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 Roland Berger
In my opinion you can only counteract [...]
Roland Berger: In my opinion you can only counteract hatred, anger and violence on the basis of an equal dialogue. You have to strengthen every person and every group in society and every people so that they can have equal rights. By tolerance you have to accept that also a group, a population, that people who have less rights and power to push through their claims, that their equality is being accepted. Then the dialogue will lead to the point where opposed interests or inferiority to others will be solved by useful energies like peaceful agreements, peaceful talks and even common acting in favor of others who can then be freed from violence, hatred and anger.
Well I think we obviously don't only have [...]
Roland Berger: Well I think we obviously don't only have the right, but also the duty to allow more respect and more chances to human beings than to other life forms, such as animals and plants. Human beings have the abilitiy to live moral values, to accept self-responsibility, to destroy others or to help others to unfold, that is to say human beings have created cultures, they have destroyed cultures, thus human beings definitely need this priority to other life forms. And there are always people who will, of course, say that we need respect for nature, which means we need respect for other life forms such as animals and plants, which we should have, because we, because human beings live on natural resources. We must thus respect natural resources and conserve them and make sure that natural resources are dealt with carefully, but to equal natural resources and human beings to me seems a rather blasphemous way to look at the world.
I think the simplest answer is that it is [...]
Roland Berger: I think the simplest answer is that it is highly probable that capitalism will succeed capitalism. But the question is: Which form of capitalism? Churchill made this wonderful remark about democracy being the worst form of government that he knows but knowing no better one, he would always promote democracy. We experienced that until 1990, countries which had been excluded from the capitalist system of the free market economy, all the countries that were under communist rule and because of this, have suffered not only from considerable losses as far as prosperity is concerned, but also from considerable losses as far as the quality of life is concerned, and the personal and political liberty. Capitalism, a free market economy, brought in its wake all this, also political and personal liberty. On the one hand, the free market economy also leads to an unequal distribution of wealth and income, and we developed a system here in Germany, after 1945, after World War II, a social model of the so-called social market economy. This model combines, also functioning in practice, the dynamics of free competition and free markets with the social model of mutual assistance. This means people who are in need without their own fault, who live on the shady side of our material system without their own fault, will be enabled by the state, via measures of redistribution, via taxes, via systems of social security, to keep up their standard of life.
In the beginning, I think, to be fair, we [...]
Roland Berger: In the beginning, I think, to be fair, we have to say: neither. But in the long run global economic development will lead to a state of greater well-being for the people and a state in which people are provided with more liberties and this will eventually, in the long run, lead to a point where freedom predominates. That's why I think that globalization in the long term promotes democracy. We did experience this, for instance, in 1990 with the fall of communism, that the free market powers have globally helped the former communist countries to attain a lot of prosperity on the one hand, and on the other hand that they did help more and more forms of democracy to make a breakthrough. This may not yet be true for countries like China, but China is opening up, too and in China, too, to give just one example, we will experience more and more forms of democracy and fewer forms of dictatorship.
I think gang violence is in the first place [...]
Roland Berger: I think gang violence is in the first place a consequence of an absence of values that these young people share. When gang violence is a fact, as we experience it today, it is relatively hard to defeat, because we have to start from scratch, we have to start with the education at home, the education in the kindergardens, in the preschools, in the schools, in higher education. First of all we have to give people access to this education and we have to make people aware, by giving them models and by showing them exemplary behavior of our leading elites, which chances education, work, engagement and self-responsibility open up, contrary to the violent enforcement of short-lived, mainly illegal requests, as it is the case with gang violence where prestige can already be reason enough to become aggressive. Education and the chances connected to education actually are the only means to make it possible for young people to escape from gang violence and gang warfare. For this purpose, other people have to be willing to raise awareness among young people, to talk to them, to integrate them into new communities, to promote dialogue and to draw their interests from violence to a peaceful competition. Every human being should have equal chances in this world, and these chances must be communicated to young people.
I think that in every nation human beings [...]
Roland Berger: I think that in every nation human beings should be respected independently from their religion, race, color or social background. They should have the same possibilities to develop, to become wealthy, to contribute to the progress and development of the society and to the culture of society. Finally all human beings have the same possibilities to develop and to lead their lives. We all grew up in a certain country and in certain circumstances and we feel linked to that. Our home country and our nation are part of this and many people experienced or still experience that they are not respected the way they deserve it or the way they think they'd deserve it by the nation or even the family that they belong to. That won't hinder them to love their family, nation or home country. I think it is an important characteristic of humans to love and to be part of a community even though they suffer sometimes. I think that's also an important progress of humanity that we especially in democracies .....
The answer to this question is relatively [...]
Roland Berger: The answer to this question is relatively simple. The billions America and also other countries spend on their military budgets could be certainly used in a much better way, like prevention of hunger, illnesses in the world, creating and providing means for prevention of illnesses, such as cancer, heart and blood circulation illnesses, AIDS, Parkinson. Also, the means must be introduced to help people of developing countries to become prosperous and to realize themselves. That means, in other words, to promote peaceful existence in this world and to give chances for the people to reach the wealth, freedom and human rights status of the Western countries. I think America has no right to use its material superiority for destroying other countries and making them their underdogs, to use its economic advantages militarily for itself. On the contrary, America should be responsible for helping the underprivileged countries of the Third World to free themselves from poverty, illnesses and hunger.
Honnestly saying, historically, the conflict [...]
Roland Berger: Honnestly saying, historically, the conflict in the Middle East is a result of a political impossible decission of the British Empire – they just gave the land, which belonged to the Palestinians, to the jewish people, so they could built the State of Israel there. The palestinians of course resisted – together with the Arabs, and they could not accept the Israelis. Now we can’t historically let one conflict cause a next one, over and over again. I think the historical reality is this: the state of Palestine exists and the state of Israel has its right for its further existence too. The problem is that much too many parties are involved into it and are interested in maintaining the conflict. These are the arabs who in the end don’t support the palestinians to help them out materially and these are the israelis who with the help of the pre-emptive war [inaudible]. I think, there will only be peace in the Middle East, if the neighbour-countries recognise the state of Israel and vice versa, when the palestinian territories are freed from israeli settlements and the israelis together with the west help the Palestinians to improve their econnomic situation and to be able to provide its citizens prosperity, justice, education and development possibilities. This is what is missing today.
I think we should just banish violence from [...]
Roland Berger: I think we should just banish violence from this planet. The states that use violence should be outlawed by other states. We have had several attempts to establish international organisations, such as the UN. Unluckily, these institutions turned out to be not so powerful, especially in contrast to the bigger states, to prevent violence. But still, they have a healing influence on the states using war as an instrument of power, stopping them from doing it. There is a very good historic example: the European Union. The EU is nothing but a peaceful unification of meanwhile 25 European states which traditionally used to lead wars against each other. Now that they are united and the according institutions are created, they can peacefully come to agreements in case of different interests. Thanks to this unification we could, at least for the last 60 years, keep peace in Europe. I think the European Union could be a good example for other regions of the world to enable peaceful coexistence of the people and to prevent states from using violence, from starting wars.
