy what they really do. That's a fact. The population of the US makes 5% of the world population but Americans consume 25% of the global oil. But even if America would act with more responsibility that wouldn't change a lot because the resources are not enough. A country like China which exported oil five years ago, nowadays imports oil and this country is rapidly growing. So there won't be enough oil anyway. We have to start searching and developing new energy resources because we need them. We have to do this. It is self-evident would everybody agree but then why don't we do it? Because the big oil companies are not interested in it because today they earn a lot of money because of the rising oil prices. And as we know the American government is involved in these oil companies. So they probably aren't interested. But that is very short sighted. On the long and medium term we have to develop new energy resources. There is solar energy, wind energy and nuclear power. There are many, many other possibilities. In my opinion it is reasonable to develop above all solar energy because we already have the knowledge. We only need to develop the technical devices so that it becomes more profitable. And that's in deed possible if we invest enough money. Yet today we don't invest enough.
Avi Primor:
I hope the future will be diverse. Variety, [...]
Avi Primor: I hope the future will be diverse. Variety, not unity. That people understand each other. That they think about others but that they preserve their diversity. So that we don't look the same, dress the same way, eat the same, think the same and read the same books. Everything, everything in a decent manner. If that's going to happen? I'm afraid that no. What a pity.
I believe it is more of an opportunity. I [...]
Avi Primor: I believe it is more of an opportunity. I believe that it is a good thing we have the mass media. Of course there are problems with the mass media as they don´t always report the right things, as they are not always proportionate. But all in all they do report a lot, and nowadays we do know a lot more, about ourselves, about everything that is important and that we need to be informed about, much more than in the times when there were no mass media. Yes, it´s true, sometimes the mass media report about things that are completely unimportant, and often, very often it is only entertainment. So what? Why should this be a bad thing? If this sort of entertainment is not always very tasteful, well, that´s how it is with the taste in life, isn´t it? Well, I would try to receive all of this very well, the stupidity of the mass media, the unimportant things, the entertainment that might be good or not, but all in all the mass media is a means of clarification, and this clarification is very important for us today. The more complicated the world gets the more we need this sort of information and clarification, even if it is not always ideal.
Avi Primor:
I believe the answer to this question is [...]
Avi Primor: I believe the answer to this question is obvious and I do not want to repeat what probably most of the people here will say. I would like to chose a certain perspective. I believe that the children all over the world should be taught history from the same or at least compareable history books. Even though we live in a modern world, the problem nowadays still is that children in different countries and different societies are taught history in different ways. We do learn the same facts, but with different interpretations. And this creates prejudices. I give you a very simple example. In Germany you learn a lot about history, and one chapter in the books is about emigration of nations. In France, you learn about this topic as well, but under the title invasion of the barbarians. The same history. But here it is emigration of nations, and there it is invasion of the barbarians. The facts are the same, the interpretation is completely different. There are thousands of examples for this. And those differences are responsible for us still having stereotypes, having prejudices. I believe that we all should stick to our ways of learning history, our respective national histories, but as well the history of other countries, to be able to see it propotionally...
Avi Primor:
I don't think this is a big problem. I think [...]
Avi Primor: I don't think this is a big problem. I think that the internet will seep through. The only question is if the governments in dictatorships will allow it. There a many countries in which dictators avoid it but they can't avoid it for ever because it will seep through anyway. Even in a country like Iran it is trickling through and the young people get more and more aware of it. In my opinion it is possible that there are no limits. It will seep through. And that has the same influence as every other enlightenment. Like the media or education. At some moment that will surmount the dictatorships. It will destroy them. That still takes some time but in fact I don't think that it is avoidable. Even in countries like Cuba, Syria or others it will not be avoidable. The population must only be interested enough and interest is growing. There are some less developed populations that aren't interested in the internet at all. But where it has started it will grow. So in my opinion it is a sign for hope.
Avi Primor:
I think the main problem is the uniformity. [...]
