Special Series:
The Challenge of Global Transformation—
Humanity and the Environment (1)Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker
Daisaku Ikeda
Starting with this issue, The Journal of Oriental Studies will bepresenting the two concluding installments of “The Challenge of Global
Transformation—Humanity and the Environment,” a dialogue on building a sustainable global society between German environmentalist Dr.
Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker and Daisaku Ikeda, president of the Soka
Gakkai International (SGI) and founder of the Institute of Oriental
Philosophy (IOP).
One of the foremost authorities on global environmental policy, Dr.
Weizsäcker serves as co-president of the Club of Rome. Mr. Ikeda is also
an honorary member of the acclaimed think tank and has publisheddialogues with its cofounder Aurelio Peccei and honorary president
Ricardo Díez-Hochleitner.
Dr. Weizsäcker met Mr. Ikeda for the first time in Tokyo in March
2010, with the two agreeing to continue their discourse by correspondence since then. Their dialogue was serialized in the Japanese commentary monthly Ushio and then in The Journal of Oriental Studies(Japanese Edition), from December 2011 through May 2014, over eight
installments. Among the subjects they examine in this issue are theimperatives of achieving both social and environmental justice, ending“market fundamentalism,” and devising alternatives to GDP in measuring wealth.
Ikeda: Since 2011, our dialogue has been published in six installmentsin the magazine Ushio.
From the seventh installment onward, it will be published in English
for the first time here in The Journal of Oriental Studies. Taking into
consideration our discussions up to this point, I hope to explore withyou, Dr. Weizsäcker, in even greater depth the key factors for building asustainable global society.
3

4

the challenge of global transformation (1)The Journal of Oriental Studies celebrated its golden anniversary in2012 as an academic publication on Eastern philosophy and studies thatexamines the manifold issues confronting our world today, from peaceand human rights to the environment, bioethics, and interfaith dialogue,
and searches for ways to resolve these challenges. My hope is that this
dialogue will prove to be of some worth in providing fresh insights intoand perspectives on humanity and the environment, which is the central
theme of our discussions.
I must therefore ask for your continued counsel and cooperation as
we move forward.
Weizsäcker: I very much look forward to the continuation of our
dialogue. I fondly recall the enjoyable opportunity in March 2010 ofbeing invited to participate in the Institute of Oriental Philosophy symposium on the theme “Global Environmental Problems and Ethics” andtaking part in very satisfying and productive discussions with other
scholars and researchers.
In my keynote speech on that occasion, I noted that while science andtechnology can do a lot to lead to a peaceful and sustainable world, there
is an additional need to effect critical changes in economics and politics.
This is a subject that I would like to discuss further with you.
Justice for society and the environment
Ikeda: It is a very important point, and one that should not be restricted
to policy changes in a single nation but that global society as a wholemust engage with in earnest.
At this very moment, the United Nations (UN) is focusing on whatkinds of agenda should be adopted following 2015, the endpoint of the
UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
In May 2013, a high-level panel at the UN delivered a report on thegoals to be achieved by 2030, suggesting five major aims: (1) putting an
end to extreme poverty; (2) taking quick action with sustainable
development as its primary objective; (3) transforming economies tocreate employment and inclusive growth; (4) creating peace andaccountable governance; and (5) forging a new global partnership basedon shared recognition of our mutual equality as human beings.1
In February, prior to the UN report, the European Union (EU)announced that the 2013 agenda following the MDGs and theSustainable Development Goals (SDGs) initiated by the Rio+20
conference in June 2012 should be tackled together through a combined