Well, the German constitution says, the [...]
Roland Berger: Well, the German constitution says, the dignity of men is untouchable and I think it’s quite important that, on the one hand, the politicians show an example of complying with this basic law and to carry out their duties in accordance to it, on the other hand, every person who bears responsibility in this society should act following the law. And every citizen should see a fellow man in another citizen whose dignity is untouchable. What are human rights? What is human dignity? It means, to give freedom, to be tolerant, to give every person chances for his development, to respect each other, to let the other achieve something, that is, to give chance to learn, to educate himself, to make his own life, for instance, by working. And the societies, where it’s not the case, must be changed by going out on the streets to try to enforce these rights. The mass media have a particular responsibility in this question. This responsibility must be realised. Why do we let so many people live without dignity? The answer may be that so many people are just satisfied with their lives, with having their dignity themselves. But that’s an approach that is characterised by selfishness and it shouldn’t be tolerated.
Well, the simple answer would be that where [...]
Roland Berger: Well, the simple answer would be that where food is produced in abundance, it isn't consumed in abundance and the other way round where food is needed, it isn't produced in abundance. So we have to surmount a logistic problem but in reality it isn't that easy. We have to assure that on the one hand poor countries, countries in general and people who haven't enough food can get food wherever it is possible, to have the possibility to buy it or to get it for free and on the other hand to enable them to grow the food they need themselves. That has already worked. India which had problems with famine has become a country that exports cereals. That means that we the developed industrial countries have to open our markets to agrarian countries, to emerging and developing countries which do very well in farming. One of the big difficulties and sins is the fact that the rich industrial countries especially in Europe and in the USA try to protect their markets with custom duties and subventions and that these countries don't give the developing and emerging countries the possibility to sell their excellent and self-produced food. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many differences in the worldwiede distribution of food.
Ideally a global government would be the [...]
Roland Berger: Ideally a global government would be the right institution to find solutions for worldwide problems, i.e. worldwide deseases spreading all over the world, such as AIDS and terrorism which threaten the whole world, or to prevent wars and to balance the interests worldwide. On the other hand, people need their home, they need self-determination, their circumstances in their own culture group, and so in this respect we won’t have a global government so easily. What would be reasonable to do is to create regional unions, like the European Union, which I like to take as an example, of which the members arrange things within their culture area and have committed themselves to a kind of coexistence. Who solve these very cross-border problems through collective voting. Analogue unions could be possible all around the world, in the regions of Asia, of America or South America, and in fact not only in economic sense, but also in all spheres of life, cultural, military, defence, scientific. And I think this kind of union is, again, nothing but a globalisation of governmental power. By means of a dialog or a multiple dialog, a “multilog” so to say, this kind of a union would try to acquire a function of a supposed worldwide government.
Yes, our present system, a market economy [...]
Roland Berger: Yes, our present system, a market economy system and a system of competition, tempts us to earn as much money as possible. And it’s absolutely possible that it’s not always being done in a legal way, i.e. it may be done illegally, through corruption. And in this case, I think, it’s important that the governments perceive their responsibility. That is, they should enact and enforce laws which prevent corruption. But that’s only one aspect. The governments, the politicians and also the citizens in general must bring out such a value system that excludes corruption that excludes profit through corruption and turns corruption into socially unacceptable way of earning money. Last but not least, it's also necessary that public service workers like teachers, policemen are properly paid for their social service and that they don’t depend on getting money from other sources and therefore are not tempted to corruption. So, to summarize, we need a value system, we need a general statutory framework which banish corruption. And then, with growing development status, growing prosperity and its fair distribution, we won’t need to fight against corruption.
I think the question has sense if it depends [...]
Roland Berger: I think the question has sense if it depends on the perspective of seeing reality. It also depends on the unfair distribution of power in the world. Still I think the most important is to banish violence in general. That means the powerful shouldn’t use force to reach their purposes, even if they might be idealistic. For all this violence that might be embellished with idealistic ideas has personal interests behind it. On the other hand, the world community shouldn’t tolerate that certain organized groups jeopardize lives of peaceful citizens through terrorist action, or even take their lives. That means that all societies, all people, whether rich or poor, powerful or weak, should defend themselves from the violence of some groups, no matter if their aims are idealistic or personal, who reach their aims through terror and murder.
I think the expansion of wars on the civil [...]
Roland Berger: I think the expansion of wars on the civil population is a result of the total war, which first took place during the First World War in the way it takes place now, more and more. Today, the civil population cannot avoid being affected by the warlike conflicts. This works as a part of a determent of the enemy, the fact that it involves not only the soldiers, but also civil people. I think it's not being accepted voluntarily, these are the measures of the war camps, who just use them breaking the international law, and then the opponents use it back as a reaction. It is a fatal development of our world, to make civil people victims of wars, and I think the only way out is to banish the concept of the total war from the earth. The main question we are confronted with is: how to prevent wars? How do we find ways to solve conflicts, interests opposites in a peaceful way? There are examples for it, like the European Union, like the efforts of the UN to prevent such warlike conflicts. We shouldn't forget that in many countries, for the religious fanaticism or other actions, led by personal interests..[interrupted]
Well, actually we shouldn't be forced to [...]
Roland Berger: Well, actually we shouldn't be forced to give up our freedoms in order we have secure lives. Unfortunately this world is not perfect and we are, as individuals or as a society, threatened by aggression from outside, for instance through terrorism and powers that want to force other ways of living on us. Also through economic dependence and other things. We must protect our freedom by giving up a piece of it and rely on its protection by institutions, which we chose ourselves, out government, which possesses the power monopoly, and the police which is being organised by the government. So to be more concrete, to expose us to controls in the airports or public places and therewith to give up some of our freedoms. We also must give up some freedoms, if it leads to the fact that some other people’s freedoms are being limited. I think to live together means some inner balance between using some individual freedoms and the possibility to give freedom to the others. In other words, we need a balanced mix of freedom and order.
That is very much connected with the fact [...]
Roland Berger: That is very much connected with the fact that many people who live in non-democratic countries are completely satisfied with their way of life. Many people who live in non-democratic systems in the Western, especially the American, meaning of the word, don’t know any other way of living. They have also culturally identified themselves with their own way of life and their way to be governed. We are risking that we export our form of democracy from the West, particularly from the United States, which wouldn’t particularly be the kind of democracy the Muslim or Arabic countries, or China would want to have. I think, we have to be careful when we try to make people “happy” by bringing them our form of democracy, while they live under non-democratic governments, but still in a very stable and independent culture. I think it is yet worthwhile to export democracy, freedom, human rights and everything connected to it around the world. But we have to let every nation und every cultural unit in this world choose the kind of democracy that corresponds to their culture and possibly their specific state of development. Not everyone had the chance to develop democracy since the 12th century, like some European countries, some are just starting doing it.
I think, there must be such an economic [...]