Avi Primor: I think the main problem is the uniformity. Yes, that's due to advertising. I'm always stunned when I see English advertising in European television. European television transmitters like Euronews or others always speak English when they advertise something. What does that mean? That's uniformity. If we get used to that we will really become standardized and boring. We would all have the same culture or the same low level of culture. We will be poorer. I think we can't really resist because advertising and the globalization are getting stronger. That is why we have to insist to preserve our local culture. That is possible. We just need the will to do that. You don't need to fight against advertising, the efficiency of the world economy or the global industry. They have some advantages. At the same time you have to care about the local culture and traditions. I think this is about the quality of our lives.
I think that people must be aware of it, [...]
Avi Primor: I think that people must be aware of it, that people must think about what nature means to them if they want to survive. If they also want better conditions for their lives, if they think about their children, if they think about the future then they have to think about nature. They see how nature is changing around them. They see how some animals disappear, they see the risks for water-supply, they see the air pollution and they see the global warming what is also an immediate danger for them. So they have to think about nature. They can't avoid it. If they always pay enough attention, well, that is hard to tell. Maybe not always. Because they might have other immediate problems to deal with and people don't think enough about the future. They rather think about their every day life. That's a mistake. They should think about the future and not only for the long term but about the close future, which they really have to think of, otherwise they will get into trouble. But I think that people start to think about that more and more, not at all enough, but more and more.
That isn't true. You can get as well a glass [...]
Avi Primor: That isn't true. You can get as well a glass of water as a glass of Coke. When people consume a lot of Coke it's because they want to. Yes you can always tell me that's the advertising. Yes, there is advertising. But who finances advertising? It's the consumers, that means those who want to consume a Coke. So is that a vicious circle? Yes it is a vicious circle. The people consume what they like and they finance advertising and advertising makes the people consume. That's true. But after all people do what they want. And water? Yes, people drink water. I have even the impression that more water is consumed. At the expense of Coca-Cola or other beverages. Many people don't want to have sweets either. That's also a kind of advertising against sweets and that also goes against Coca-Cola. The consumers find a balance and it isn't necessary to care about this. There are things which are much more important.
What we can learn from Africa is how not to [...]
Avi Primor: What we can learn from Africa is how not to make mistakes. I think since their independence the Africans made many mistakes. They didn't know what they want. Do they want to be Europeans or do they want to return to their African roots. What they especially didn't understand is how to avoid corruption. The best thing we can learn from Africans is how not to hinder unity. The division of Africa in artificial states was disastrous and it's true that the Europeans contributed to that. And why couldn't the Africans get united? I think that has something to do with personal and human ambition. But something fundamental is missing in Africa. There isn’t much we can learn from Africa if not the mistakes. Sadly it's like that. If there is one African virtue it is brotherhood and the way people take care of each other and I hope that it won't disappear. It's to ensure that nobody starves and that there is always a place where you can eat. Like in the family, the tribe and in other families and due to the relation between humans. That's an African virtue. When they become more modern and industrialized like Europeans I hope that they won't lose this virtue. Unfortunately I don't think that it'll happen this way.
I think the European Union has found the [...]
Avi Primor: I think the European Union has found the right solution. It is called subsidiary. Subsidiary means that every committee or body does what it can do best. There should be, for example, a federal government or a federal body in Europe that controls the decisions which concern all the countries. Let's take for example the monetary union which should be a concern of the European federal government. Problems concerning the security should be a concern of the global power of Europe. But then there are other problems which could be better solved by smaller bodies and on a smaller scale. They should still be decided by each country on its own. Education, police and security in the regions for example. Then there are other problems that should be solved on a local or regional level. They should be or become a concern for these smaller bodies. And that is also valid for culture and languages. I take Switzerland as an example. It is a federation where different languages and cultures are coexisting without a majority that threats the minority and without a minority that has to fear the majority because everything is based on consent. Consent is in fact the magic word. Yes, you have to respect the other one; you mustn't threat him and live together with him. It's the best to do together what can be done best together and leave the decisions which are better taken on a local level to the local bodies. We mustn't allow one global language to destroy all cultures and languages. Unfortunately we are about to do so.
Avi Primor:
Well, I would begin with before. The [...]