the challenge of global transformation (1)5approach, and called for such efforts as guaranteeing “a decent life forall” the inhabitants of the planet and managing the Earth’s natural
resources on a sustainable basis.
In the process of examining the contents of these new goals, I believe
it is vital to not only discuss them in terms of public policy but also
explore them from the broader perspective of human civilization.
As such, in my 2013 Peace Proposal, I urged the importance ofremedying the pathology of civilization decried by the great German
writer Johan Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) in his masterwork
Faust, where he depicts the human drive to employ any method to fulfill
one’s desires by the quickest means possible, with no regard for thesuffering that may inflict upon others.2
It seems to me that this pathology of civilization underlies many of
the threats facing our world today. We see it in nuclear weapons, whose
use would “defend” the nation possessing them at the price of humanity’s extinction; in a society where free market competition is glorified
at the cost of widening economic disparities and the conscious neglectof its most vulnerable members; in the unabated pace of ecologicaldestruction driven by the prioritization of economic growth; and in a
global food crisis brought about by commodity speculation.
I am reminded of the conclusion in your work Earth Politics, inwhich you stressed the following with regard to these problems: “Wewould also need a new view of civilisation and culture in the Century of
the Environment.”3
My question for you, Dr. Weizsäcker, is: What are the key parametersof a new civilization we should aspire for in the 21st century—for
example, what points in particular should we focus on in reconsidering
the aims and roles of government and economics?
Weizsäcker: I think there are many different factors that need reconsideration, but I would suggest in particular the importance of establishingsocial justice and ecological justice.
President Ikeda, you mentioned the global food crisis as one of thethreats facing our world today. Taking that as an example, one of the
major causes for the crisis is the waste of food resources in the West andother affluent nations such as Japan.
There are those who argue the need for the genetic engineering offoods to increase production, making the assumption that increased
consumption of food demands increased production. But I believe thatvery assumption is in fact erroneous. Genetic engineering of food may
be effective in producing more food for the rich, but that is not the6the challenge of global transformation (1)answer to the larger food shortage problem.
If one’s goal is to produce food for the hungry, a far more effective
method is to give them land to grow their own food. The truth of thiswas already well established by Frances Moore Lappé, in her book,published in the 1970s, Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity.
Ms. Lappé was focusing on the Sahel zone, a belt south of the Sahara
Desert running east and west across northern Africa that was at the time
suffering terrible food shortages. In her study, she discovered theshocking fact that the countries of the Sahel zone, which were
undergoing extreme famine, were actually exporting food to the UnitedStates and Europe, and the amount of their exports exceeded the amountof food they were receiving through international hunger relief.
Why did this happen? Because the impoverished residents of the
Sahel zone didn’t own the land. The majority of the land was owned byforeign food growers, who had no interest in producing food to feed the
local people but were focused solely on growing cash crops for export.
Though the situation is different today from that described by Ms.
Lappé in the 1970s, the essence of the phenomena remains unchanged.
The food shortages in various parts of the world today are created bywhat is called land grabbing. In other words, foreign interests such as
investors and banks buy up all the fertile land suitable for foodproduction, and then use it to grow crops that benefit their markets, suchas corn, to produce ethanol for automobile fuel. The developed nations
are grabbing up the farmlands of the developing nations in the pursuit ofprofits.
This entire situation, in my opinion, is a product of market
fundamentalism, which ranks profit above everything else and has noconcern for social justice.
Ikeda: When considering the problem of food shortages, then, we
should not focus solely on balancing supply with demand but instead
reframe the question to ask why those who are in genuine need for foodare not availed to it.
According to a study conducted in Japan, what is known as food loss
—food which is edible but, because it is either left over or unsold, isdiscarded by households and businesses—amounts to 8 million tons
annually.4
The total global amount of food aid given to countries with foodshortages comes to some 4 million tons. Japan alone discards twice thatamount of food. This is the situation you are referring to when you cite
the waste of food.5

the challenge of global transformation (1)7Although Japan is relatively advanced when it comes to the 3Rs of
reducing waste, reusing finite resources, and recycling what we can, we
need to remedy the present situation by making an active effort toreconsider our dietary practices and resolve this problem of foodwastage.
The land grabbing you refer to is also intensifying with each passing
year. According to one international non-governmental organization(NGO), foreign investors now own approximately 27 million hectares offarming land in Africa, with an estimated 10 percent of the arable landof Ethiopia and 15 percent of the arable land of Sierra Leone under
foreign ownership.6
A similar situation is spreading in Asia and Central and SouthAmerica, and some have raised the alarm that it is in danger of
becoming a new form of colonialism.
Even if work to achieve the MDGs ameliorates the food shortage
problem, these efforts will remain little more than a stopgap measureunless we devote attention and action to rectify this developing trend.
In my peace proposals, I have repeatedly emphasized that the effort toachieve the MDGs must not become preoccupied merely with meeting
their cited objectives; instead, we should not forget that the highest
priority should be assigned on restoring the well-being of suffering
individuals. If we fixate solely on macro goals in the form of numericaltargets and overlook the real-world plight of people, our priorities will
have been fatally skewed.
I have also stressed that rather than looking upon threatened
populations as passive recipients of aid and development assistance, it iseven more paramount to focus on their empowerment, enabling them as
active protagonists to resolve their own challenges and bring theirboundless potential and strengths to fullest flower.
In that regard, I strongly agree with your view that the key is toprovide land to those suffering from food shortages, so they can growtheir own food.
In recent years the idea of food sovereignty—that the people ofdeveloping nations have the right to grow the crops they want on theirown land, through their own efforts—is gaining momentum. Respect forthis kind of “ownership” is, in my opinion, a crucial factor not only withregard to the problem of food shortages but also for achieving social
justice in global society in general.