Roland Berger: I think, there must be such an economic system that firstly really respects people, that is, a system which enables people to develop their skills and abilities, to use them in full and to emphasize them. And this, of course, requires that this system guarantees possibly fulltime jobs and prevents unemployment. That's the first point, secondly, this economic system must show respect for the using of the resources, that means, it must avoid any kind of wasting of natural or human resources, it must if possible use the resources, which can be used several times, which are regenerative. In other words, there must be such an economic system which is characterized by its respect for the people on the one hand and by its respect for the natural resources on the other hand, which uses people in the possible way, which gives them chances to develop their skills and which uses the resources economically, and also in the form that these resources can regenerate themselves.
I think, that every corporation is not only [...]
Roland Berger: I think, that every corporation is not only an institution, which provides people with goods and services and which at the same time brings profit to its shareholders, but also, to my opinion, a social matter and so has social responsibility. Most of the corporations I know, actually almost all of them, take seriously their social responsibility. They take it seriously and perceive it by, firstly, trying to be successful, i.e. to be innovative, in order to bring forward the society, to be successful itself and to earn money, in order to invest it into the future. And the future of the corporation, if it’s growing, certainly means the possibility of creating more jobs for everyone. That was the first thing, the second thing is that their responsibility is seen through their responsibility for the quality of their products, for working conditions of their employees. Also their responsibility to provide vocational training at work so that it may be possible for an employee to find some further work outside the company later. And last but not least, their responsibility may be seen in their getting involved with the cultural aspects, social aspect, educational aspects of their company, giving money for these purposes, in the field of international understanding and to provide money also for that purpose. That is, the corporations take their social responsibility in an increasing degree very very seriously and this fact among the European companies in a market-economy system has its origins in a long tradition of centuries.
Well, I know that this issue is on agenda in [...]
Roland Berger: Well, I know that this issue is on agenda in the world, but, firstly, I should say that there is no clear correlation between the number of women, who bear responsibility, and the harmony that rules in a society. Harmony can also exist in men-ruled societies, which is mostly the case nowadays. However I should say, it’s absolutely unfair und culturally backward if we don’t give women the same chances as men. Due to their specific emotional and human experience and their biological constitution women certainly posess particular abilities which could contribute much into the harmony among people. That’s why, I believe, women should have more influence on the world affairs. We should do everything to give women the same education chances in order it’s possble for them to be involved into organisation of the world. Moreover, men and women should fairly share their resposibility for the society and therewith their children, their families. This way women will also acquire the chances belonging to them and that would contribute to creating harmonious world.
I think we don’t really need to quote [...]
Roland Berger: I think we don’t really need to quote Darwin. If we just look at the Egyptian culture as a real cultural achievement of the African continent, we can see what the Africans are able, or were able to accomplish. Later though it turned out that the Africans became victims of some disastrous developments in the world history. It includes the fact that the Africans largely became victims of the colonisation, of the colonial exploitation and also that they became victims of slave trade, particularly in favour of the North and South America. And that caused a great loss of human resources. Secondly - unluckily it must be mentioned too - the fact that many African countries are not really democracies, they are ruled by dictatorships that don’t enable the Africans to freely develop themselves, to acquire their own skills in freedom, to successfully realize them. So, we need more democratic systems in Africa. But to achieve these democratic systems we also need help from richer countries. With the help of rich corporations which could reinforce their investments in Africa we could supply the Africans with new jobs, give them chances for their own existence. That would also make it possible for the whole continent to become richer, wealthier and to invest more into their own development. It must also be mentioned that unfortunately due to the colonial past and the long-time dependence of Africa and the Africans the work ethos there is not so distinct as…[interrupted]
First of all I don't think that all leaders [...]
Roland Berger: First of all I don't think that all leaders want disagreement on the international level and that they only see their own interest even though this occurs very often. We can find many examples in history, and here I want once again refer to the European Union, where leaders of different countries came to an agreement. Once the United Nations Organization was founded because the leaders wanted to find agreements which they did for a certain period of time and they now try again and again to come to an agreement. As I already said, Europe is a union where leaders of 25 nations relinquished their sovereignty to make a common action and a peaceful life together possible and in the last 60 years this has been a success. On the other hand I think that dropping knowledge and the dialogue we have is a good way for people to communicate together globally and that people can find ways to do something against leaders who are egoistic and who cause disagreement. And I think it is important that the people try to do something involving the media and specially the internet which is open for everybody and that they put pressure on the leaders to make them understand that they lose or lost the support of the people and to make the leaders act in favor of all people, peace, freedom and the human rights which exist in this world. I don't believe that on the long term disagreement is in the interest of governments and I therefore believe that joining together virtually or physically of decent people who also live their decency would be a powerful way to show the leaders their limits.
I think that's part of human freedom. Of [...]
Roland Berger: I think that's part of human freedom. Of course we should have the possibility to live where we want. But some requirements are necessary. Requirements that have something to do with language, economy and the possibility to move where you want or with an education that allows you to feel well in another culture. But I think it is a basic freedom for humans to move on our planet and to live where they want without restrictions. But on the other hand some restrictions unfortunately have appeared due to terrorism and conflicts in this world for example. Peoples try to protect themselves against terrorism which comes to their country and that is something that restricts our right to move. Other peoples live in wars or other conflicts and have therefore restricted the right to move freely and to live where you want. But I think we have to fight against these restrictions to make the world live as one through peace.
First of all I have to say that the [...]
Roland Berger: First of all I have to say that the societies in many developed countries like Germany for example don't accept that few rich people hoard wealth while many become poor because of the social market economy. On the contrary. The social market society wants as many people as possible to participate fairly in the wealth that the society has produced. But on the other hand you have to acknowledge that the evolution of mankind is helped by innovators, scientists and entrepreneurs, who help many people to find a job, earn a living and become wealthier. And this is why they are given the possibility - accepted by society - to hoard more money than the average citizen. The difference of wealth disappears bit by bit because of bequeathing and family problems. The wealth of certain persons disperses from generation to generation and is spread on society. And you mustn't forget the different taxes like estate duties, a progressive tax, income tax and wealth tax that redistribute the fortune of the rich to the poor. And last but not least our welfare state makes sure that the poor people get much from the rich people so that they don't have to live under the poverty line.
That's a very hypothetical question because [...]
Roland Berger: That's a very hypothetical question because the world is how it is. That means that slavery did exist and that Africans were mainly abducted to North and South America. There are two possible answers. Africa definitely suffered from the loss of people. That means Africa would be richer if it wouldn't have lost so many people or as we would say today if Africa wouldn't have suffered from the brain drain. On the other hand I have to say that the world would possibly be much poorer if there hadn't been a forced migration due to slavery. Today we can see how rich the north, middle and south American culture and art are because of the presence of American and Brazilian Africans. So I think that the world has won something due to the possibility for Africans to integrate in totally different cultures even though this immigration wasn't voluntary but forced under circumstances which are absolutely unacceptable today. Slavery is inhuman. But as I said the results of slavery aren't only negative because the contribution of the Africans to the culture and the political and economic development of the countries where slaves have been freed and where they could develop freely was positive. And after these countries have become very powerful the Africans have an influence on the whole world especially with their artistic mode of expression.