Avi Primor: Well, I would begin with before. The annihilation of populations just because they have an other religion, in an other region or are from an other race and the world does interest for them because they do not have any resources, no petroleum, no gold, no wealthy. Furthermore those who destroy these populations are parts of a global power. Today it is part of the Arabian world, of the Islamic world who fights against Christs and blacks in Sudan. The world does not move forward - it is really astonishing: This means that we have not learnt anyting from the past. We just interest for things that concern us directly. But even if something does not seem to concern us, it actually concerns us because the power that is able to cause such a massacre and to kill other people just because of an other race or religion - this power will not stop after this victory and its acchievements, it will want to go on. And sometime it will concern everyone of us directly too. So these story man does not talk about, but are such important for humanity will obtain all of us.
Avi Primor:
Avi Primor:
Avi Primor:
Avi Primor:
I don't think that someone is or has to be [...]
Avi Primor: I don't think that someone is or has to be responsible for that. The market has to decide. If the resources dangerously shrink the world has to find other resources and new inventions. Who does that? The market and the demand. I think that there will be limits for example for oil because the prices will be too high due to the shrinking oil resources and what will be the result? That the companies that produce energy or life of it will invest in new energies. There will be new research and that's good. We will always have new and other energy and it's the same with all other resources. There are no resources which can't be replaced. You can always replace them if you make an effort. And that's exactly what humans need. They always need a challenge. If there's a challenge humans try hard, there are results and the humans are satisfied. They need a challenge and a reason to try hard but they don't always need authorities which care for them. They can take care of themselves. Not the individual on his own but the society, the community and humanity. And I think humanity will succeed.
Hm - indigenous people - I do not know what [...]
Avi Primor: Hm - indigenous people - I do not know what they mean by "indigenous", but I think we need a globalisation. We cannot live without globalisation any more, for sure we are not able to develop ouselves without globalisation, but we have to hold up our identity, our culture and our traditions. These different cultures are fuel for us. They activate our intellectual interests, we need phantasies and therefore we need cultures, diverse cultures. We can do so, but it will not hold up itself. We have to strive to develop and hold up our cultures and languages, to enquire and create more of them, in spite of globalisation, just because of the globalisation and to make globalisation successful.
I wouldn't dare to answer such a question at [...]
Avi Primor: I wouldn't dare to answer such a question at all. The scientists and researchers can do it. I think those people who try to limit these inventions and developments talk about things they don't understand. I wouldn't dare it.
I don't believe that we can manufacture [...]
Avi Primor: I don't believe that we can manufacture them. We can neither manufacture truth nor facts. For a moment we can pretend that we can manufacture them but sooner or later the truth comes out and a fact is a fact. You can hush them up, disguise them, change them and color them. But nothing lasts. The more we know and the more informative the media and other means to find out the facts and the truth are, the faster we will be able to distinguish real and manufactured news. For a certain time the manufacturing of the so called facts or truth can be really disastrous. But only temporarily. In the end there is no manufacturing.
First: balance. The life has so many [...]
Avi Primor: First: balance. The life has so many components that you must never lose your balance. Nothing is totally bad, nothing totally good. The other one isn't always right but he isn't always wrong either. And we aren't always right which doesn't mean that we are wrong. What's good, bad, regrettable or pleasant is all relative. Balance, you always have to be balanced. Second: justice. Justice is an absolute value. We must never give it up. And third: ambition. You always need to be ambitious in life and you need a challenge to advance and to create something for you and others. And you must never forget what the French call "rien n'est jamais aquis" nothing is entirely completed. Nothing is entirely created.
The art of life, the art of humans and to [...]
Avi Primor: The art of life, the art of humans and to understand humans and the art to move humans. Every kind of art can do that. Paintings which force us to think, paintings which move us and touch our feelings. Books which describe us. Films. Theater which reflects life. Every kind of art is important. Every kind of art which makes us think and moves us. But also every kind of art which makes us happy. Yes, also entertainment. Fun in life is also very important. That's what art does. And that's perfect.
First of all children. Not only because [...]