8

the challenge of global transformation (1)Bonds Between humanity and nature
Weizsäcker: I agree. As a matter of fact, I was strongly influenced in
adopting the viewpoint I have just expressed about the food shortage by
the economist Ernst Friedrich Schumacher (1911–77). I used to know
him personally, and he was a wonderful person.
In one of his lectures, after speaking on food issues, he asked his
audience, “Do you know the TLC factor?”“What chemical is TLC?” I asked him.
“It’s not a chemical,” he replied. “It stands for ‘tender, loving, care.’ ”
He explained that when people owned their land, they managed to
produce five times as much food per acre as industrial farmers.
The TLC factor that Dr. Schumacher was referring to did not registeron the radars of industrial farmers, and it had not occurred to researchers
in the agricultural sciences.
What Dr. Schumacher pointed out made me realize that the solution
to the world’s food problems has less to do with markets than selfmotivation, less with employing more farmers than with fostering more
self-employed farmers.
Ikeda: The TLC factor represents a key aspect of the problem, which I
believe emerges from a strong bond between people and nature—in thiscase, the soil. In his renowned work Small Is Beautiful: A Study of
Economics as if People Mattered, Dr. Schumacher explained his viewson agriculture as follows:
A wider view sees agriculture as having to fulfill at least threetasks:—to keep man in touch with living nature, of which he is andremains a highly vulnerable part;—to humanise and ennoble man’s wider habitat; and—to bring forth the foodstuffs and other materials which areneeded for a becoming life.
I do not believe that a civilisation which recognises only the thirdof these tasks, and which pursues it with such ruthlessness andviolence that the other two tasks are not merely neglected but
systematically counteracted, has any chance of long-term survival.7
Rereading this now, one can take it as both a prediction and caveat
issued by Dr. Schumacher that a phenomenon similar to landing
grabbing would occur.

the challenge of global transformation (1)9

His reference to the “ruthlessness and violence” with which civilization pursues its goals also resonates with the “pathology of civilization”
that I noted in the context of Goethe’s Faust in my 2013 Peace Proposal.
Without making a full-fledged attempt to remedy that pathology, I
believe the way to creating a genuinely sustainable society may be unattainable.8
Dr. Schumacher warned that the cause of this pathology is “due to thefact that, as a society, we have no firm basis of belief in any metaeconomic values, and when there is no such belief the economic
calculus takes over.”9 What we need to do now is to reexamine what theproper relationship between human beings and nature should be andwhat we must not neglect, either by omission or commission, in society.
The Buddhist view of nature regards human beings and nature, humanbeings and the land, as being inseparable. As Nichiren (1222–82) writes:“The living beings and their environments are not two things, and one’s
self and the land one inhabits are not two things.”10
In other words, all life, including human beings, exists in a
relationship of mutual interdependence and support, the naturalenvironment and living beings joined by deep and indivisible bonds.
“In the same way, life is shaped by its environment,”11 Nichiren also
writes, stressing that we human beings must never forget to have a deep
spirit of gratitude for the blessings of nature and that our lives aresupported by our relationships with all other living things.
Our ties to nature must be based on the realization and ensuing senseof responsibility that “[without the body, no shadow can exist, and]without life, no environment.”12 Or to borrow Dr. Schumacher’s words
and express this idea in contemporary terms, we must devote the utmost
tenderness, love, and care for the environment, and by striving to protect
nature and the ecosystem, lead a life in which our own humanity shines
its brightest.
In that sense, I am in profound agreement with your emphasis on theneed to establish social justice and ecological justice in the effort tocreate a sustainable global society.
The UN has set the period from 2005 to 2015 as the International
Decade for Action, “Water for Life,” and 2013 as the International Yearfor Water Cooperation.
I believe that social justice and ecological justice are also very
important factors in considering the issue of water resources as well.