Well, first of all I think that we should [...]
Roland Berger: Well, first of all I think that we should all respect the law and try to avoid breaking them whenever we can but on the other hand there are laws of a different importance. It is definitely allowed to lie if you can save a life. That means that life is protected by the law while other things in life might be less important. But I think that the most important thing is that we all respect the law and that we don't try to break laws by making false excuses. If you take the responsibility to break the law you have to weigh up carefully if you really act in favor of something which is superior. I do agree that you can and have to act against governments and certain regimes in certain social situations if you can avoid wars or genocide. I am also sure that you have to disobey orders from the government if you can save lives and if the order contravenes human rights.
I think that the responsibility of the state [...]
Roland Berger: I think that the responsibility of the state and the representatives of the state has to separate politics for human rights and the well-being of society from religion and other traditional values. From my point of view it is very important to have society systems which separate state and church. That will be the reason that human rights in spite of religious intolerance will find its place in society and that religion can't harm human rights and their application. That means that I refuse any kind of religious state which doesn't give other religions, other traditions or values the possibility to exist. I want a society where the human rights are the main values but where also other values or religions can exist. Tolerance is the most important value of humanity and we should have state and society systems where you can live tolerance and where tolerance has its place.
I agree with Churchill who said that [...]
Roland Berger: I agree with Churchill who said that democracy is a form of government that has a lot of mistakes, but that he doesn't know any better. I am a democrat at heart and I think that democracy is the best form of government that we can have. But I have to say that there are different forms of democracy. There is direct democracy, as it is exercised in Switzerland, where the people can vote directly on certain projects that concern them, there is plebiscitary democracy, in Germany we have a representative democracy, a democracy that functions via political parties, where a representative of the party is elected and the parties then determine in the parliaments how to govern a nation, if the decisions will be to the advantage of disadvantage of the people, of the citizens. The problem that can indeed be connected with democracy is: Which people should represent the country? I think the german way of the democracy of political parties is surely not the best, because a career within in a party is the precondition to attain a politically decisive office or to enter parliament and be able to introduce laws. That is to say, in my opinion there are other forms of democracy that function better. I also think that the german proportional representation, that always leads to small majorities and does not really give much power to the government is not the best form of representation. We definitely need a modified form of democracy with elements of a majority representation, as it has been realized in Great Britain or also partly in France. I don't think we really need a presidential democracy as in the United States of America. Moreover, subsidiarity also belongs to democracy as we have realized it in Europe. In Germany we have a federal system, which offers many advantages, if we really apply federalism in form of the competition between the best procedures of the government, the development of the individual states. Democracy thus is a form that can, in itself, be improved a lot.
I believe, it’s a very important question, [...]
Roland Berger: I believe, it’s a very important question, but I think that among all possible societies of the world, those forms of government prevail, which refer to themselves as non-theocracies, i.e. which primarily follow not the religious laws, but the laws of human rights, the laws of respect for the people by means of democracy. And such countries have certainly to protect themselves against violence coming from single religious groups. That is, it’s not acceptable that countries which aim is to protect human freedoms, human rights in general, to provide possibilities for their personal development, are being threatened and destroyed by some religions with a simple reference to the Holy War. The Holy War in particular, the way Moslems try to apply this instrument, turns against all the human rights, mainly against tolerance, freedom of expression, freedom of criticism. And these are the rights that are much too important to be left for the threat of the single groups. On the other hand, I think there is no such a thing as a just war, and we should banish it from the earth, no matter what adjective is used in front of it. There must be other ways to bring people together, to create peace on earth and [interrupted] the interests of individuals [interrupted]
I think that power will never give up its [...]
Roland Berger: I think that power will never give up its power. It’s just a human drive, a human behaviour. That’s why it’s important that the world organises itself, that power balance exists, that nations come together to create a power balance. And then, after having done it, to start a dialog in order to prevent imposition of particular lifestyles or even warlike conflicts. Another thing is that we should all be interested that the change that characterized the world, that brought progress to the world, gave it freedom, promoted human rights, continues. But this change can continue only on condition that it doesn’t produce too many losers of this change. But the change cannot take place without creating losers, because certain people just can’t comprehend, use or take active part in this change. That’s why we need social systems, like in Germany or Europe, which help the losers of the change not to be in need and at the same time to integrate themselves into a new world, for instance through life-long learning, through reintegration. That means people should help other people by giving them up parts of what they’ve obtained during the change.
First of all it's the terrorists who profit [...]
Roland Berger: First of all it's the terrorists who profit from terrorism, that means those who pull the strings around here and who want to satisfy their power, their influence and who want to have their revenge by threatening other people and societies , by killing people and by making other peoples existence impossible. Other persons who profit from terrorism are the arms dealers who sell life threatening arms like biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction. To stop this arms trade should be the aim of the mighty democracies in our world. On the other hand we also have to do something against the origins of terrorism namely poverty, underprivileged people, humiliation of persons and peoples who don't see any other possibility to defend themselves and their interests but to draw attention to their problems by making terrorist attacks. The problem is that by drawing attention to their problems by means of terrorism they also disavow and make illegal their cause and they lose the support of the people.
I think that in free countries and in free [...]
Roland Berger: I think that in free countries and in free elected democracies it is always the governments which set the general conditions. And the economy has to orientate itself to these conditions. In this respect the distribution of power is totally clear. It's the society that determines the values and the economy follows these values and with respect to the general conditions the economy fulfils its task to supply the citizens with services and goods. By doing this the economy can perfectly make a profit and created new jobs. But only in not functioning democracies can it happen that the economy is sometimes more powerful than the governments themselves. Of course it is also our duty to ensure by political means that general conditions exist so that the economy can use and work out its capacities in favor of the citizens because in the end our material well-being heavily depends on the fact if we can find a job, if we can make a life for ourselves and if we are well supplied. It is absolutely clear that the primacy of politics is in force.
There is a nice answer, a nice definition by [...]
Roland Berger: There is a nice answer, a nice definition by André Gide, who said that courage is a lack of fantasy and intelligence, that is to say we cannot imagine where courage can take us and we are not intelligent enough to use our courage properly. But this was meant as a joke and, as I said, was uttered in a time when it was hardly dangerous to show courage. I think nowadays courage simply means standing up for one's own elaborate point of view, not just egoistically but also in the interest of society, in the interest of someone else, in the interest of one's friends, of one's community, also against the mainstream and in a legal and socially accepted frame and value system. So courage means not to use force or to defend one's interest by using force, but courage is a morally rooted behavior that we show in order to implement human rights, liberties, our own, elaborate points of view and interests against the mainstream. But courage also means helping other people even if this puts us into danger and also defending e.g. human rights and liberties that we have achieved so painfully over the years, even if this puts us into danger. So courage also has a political dimension, a political element.
On thing is for sure, a nuclear bomb is not [...]