Avi Primor: First of all children. Not only because children are generally sweet but because children are a mystery. I look at the children and I always think: What will happen to them? In what kind of world will they live? How will they influence and move the world? But what moves me right know and not in the future like children do, are those people who dare to go their own way and not the way of all the others. Those who think independently and on their own. Those who think differently. Who try to understand things that are self-evident to others. In my youth one of these persons was the singer Georges Brassens who was cheeky, yes. The bourgeois people didn't like him. Later he became a hero. And in my country, Israel, the people who understand or try to understand the other side. Even when they are treated like traitors. Who go a step further and say: Yes, but why is it this way? Why can't it be different? Don't we make mistakes? Don't we get it wrong? These people make themselves unpopular. They sometimes are despised by their entourage and their own people. But they insist. They move me. I'm not always sharing their opinion but they move me.
A myth of unity. The myth of one world. We [...]
Avi Primor: A myth of unity. The myth of one world. We have to understand that the world is one. There is no First, Second or Third World. Yes, we are different and I want us to keep the differences. But I don't want that we have a different quality of life or different life standards, because we influence each other. We can't say we live this way and that the way the other lives doesn't regard us. We have the human rights in Europe and the western world and in Africa one nation can extinct another because it doesn't regard us and it's on another continent. But this isn't about continents because the world is like a tessera. And it should stay that way. Tessera means that there are different pieces. With a different origin and different colors. But put together they become an image. They stay together because the pieces have to in order to keep together. I would propose the myth of the tessera world.
In some sectors yes but not in all. What [...]
Avi Primor: In some sectors yes but not in all. What concerns solar energy I would definitely say yes. The production of solar energy isn't expensive, it is very cheap. The devices are expensive. That's the problem. Today there are factories which can be run only with solar energy. Their machines could work with solar energy alone. But the devices are very, very expensive. That's why an entrepreneur who wants to use solar energy has to invest so much money that he spends more money for energy for the first ten years as he would spend for oil. But ten years later he gets the energy for free. The question is if an entrepreneur can afford it today to invest a lot of money before it comes back to him. Therefore new machines need to be developed which could be less expensive but that is also a question of what we do and how much we produce. If we produce a lot of solar energy and if we produce a lot of devices for the production of solar energy then it will become much cheaper and it won't be comparable to oil. It'll be much cheaper but we have to invest in it.
I am not sure, if this question is posed [...]
Avi Primor: I am not sure, if this question is posed correctly that we believe more in nationality than in humanity. I don’t know if that’s correct. We need nationality. Maybe we still need nationality more than humanity, because we need a comprehensible frame. First of all we need a frame. A human being cannot live on his own, a human being needs a frame, he needs the help of the other, he needs cooperation with the other, he needs a common ground on which to base with the other, a common interest with the other, because that’s the only way to follow and to support his own interests. The frame has to be visible and comprehensible. Once there has been a frame of family, a frame of a tribe, then a frame of nation, but the meaning of nation changed a lot. The nations we know today, they aren’t as and they don’t look as they did two hundred years ago. Today they have a different frame, different limits, different dimensions, they are changing. They don’t stay the same and Germany is a good example for this change. Not a long time ago, there was an independent Bavarian nation, an independent Bavarian kingdom, an independent Prussian nation with an independent Prussian kingdom and so on. All these nations became one German nation and there will be a European nation. This will need time, we aren’t that far, but the direction is there and who knows how it will go on? But the frame can be enlarged as fast the human being is able to notice, to understand and to feel the larger frame. Well, humanity and nationality are not really contradictory, sometimes they are but they don’t have to be.
Well, our food isn’t always of bad quality, [...]
Avi Primor: Well, our food isn’t always of bad quality, that’s not true. We have as well quite good quality, but it’s true, that we have bad quality very often and that’s because of the production of food in an industrial kind of way, especially in America. In America, already in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, there have been food, vegetable, fruit, which looked so beautiful, because they were really industrial, but they were absolutely tasteless. This has become better a little bit. Why? Because there was a demand. The people didn’t want to make the best out of cheap fruit anymore. They didn’t want to make the best out of good looking fruit anymore. They wanted as well some taste and because there has been a demand, there has been a production as well. Well, the market cares for a balance again and again. The bad quality is a question of peoples’ wish. If people don’t care they will get a bad quality. If people insist on better quality they will get it, because demand will care for that it will be worth to produce better quality.