10

the challenge of global transformation (1)maximizing water resources
Weizsäcker: Yes. I’m not a water expert, but I believe there are four
major ways in which water shortages can be ameliorated.		
The first is related to the cost of water in a country and the cost ofwater used in agriculture in that country. In chapter 4 of Factor Five, we
explore this issue using a diagram.
The unbelievable fact is that in most countries, the cost of water usedin agriculture is zero. With the exception of the Netherlands and a few
other countries, most countries set the cost of agricultural water at zeroor something very close to zero. Yet in spite of that, people everywherecomplain about the shortage of water.
Australia and Israel use drip irrigation instead of flood irrigation. By
using this water-saving method, they are able to produce at least threetimes more food per gallon (about 3.78 liters) of water. That’s one
important aspect.
One would of course still have to make sure that farmers would not be
impoverished by having to pay the actual cost of the water they use. But
if they are able to produce three times the food per gallon of water, theyshouldn’t be impoverished.
The second way to maximize water resources is to purify water thathas been used. This is an inescapable duty for creating sustainable urban
living environments.
Before reaching the North Sea, the water of the River Rhine travels
through numerous cities in Switzerland, France, Germany, and theNetherlands and tends to be used and/or recycled about ten times on its
journey, which is perhaps the reason that Germany does not suffer froma water shortage, even in the low-lying North Rhine-Westphalia region.
The cities of the North Rhine-Westphalia area receive Rhine water ina reasonably clean state. Actually, to the best of my knowledge, thewater leaving the North Rhine-Westphalia region is in fact cleaner thanwhen it arrived there.
Germany has amazing water purification technology—anotherimportant measure for dealing with the problem of water shortages.
Unfortunately, most countries of the world do not employ suchtechnologies. It is important for them to do so as quickly as possible.
The third way to deal with water shortages is to increase water
efficiency in the private sector.
In chapter 2 of Factor Four, we cited the example of a certain German paper manufacturer that, by the adoption of internal purification
systems, managed to demonstrate a ten-fold increase in water pro-the challenge of global transformation (1)11ductivity in the paper-production process. This company was constantly recycling its water. It was motivated to do so by the high costs
imposed on waste-water discharge. Large waste-water discharges would
have been very expensive for the company, and to avoid those costs, themanufacturer stored all its water inside the factory, purifying andrecycling it, which increased the company’s profitability.
The same approach can be used in steel foundries and otherindustries. The efficient use of water in manufacturing is very important.
The fourth approach to dealing with water shortages is building moredams to provide more water, or to pump more water from underground.
These are the two approaches that jump immediately to mind for mostpeople when considering how to respond to water shortages, but
pumping more water from underground sources depletes the water table
and is a method that should be avoided from the perspective ofsustainability.
Ikeda: All of the points you mention are important if we are to make themost of our precious and irreplaceable water sources and establish
conditions for the sustainable use of natural resources.
Water shortages, like food shortages, threaten the very survival ofmany people around the world.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human
Development Report 2006 states: “Water, the stuff of life and a basic
human right, is at the heart of a daily crisis faced by countless millionsof the world’s most vulnerable people—a crisis that threatens life anddestroys livelihoods on a devastating scale.”13 It warns: “Like hunger,
deprivation in access to water is a silent crisis experienced by the poorand tolerated by those with the resources, the technology and thepolitical power to end it.”14
Improving the situation concerning water use was included as one of
the issues within the Millennium Development Goals Report 2012,
which declares the goal of “halving the proportion of people who lackdependable access to improved sources of drinking water” was achieved
ahead of the 2015 deadline. In the year 2015, however, more than 600
million people around the world will still be using unsafe water
sources.15
Given this set of circumstances, in July 2010 the UN General
Assembly adopted a measure declaring access to safe and clean drinking
water as well as to sanitation a basic human right, and growing numbersof people around the world are insisting that water should be made apublic or semi-public resource.