Roland Berger: On thing is for sure, a nuclear bomb is not more dangerous whether it is in Iranian, in Israeli, in American, in Indian, Pakistani or in French hands. It always depends on the purpose that the respective government aims at. After all, Americans first made use of a nuclear bomb against the people in Japan and thus produced hundreds of thousands of dead and invalid and have thus taken on a huge historical burden. On the other hand, we have to say that nuclear bombs used as deterrents during World War II did indeed help the free world to survive, to defend the free world against communism, against the dictatorship of communism. In this respect nuclear waepons can - if they are used properly - in fact be a legitimate means of self-defense. However, it has to be avoided in any case that they come into operation. And we have to say that the current Iranian regime has made obvious remarks that they want to refuse the right to exist to such states as Israel and we cannot rule out that this regime is also willing to make use of the nuclear bomb in order to destroy, e.g. a country like Israel.
Well, first of all I believe public [...]
Roland Berger: Well, first of all I believe public international law has kept order in this world and has secured, to begin with, the legal positions of many populations. Secondly I would like to say that it has been possible again and again to implement public international law and there are a series of international institutions, the United Nations in the first place, but also e.g. the institutions of the European Union, that help public international law to make a break through. I don't look at the world from such a pessimistic point of view that I think public international law cannot be implemented, after all public international law includes the right to defend oneself against aggressions and people have made use of this right again and again. The question is now: How can we prevent the transgression of public international law? This can be done only by global political dialogue or by regional unions, within which we feel obligated to stick to public international law. Again, the European Union is a good example in this respect.
Well, as someone who was born during World [...]
Roland Berger: Well, as someone who was born during World War II, I have personally experienced the connection between politics and violence. On the other hand I have to say that things are always connected. Violence as a means of politics, to be precise violence between peoples and violence against people should be banned, should be eliminated and we all have the duty to promote peace in this world and not to let violence have a break through. This is one thing, another thing is, of course, that the state, that politics, politicians also have the duty to protect human rights in their country, to protect the people in their country and in order to do so they must, of course, be able to use force against those, who transgress the law, who transgress the rules of the game. But the monopoly of violence must exclusively lie in the hands of the state and this state, in turn, has to justify itself for the use of force in front of democratic institutions, that is to say the state must be subject to certain controlling mechanisms. This applies to violence on the national territory, to citizens that the state has to use force against to save other citizens from harm. This must also apply if a state resorts to violence towards other states, for instance in order to defend itself. The state then needs a democratic legitimation.
Well I think that there is much hypocrisy - [...]
Roland Berger: Well I think that there is much hypocrisy - to say it plainly - concerning this issue. In general no one really criticizes China's industrialization, on the contrary, China's industrialization is widely promoted by its environment. China is the second country after the USA to receive most foreign portfolio investments, this means many big, small and middle-size foreign companies invest money in China to develop the industrialization there. At the same time, of course, they profit from China, because wages there are still relatively low, labor costs are still relatively low and this enables them to receive cheap products and this partly leads to a considerable balance deficit between China and the USA to the advantage of China, about which Americans complain. But vice versa, we mustn't forget that the American inflation, for instance, stays low because of these cheap products from China. The same can be said about the European rate of inflation, this means we profit from Chinese products, from the diligence of the Chinese and the possibilities to receive cheap products from China. So I really think that this is a win-win situation sharing labour between China and the developed industrial countries. Any discrimination against China because of its rapid industrialization is not an honest argument, but an argument that is dishonest in itself.
Of course there are modern ways of [...]
Roland Berger: Of course there are modern ways of colonialization. We did experience this under communism. But unfortunately we didn't experience this only under the communism until 1990, we also experience it because other countries create a state of dependence between peoples, between human beings and institutions partly through military supremacy, partly through economic supremacy. These forms of dependence have to be condemned, if we really want to eradicate this form of modern colonialization. We mustn't allow the deprivation of human beings, peoples, communities of their liberties, of the liberty to develop on their own and to decide about their future, because they are economically, technologically, ideologically or violently kept in a state of dependence. We have to try to replace these forms of dependences with voluntary agreements between the peoples, voluntary cooperation between the people and not to use force, or indirect pressure on the behavior of nations and people. The modern version of colonialization so to say is the creation of dependences, by suppressing liberty and self-determination, by taking other measures, such as economic supremacy, technological supremacy, the imposition of political [...]
What is freedom? I think freedom is the [...]
Roland Berger: What is freedom? I think freedom is the highest good that we as human beings can have, because it allows us to unfold, to contribute to the development of our society and to the development of other people and thus to help our society to progress. On the other hand I have to say that the image of freedom has at all times been different, during the enlightenment freedom meant something else than today and of course freedom is seen differently in all parts of the world, because the historical and cultural preconditions are completely different. Freedom has to be fought for every day and has to be preserved every day and the most important institution that can preserve freedom is, of course, the state, is the government, are the political institutions and the power of the state to preserve freedom, the will of the state to preserve freedom is, of course, more or less distinct in the different countries of the world. Only think of the difference in Russia, where governmental institutions are being formed just know to hopefully in the end also exercise individual freedom. On the other hand, there are western democracies who claim to be free societies and to implement freedom for the people, but that, in reality, put pressure on the people to follow certain lines of conduct that are supposed to be politically correct, to follow certain ideologies and this cannot be the purpose of freedom. And of course freedom is tightly connected to economic prospertiy, that is to say it is easier to feel free, if one possesses the economic means, if one has the money. And we experience today, e.g. in China, a country that is only just becoming rich, that many people say it is more important to get rich fast that to possess political freedom. So the world, indeed [...]
I think the German constitution gives a good [...]
Roland Berger: I think the German constitution gives a good answer to this question, that is to say we, e.g. restrict the freedom of property by saying that we are obligated to use our property for the common good also. That is I think the freedom of the individual has to be restricted where it risks to restrict the freedom of someone else, that is to say where it dictates others or forces others to live in a certain way, where it hinders others to unfold freely. And I think freedom has to be connected to responsibility, to the responsibility for other people, for the society we live in, for people who need help because they cannot exercise their own right to freedom in the way that human rights actually allow them to. The question is: Who gets to decide, who fixes this limit? It is, of course, society itself and the question is: how can society express itself? It is done, eventually, by the institutions in whose hands society puts the power, that is - in a democracy - the parliament and the executive authority elected by the parliament, which is the government and as long as the government has been elected on a democratic basis and is bound to the right to freedom and to the general welfare, it is the duty of the government to fix the limit between freedom and [...]
Well, answering this question, particularly [...]