It is the inside of human, the conscience of man.
Avi Primor: It is the inside of human, the conscience of man.
If we care for to keep the cultures. If we [...]
Avi Primor: If we care for to keep the cultures. If we care for, that the power, the superiority, the federal power, the national power, the global power, whatever power, won’t destroy cultures, but will understand to leave a lots of autonomies of different kinds to the local popularisation like education, language, culture. If we care for, that not one language is destroying the other languages. Today there exits a danger, especially when we go on like that, we will have shortly English as the only language in the world. English will be the only language which will keep remained to us. That means only one language, one culture, one colour. Everything will be uniform and made in the same kind of manufacturing. Look at the cities in America! The all look the same, because there is an uniform culture in America. In Europe there is a multifarious culture. We have to care for that is stays like that and then the cities will keep their nature and won’t become uniform. Yes, that’s a question of willing. That’s a question of local power. That’s the question of subsidiarity, where everybody keeps that what he is doing most efficient. If we do that in that kind of way, we will keep the cultures and if we don’t do that, we will have a global culture, a uniform language. Everything will be uniform. Everybody will wear exactly the same clothes; will live in the same houses. The world will become a boring place.
I don’t see the meaning of this question, [...]
Avi Primor: I don’t see the meaning of this question, not at all. Why is it so important to this Mister Thomas Crocks to be African? Does he have to be African? He can be from Johannesburg, he can be South African, and he can name himself African, that’s whose business? Shall he name himself African, shall he not name himself African! Shall the American name himself American or shall he name himself, I don’t know what, from New York or from Washington! I don’t think the meaning is so important and I don’t understand the whole thing. If the American who has black hair is regarding himself as an American or not it’s his own business, he is deciding and most of the time they are doing it like that. If Crocks feels as an African, he should name himself African. That’s alright. Who detains him?
I think a young adult should read two [...]
Avi Primor: I think a young adult should read two things. He should read and learn history and literature. He is to read literature because actually the good literature canvasses the world and describes everything. He is to read history to recognise that we humans do not change at all. There are technology and science that change, as well as our lifestyle and everything around us, but we ourselves do not change. If we read history today and the old literature, we will see that humans still act and behave as hundred of years ago, five hundreds of years ago, even five thousands of years. The things that are able to affect and move humans will stay the same ones, this will never change. It is important that we understand this because we always think that technology is able to change us humans, but technology does not do so. Even if something is able to change us, it will not be the technology.
Avi Primor:
A secret - so far cities grow and become [...]
Avi Primor: A secret - so far cities grow and become larger. It seems to be that this will continue. But I am not really aware of this because I assume that humans will have better life-qualifications over the years. The richer they are, the more developed they become, the more the industry, technology and especially the high tech precede, humans will want to have more comfort and higher life qualities and by and by they will recognise that high life quality does not neccessarily mean the big cities, but small cities too. Therefore we still need a improving transport sector so that people not living in the cities or even more far away still have the chance to profit from the city. This is just a technical question because we will develop as we always want to improve our life-quality and this does not absolutely mean that we all have to live in metropoles or "carrer cities".
I say that’s marvellous: They should not [...]
Avi Primor: I say that’s marvellous: They should not only want it, but also should have it! The richer all the people in the world get, the better they live. So, the world community will live better. It cannot be right that there some having a high level of life and the others have a lower level of life. We all should have a high level. So, they are saying: But the demography! The demography! The Chinese will attack us, overflow us! That’s not right. When the Chinese will get better, when the Chinese will get richer, when the Chinese will live in a modern way like the Europeans like the Americans, their demography will be exactly as balanced out as happened in Europe and in America. So, of course, we have to care for to take the environment into account because of the many cars in China. We have to care for that the resources will get saved. But that each Chinese as each European and each American will have a car is a luck itself, a good thing, we should look forward to.