12

the challenge of global transformation (1)In February 2013, more than one million people in Europe signed apetition endorsing a public movement to have water declared not as acommodity but a public good, marking the possibility that it will
become the first European Citizen’s Initiative in the EU to garner thenecessary support for adoption.
Speaking of “public goods,” you called for its increased recognitionin Factor Five:
We welcome the emergence of a new, more balanced Zeitgeist. We
do not want a return to the extreme counter model of the exaltationof the state and the denigration of the market. What our world
needs is market efficiency and liberation from the ideology ofmarket fundamentalism, together with a state that is committed tothe public interest and is capable of long-term action.16
Germany is widely known for having adopted many national policies
based on this concept of public goods from the period immediately
following World War II. What factors do you see as underlying this?
Putting an end to “market fundamentalism”
Weizsäcker:		To discuss this, it is necessary to look into the history of
the social market economy in Germany.
This was adopted as a political strategy in the early years following
World War II under the immense threat of the expansion of communism
in Europe.
The former US general and later Secretary of State George C.
Marshall (1880–1959) realized that in order to contain or to stop
communism, the West had to adopt policies that offered generous
support to the poor, to prevent them from being attracted by the promises of socialism.
Socialism addressed itself primarily to the poor and underprivileged,
and there were many poor in Europe and worldwide at the time.
The market economy had the advantage of market efficiency, which
also appealed to the poor. The Marshall Plan for reviving Europe was aremarkable symbol of American generosity. Having lost more than
100,000 soldiers in the fighting in Europe, instead of taking brutal
revenge on its former enemies, the US gave them aid.
It was a brilliant move that was extremely well received by those wholater came to be the majority force in the new German democracy, withclose ties to the Catholic Church. Konrad Adenauer (1876–1967),

the challenge of global transformation (1)13serving as chancellor of West Germany from 1949 to 1963, was the firstpolitical leader in this country who was not a Protestant.
With keen political insight, Adenauer realized the importance ofovercoming the old factionalism among the conservatives and was able
to rally his political allies to achieve that.
During the German Empire and the Weimar Republic, the catholic
German Center Party (Deutsche Zentrumspartei) and the protestantGerman National People’s Party (Deutschnationale Volkspartei), which
both represented conservative thinking, were rivals that never reallycooperated.
Adenauer, although very much a Catholic, felt that his party should
not be the Catholic Union but the Christian Union (Christian Democratic Union). The Protestants were very happy with his political thinking.
One of the manifestations of his strategy was his foreign policy andhis thoroughgoing support of the Marshall Plan. Another was his social
welfare policies, based on Catholic tradition, which can be traced backto Biblical times.
Jesus, who demonstrated consistent concern for the poor, would be asocialist in modern terms. This longstanding tradition was reinvented,
and it took the shape since the 19th century of what is called Catholic
Social Teaching (Katholische Soziallehre).		
This tradition, though never dominant among the Church hierarchyor clergy, had a strong political influence. In a sense you could say
Adenauer, with his excellent political instincts, developed a social
market economy rooted in the Catholic Social Teaching.
There were others aside from Adenauer who made important
contributions to the idea of the social market economy. Perhaps the mostimportant was Alfred Müller-Armack (1901–78), who was in a sense thefather of the concept.
Essentially what I’m saying is, the idea of the social market economy
was the product of a clever and instinctual opportunism of the time toconfront socialism with an emphasis on social welfare, as opposed toclassical conservative thinking.
Ikeda: You are saying that in addition to the international situation inwhich postwar West Germany found itself, the emphasis on social
welfare rooted in religious traditions by Chancellor Adenauer and other
German political figures played a major role in the adoption of national
policy.
In April 1990, after the end of the Cold War and just prior to the14the challenge of global transformation (1)reunification of Germany, I had the opportunity to meet with Heinrich
Barth, former state secretary of West Germany and co-founder of theKonrad Adenauer Foundation (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung).
On that occasion we discussed how Chancellor Adenauer, while still
the mayor of Cologne, adopted various initiatives of great public benefit
in the areas of education and the environment. He was instrumental in
the reopening of the University of Cologne, which had been closed formore than a century, for example, while launching an initiative for thegreening of the city in response to growing concerns over environmental
pollution. In June 1991, after Germany’s reunification, I met Dr. Barthagain in Bonn, and he expressed high hopes for Richard vonWeizsäcker, the first president of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Looking back, I recall that I first met with President Weizsäcker
shortly after my second meeting with Dr. Barth.
With a steady, serious demeanor, President Weizsäcker said that weshould be concerned not just with material prosperity, but with thehumanity itself as well as its solidarity and harmonious coexistence—words which made a deep impression on me.
He then asked me about Japan and how it regarded materialism andthe way which human beings should lead their lives.
I responded with my frank opinion that society in Japan is evolving at
a very rapid pace. The changes are coming on so fiercely that theJapanese themselves sometimes get lost and are confused as to where
they now stand. The majority of these changes, sadly enough, have beenin the direction of an expanding materialism. Like so many others
elsewhere in the world, their lives have become dominated by material
pursuits that, in one sense, have encrusted the human spirit with encumbrances.
When choosing a job, I continued, many young people base theirdecision on such things as whether the job pays well, whether it is easy,
and whether it offers long vacations. Young people have all but forgotten
the spirit of working for the good of society, and a degenerate
individualism has risen up in its place. To expect a tree to flourish whenits deepest roots wither does not stand to reason. Thoughtful andconscientious people are deeply concerned about Japan’s future. The
struggle to achieve something worthy takes a lifetime, while destruction
takes but an instant.
I concluded that we are battling to reverse this destructive trend in thehope of expanding the bounds of human spirituality, enabling it to surge
throughout society like a mighty river.
When President Weizsäcker visited Japan in August 1995, on the 50th