Roland Berger: Well, answering this question, particularly from a German and European point of view, I have to say that Europe is a continent poor in resources and our future lies in our education. Thus we have to do everything we can so that our education will let people's abilities bloom in the best possible way. This is one thing. Another thing is that we have indeed, and this is what research projects such as PISA have proven again and again, a considerable decline in the efficiency of our educational systems. Countries like Finland make a lot of their children and give their children and adolescents endless opportunities. In Germany this is not sufficiently the case and in the USA this is not sufficiently the case and obviously it isn't sufficiently the case in many emerging nations and developing countries, but of course we do have the possibilities to improve our educational system, we must invest more, we must make it socially fairer, so that gifted children from poorer families will have access to higher education and the best educational institutions. This is not yet the case in Germany. So our educational system is far from being perfect, we could improve more things, also by making it socially fairer. Another important task is, of course, that those countries who possess much knowledge, many technologies and a high educational standard, hand on much of this educational standard to the third world and the emerging nations by sending them teachers, managers, scientists and by communicating knowledge, but not only knowledge, but also a reasonable value system, because a reasonable value system does also belong to an educational system. This value system must also be conveyed within our society, through generations of parents, through teachers, and also through the work place and the executives in government to our children, to the next generation, but also in a worldwide frame.
Definitively not. That was an old theory of [...]
Roland Berger: Definitively not. That was an old theory of Marx that rich countries could only live if they can sell their goods to the poor countries. On the contrary. Reality proofs us that most of the global exchange is made between rich and developed countries. In other words: The rich countries need other wealthy countries to develop and become even wealthier. They don't need the market of poor countries to do that. But they have responsibility for the poor countries and they have to do the best they can to put money, technology, know-how, knowledge and investments at their disposal so that they can develop. By doing this they become an interesting market and they bear interesting possibilities for investment for rich countries. That leads to the real possibility for poor countries to develop their economy and to become rich countries themselves. Countries like Japan after 1945 or countries like today's China or India are a living example that poor countries can change into wealthy countries. By the way, the same was the case for the USA which were developed from Europe and for many European countries which got an impulse for development from other European countries.
Well, I don't believe that any human being [...]
Roland Berger: Well, I don't believe that any human being who is reasonable and who has grown up in a human value system, a value system that respects men, will consider other people to be worth less than him-/herself. Such a behavior must simply lead to the exclusion of those people, who consider others to be worth less, from our society. This means I think that respect for the people is our most important concern and we shouldn't accept the fact that people are pushed into the margin of society. What is asked for in this matter is tolerance.
I believe this question does not arise. On [...]
Roland Berger: I believe this question does not arise. On the one hand, developing countries need an appropriate infrastructure to be able to progress, for this purpose, of course, huge investments are needed in transport, in education, in the energy supply of the entire population. Thus huge investments are needed, these can be provided by means of development aid, but not only by means of political development aid, but also by investments of big companies in those countries, because these investments are always followed by a flow of capital into these countries, but also by a flow of know-how. People will be educated, people will get jobs, people will be enabled to lead self-reliant existences and prosperity will arise and spread. On the other hand, micro-finance is a proven remedy to enable people to help themselves and this has to take place as well, that is people must be put into a position in which they can progress on their own and attain prosperity on their own. As we can observe in many different countries in the world, micro-finance, that is smaller credits, can indeed play a productive role in attaining prosperity on one's own. The question is: who provides this? Usually, private economic institutions and initiatives that are often refinanced by huge banks and, astonishingly, we learn more and more often that, e.g. loss rates of credits hardly ever occur in micro-finance, which means that people deal sensibly with the small amounts that they are provided with and they, in fact, make this a personal and social success.
The question is: What does disadvantage for [...]
Roland Berger: The question is: What does disadvantage for women mean? If it is the fact that women have fewer chances in their career, maybe fewer chances in their education or that they do the same work as men and are paid less, then we can indeed talk about an unjustified disadvantage of women. And this is what I mean in the first place, the difficulty for women to combine motherhood and success in their career. I think there are many reasons for this, but one essential reason is cultural: We have interpreted the roles of men and women in our, in all traditional societies in a very traditional, too traditional, traditionalist way. The man provides for the family's material well-being; women are in the first place responsible for the children's education and the children's well-being. These are, of course, roles that are absolutely outmoded. Women do have the same possibilities and the same, they must have the same chances to bring in their intellectual abilities into our society. For this purpose the state has to, society has to create the necessary preconditions, for instance by caring for the children's provision, by establishing all-day schools and similar institutions such as preschools, the state has to compensate the financial disadvantages that come about for women when they, in order to have children, in order to raise children, during the first few years, earn less money with their work. And I think above all we have to realize that women are different than men, biologically but also psychologically and we have to give women the definite chance to (...) a fulfilling life for themselves.
There are scientists, such as Huntington, [...]
Roland Berger: There are scientists, such as Huntington, who claim that war and armed struggle, e.g. between religions, "clash of civilizations" is his catchphrase, cannot be avoided. In my opinion, a more optimistic opinion, war and armed struggle can indeed be avoided and it is possible to defend oneself effectively and efficiently through peaceful dialogue, also through non-violent resistance against attempts of suppression. What is really effective is always the dialogue or the union between peoples, aimed at the implementation of human rights, of freedom, of democracy, of economic prosperity, of economic boom, such as the European Union for instance has shown it to us and I think this is exactly the right thing to do. Of course we need respect for the difference. The Germans are not like the French, the French are not like the Indians, the Indians are not like the Chinese, the Chinese are not like the Russians or the Brazilians. Nevertheless I think one of the great assets, one of the great qualities of this world, is the fact that people are different and different people have different ways of being happy, of being successful, of realizing human rights, and that these differences are respected. And if these differences are not respected, they may then be defended. But not by using force, but by diplomatic persuasion and by cultural means. Competition in the cultural domain, in the economic domain, in the domain of developing an adequate standard of life could be the way to avoid war and to [...]
Well, in my opinion drugs are, of course, [...]
Roland Berger: Well, in my opinion drugs are, of course, dangerous for human beings and they don't help us to unfold, that is to say drugs should be banned from the lives of human beings. The access to drugs should be refused unless they are needed for medical treatment. On the other hand I am, of course, well aware of the fact that drugs are for a lot of people a means to escape solitude, maybe even a means to win new insights, or at least to make the attempt to do so. But as a matter of fact, I believe the most important thing is to give people the possibility not to live in solitude but to prioritize human relations. Human relations can free people, can enrich them, normally do enrich them and can therefore ban drug usage. They can even save people who already are addicted to drugs from further drug usage and eventually defeat drug usage world-wide. We must give people a home where they feel safe, where they can unfold, then they won't need drugs anymore.
AIDS is, for sure, one of the plagues of [...]
Roland Berger: AIDS is, for sure, one of the plagues of mankind, one of the biggest and most difficult diseases, which, at the moment, are incurable. Therefore I think our responsibility, especially in the wealthy, industrial countries is extremely heavy, in order to defeat this disease. We have got three possibilities and I think these three possibilities should be seized. One possibility is to help those people who have unfortunately infected themselves with AIDS by providing them with medical treatment at a sensible and affordable price and also by providing them with medicaments. However, it is much more important to make especially young people, but all the people in the world, aware of the possibilities of avoiding infection. In my opinion this is the point where we don't do enough, neither through developed and rich countries, nor through communication and education, nor through the educational system in the highly affected developing countries and emerging nations. Anyway, our responsibility in the fight against AIDS is extremely heavy, but there are measures that can be taken: Raising awareness, education, medical treatment in case of infection, but also psychological and emotional help for those who are infected with AIDS. But I think the most important remedy for AIDS is of course the preventive raising of awareness, education to self-responsibility so that people won't get in touch with the disease in the first place. It is also, of course, the willingness to accept responsibility, self-responsibility, the possibility to care for oneself.
From my point of view, there is a limit, in [...]
Roland Berger: From my point of view, there is a limit, in a present technological state of affairs and the way we run our economy, invent our products, sell them, and consume them, which we are approaching. On the other hand, in 70 years of my life I learnt that in a technical progress the human brain, or the science always succeeded in discovering and developing new things, to replace the old things, to invent new technologies, to develop them and to replace the old technologies. That’s why I believe, it will be possible to replace the present limited resources, which we, of course, should save and not use, waste and in the end make them disappear, with new renewable resources. I think this will be the way we’ll take. And certainly we can also achieve much by being economical. Just to give a simple example, the fact that water pipes at the Thames waters are so damaged, that 30 % of water just disappears in the ground. This is a waste we cannot afford. So we should in this case bring the pipes to a standard, which [interrupted] the raw material water its particular…[interrupted]
I think, the only possibility to create such [...]
Roland Berger: I think, the only possibility to create such communities is to educate people about the meaning of natural resources, namely from their childhood, at ground school, at high school, at home and during the whole apprenticeship. To educate them during the whole working life what the use of natural resources means, how limited they are, how difficult it is to compensate, to replace them. Moreover these communities should not be afraid of new technologies and new resources. They should give these technologies a chance for intrusion, through the cooperation with science, economy and politics, respectively the state. Then there will be more technologies, which enable the use of renewable resources. On the other hand, these communities should enable sparing usage of the resources. For this purpose, there is a range of technical possibilities that we know and that we don’t know. We need a community, which is open for technical progress and which is able to cope with resources issues.
The issue of water distribution is the [...]
Roland Berger: The issue of water distribution is the matter of investments in the countries which have not a lot of water, to enable digging for water and its supply to people without losing much of it on the way. Also we should promote seawater desalination and look for other methods of desalination we haven’t discovered yet, which will be cheaper than the present one, to make water available. I think, the question on the conflicts may be answered as any question of the world on preventing wars and ensuring peace. It is a task of the international organisations, a task for the states who have power who must be urged to stop using their power, actually using their own people, for making war and therewith to prompt other less powerful states, starting a conflict, to desist from it.
Firstly, I know from my personal cooperation [...]
Roland Berger: Firstly, I know from my personal cooperation with global international companies, that they realise the importance of the issue. That is, they realise that natural resources are limited and that they therefore should be economical in using them. And secondly, they also realise that they can be successful only in a stabilised society, which isn’t impacted by poverty and illnesses. So they try to contribute much into the fight against poverty, through their global investments on the one hand and to provide money for fighting worldwide illnesses on the other hand. Another thing we should do is to introduce systems, which increase prices on the use of natural resources, which is the case in Europe and also other regions of the world, where the companies can either buy their emission rights, or if they produce less emission – sell them. This way, i.e. by limiting the companies’ emission through price raisings, we can save nature. The next thing we can...[interrupted]
Roland Berger:
Well, I personally can deal very [...]
Roland Berger: Well, I personally can deal very economically with energy, with natural resources, and, of course, I can teach my family, my wife to do that, and also to bring my extended family to doing the same. That’s the one thing. Another thing what I can definitely do at my work, as a management consultant, is to advice the companies I consult to attend to an economical use of natural resources, to switching onto the renewable energies, also through my behaviour. Moreover, mass media is a great possibility to express oneself, in order to tell people how valuable our natural resources and nature itself are for us, for our future, for the future of our children and to make them act accordingly. Last but not least, as consumers we also have influence on the problem by preferring those companies in our buying, which act ecologically, especially in using non-renewable energies.
I think that, first of all, such countries [...]
Roland Berger: I think that, first of all, such countries as America that use resources disproportionately in comparison to other countries must commit to limiting their resources consumption by entering the international treaties. By this the rest of the world, also India and China, of course, will have a bigger amount of raw materials to advance their development. The second possibility, which must be the aim of the world, is surely the consolidation of the technical progress, in order to substitute the short raw materials by artificial ones, which have the same effect, and by replacing of existing energy sources with renewable sources, and also to create and make accessible the adequate constructions. So I think a person has a chance to solve this problem by rationality on the one hand and by moderation on the other hand, especially in rich countries, but also in poorer countries. Water is being enormously wasted in China as well and it is also sold at wrong prices, as a bulk consumer pays the same prise as a small-scale consumer – and by means of technical progress. And the most important point, with short time effect, is self-restriction and saving for all who use energy, especially those who use much more of it in comparison to the others. To the topic of renewable energy – there are many types, it starts with water and sun [...]
I think that both are correct. I think the [...]
Roland Berger: I think that both are correct. I think the ubiquitousness of the mass media means for many people an access to information and, hopefully, people don’t take at face value what is being reported by the media but make their own conclusion of it. On the other hand, I must say that the information overflow is a big problem for many of us, because the majority haven’t learnt – and it’s a fault of our education system – to filter it on the one hand and to interpret the information accordingly on the other hand. Still I think the presence of mass media, especially the electronic media, is for the most of us more a chance rather than a problem. In addition – we are worldwide talking about the digital divide – that is, there are still a billion people who have no access to media at all and who in fact lack this important information and education medium that can make them and their lives richer. Moreover, the consumption of mass information through mass media keeps us from, and I mean important things, [interrupted]
Roland Berger:
Well, of course, a person is not, and was [...]
Roland Berger: Well, of course, a person is not, and was not, mindful enough. The rich developed countries acquired their wealth thanks to the merciless exploitation of nature. And many of them, especially the United Sates, are still not ready to accept that natural resources should be used carefully and that a human is in the end a part of nature. Generally, every person can easily see that he’s a part of nature, if he’s not damned to live in the city or a ghetto, which excludes the possibility of coming out into nature. And even there there are various possibilities to percept, to get informed through mass media or electronically about the meaning of nature and natural resources for our future and the future of our children. That means, we all who didn’t grow up in the nature, and that’s the majority in this time of urbanisation, can see that a person is a part of nature and therefore is responsible for doing something to preserve it.
I don’t think it’s a problem to get a fresh [...]
Roland Berger: I don’t think it’s a problem to get a fresh glass of water. The question is how you define “water”. Of course if you want to have a fresh water from a spring it could be admittedly exhausting, but the water supply, tap water as well which is thank God available everywhere in Europe, is accessible for everyone who is not too spoilt. A bottle of water is as well-marketed as a can of Coca-Cola. However this applies to – and that’s an important restriction – the developed und developing countries. The picture is different if we look at the Third World, at some developing countries and at the poor quarters of the threshold countries. There, it’s really a fact that it’s often easier to reach a Coca-Cola automat than to reach the supply of fresh drinking water or healthful spring water. The public authorities, the government or state incentives must make economy change its investment strategy in a way that is would make water accessible to everyone worldwide. In addition I can only say that the main thing about the topic “water” is saving it, and knowing that Coca-Cola and all other beverages consist mostly of water, i.e. are produced of water, we should also be economical with Coca-Cola, if we want to promote economical water consumption.
Roland Berger:
Roland Berger:
I’m afraid that one of the most important [...]
Roland Berger: I’m afraid that one of the most important unreported stories is the worldwide violation of human rights carried out by the CIA and other intelligence services unobserved by governments, international organisations and all the bodies actually responsible for the protection of human rights. In these cases, people suffer who are very often innocent and to those who are guilty just trial or just legal proceedings are denied. All this is either unreported by the media if they know it or it just stays unknown.
My perspective is that it’s clear that [...]
Roland Berger: My perspective is that it’s clear that firstly we all have the responsibility to be economical in using natural resources in our environment and stay responsible, before we make someone else responsible. Of course, the economy is the responsible to use worldwide as little as possible input with possibly the same or the growing output. And also it should use the renewable rather then the limited resources. Thirdly - that it has always been proved - it’s the task of legislation to pass regulations limiting the use of natural resources. That means more precisely that the economy and also the international governments have to make an agreement, like the Kyoto treaty which sets certain limits to the use of resources and which guarantees the decreasing usage of resources and growing national product. This way we should actually be able to save the world from destruction.
Roland Berger:
Roland Berger:
Roland Berger:
Yes, it depends on which energy we talk [...]
Roland Berger: Yes, it depends on which energy we talk about. Hydropower, i.e. hydroelectric, uses much less energy than it produces. Water is also one of the cheapest energy sources in the world, including the investments into the power stations. On the contrary, I should say, many other facilities for producing renewable energy, which have just started running, indeed spend more energy during its production than they actually produce. But it’s also a question of technical progress and I think it’s an investment we should make in order we get the positive balance also in the renewable energies. That is, to use less energy on its production than it is produced. But that is possible and that is what we should enhance, which is already the case in Germany, continental Europe and Japan.
I believe, firstly applying it to Germany, [...]
Roland Berger: I believe, firstly applying it to Germany, as the question comes form Germany, that we, or the majority of us, Germans, in any case believe more in humanity than in nationality. But of course there are countries where the nationality, belonging to a nation plays a more important role. And the reason for that may be that people need to belong to a nation, they seek it and the easiest way to find it is the country they come from. On the other hand, the notion “nationality” is often being misused, by motivating people, by creating hostility, by creating contradictions, even to make war, and in this cases, of course, the notion “humanity” is lost in the background. On the other hand, I think that a normal feeling of belonging to a nation, patriotism, being proud of the things one’s own nation achieved is a completely positive value which can help us to develop ourselves, to make our self-assurance stronger and to lead us to positive actions, also to help our society, where we live and to which we belong.
The question is, to begin with, how we [...]
Roland Berger: The question is, to begin with, how we define „bad quality“. I personally don’t think what we eat is of bad quality. The question is whether we estimate the quality of food judging by its taste and nutritiousness or by its healthfulness and in which way it's helpful for the healthful life. If we consider it this way it must be said that the nutrition we have is not the one we need. We eat too much fat, sugar, flour, cereals, which is refined instead of staying natural. But it can be changed only by educating people about what is healthful and what is less healthful and not by changing the range of foods. And when the education begins, namely in a family, at school, during vocational training and during professional life, much can be changed. Last but not least, the food industry and the agriculture must inform the people which products are useful and which are less useful and not to look for short-term success. And the last thing is that we have to try to cut the subsidies in the rich industrialised countries in order the developing countries and countries with emerging markets can carry on productive agriculture with accordingly healthful, good and clean products as a result, in order they can sell the products to us at fair prices.
Roland Berger:
My belief is that people should not define [...]
Roland Berger: My belief is that people should not define themselves or be defined either on ground of their race, their origin, their religion, intelligence or their work. People should first of all be perceived and treated as humans. That means, for me, it’s extremely important that the human values stand in the first place. Human values are what we have to respect. So the focus of my estimation, and the estimation of most of us, lies not on outer appearance – such as race, origin, etc. – but in the value of the human being, the value of a human life, the value of what persons make of themselves, what they want to make of themselves, what they get involved with, what they stand for, how they behave, whether they contribute to the future of society or whether they are egoists, for instance, and so on. For me, only the individual person counts, no matter what colour of skin, what origin, what religion, what class. But still I believe it’s important what they are prepared to make of themselves and what they already achieved. That would be an criterion that seems important to me.
I think we won’t be able to prevent the [...]
Roland Berger: I think we won’t be able to prevent the growing urbanisation in the world, but I think very much can be done from an aspect of city planning, to build more in areas in which is already construction and to leave more space for green areas. With adequate investments, we can make sure – in an economical way – that the cities are supplied with the most important, i.e. heating, water, energy and other infrastructural aspects they need. We must possibly control the overconsumption by appropriate pricing so that people can stop overconsumption. Thirdly, we could in some way avoid the urbanisation or its consequences, if we secure more public transport, possibly underground, and limit private transport. It’s possible by means of legislation or, like in London, for example, by price raising of car usage in the city centre. This way we can avoid traffic difficulties and last but not least, I think, we have to make living in the countryside more attractive by managing jobs and investments locally, in contradiction to today’s growing urbanisation. The same must be done concerning cultural activities to promote cultural life in the countryside.
The question can be answered like all [...]
Roland Berger: The question can be answered like all questions in this direction. If all Chinese want to have a car, considering the present car technology with the conventional combustion engine and supposing an ambition to use the biggest, the fastest and the most powerful car, the sky above us will become dark. That means, we have immediately to switch onto a new mode of drive and renewable energy. The technology in this field is already in the process of development, for instance, hybrid motors, electric motors, the fuel cell and hydrogen motors. They couldn't be applied immediately, but till the time all Chinese have cars, they will be applicable. I think it’s primarily the responsibility of the nations, which have the biggest car industry. These are the US, the EU and Japan. Although the Japanese are a little bit ahead in this field, I think, Europe has a chance to catch them up and America will follow. So, no need to be pessimistic, it’s just a reason to switch.
First of all, I don't think that mankind has [...]
Roland Berger: First of all, I don't think that mankind has failed; I think humanity by all means has experienced and achieved a lot of progress, development, positive things. I also see that egoism is a driving force for many people to contribute to the further development of societies, to the further development of individuals, to give individuals the opportunity for high-level achievements in the areas of culture, art, economy, politics. That is, egoism should not just be seen as a harmful property of the human being, but by all means also as a positive driving force. Of course, egoism can be exaggerated by exluding other people from one's achievements. Then egoism can contribute to do harm to other people, but alos to do harm to the egoist himeself or herself by isolating him or her, by prohibilting him or her from participating in the society and its benefits. But egoism is not a priori the reason for human failure. Rather I think that egoism is merely a positive driving force that must be channalized. Channalizing it is a task of the value system we live in, which is communicated by parents, by families, by teachers, by the society itself, by public institutions, by the media.