the challenge of global transformation (1)15anniversary of the end of World War II, he spoke before a large group of
citizens at a public symposium. He described the Germans and Japanese
as being industrious with an economic orientation, yet while bothnations follow the principles of the free market economy, they have attimes gone too far. Their orientation, for example, has forced people tocompete against one another from an early age, reinforcing a materialistic worldview.
What we need to do, he said, is to learn to think and work together
from an ecological perspective and tackle the manifold challenges inbuilding a better future while maintaining our solidarity.17
Germany and Japan were once militaristic societies that invaded othercountries while ruthlessly engaged in thought control and xenophobic
persecutions of their own citizens. This led to ultranationalist
absolutism, one of the lessons of the 20th century that we must neverforget. Now in the 21st century, the market fundamentalism you
mentioned earlier is in danger of becoming a new form of absolutism—a development to which we must put an end.
Weizsäcker: Yes, that’s right.
Allowing national ideology to become an absolutism was acharacteristic of communist states in the past. Such dictatorships led tocorrupt regimes.
It is important to recognize that when ideology takes priority overeverything else, it also negatively affects the environment.
When the state intervenes in the private lives and the thoughts of its
citizens, it not only violates their human rights, I stress that it is alsocounterproductive to building a rich and strong society.
What we need is a liberal state, in the European sense. “Liberal” inthis sense means tolerant and forgiving. It also means an awareness oflong-term public goods, investment in and maintenance of infrastructure, and state support for all other aspects of society that would notprosper under a pure market regime.
For example, the market will never provide primary education andbasic health care for the poor. I mentioned infrastructures. The markets
won’t build roads, provide sewage treatment, or law and order.
The market won’t create the police force we need to protect thecitizenry from criminal activity, or the public justice, or judicial andlegal systems. The state needs to establish and maintain these systems
and receive enough revenue to do so.
At the same time, markets need to be similarly tolerant of andamenable to such services the state provides. They cannot be allowed to16

the challenge of global transformation (1)pursue maximum profit and ignore the adverse impact that the logic of
the market, when left unchecked, has on people and societies
Market fundamentalism has the tendency to lead to two very unpleasant extremes, dictatorship and loss of freedom.
alternative index of wealth to gdP
Ikeda: The global financial crisis that started in 2008, triggered by the
US subprime loan debacle and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, wasan immense blow and cause of great turmoil to countries around theworld.
Behind the collapse of trust in the financial system that provoked thecrisis was the explosive expansion of the highly speculative market forderivative financial products, which far exceeded the real economy inscale, and when this market collapsed, the damage it caused threatened
the very foundations of the real economy.
Though it cannot be denied that to a certain extent the pursuit ofwealth has been a driving force for social progress, the lessons of thecrisis, in which millions of people suddenly found themselves in a
desperate predicament, are that we need to reexamine the real purposeof the economy as well as the true meaning of wealth.
In a dialogue I engaged with Hazel Henderson, the futurist once said:
The Gross National Product (GNP) is a material measure. Beyonda certain level, it’s like judging adults by a growth index. What
we want from adults is not more physical growth but maturity andwisdom.18
I find this to be a very accessible way of explaining the issue. Just as
we can’t judge a person’s true worth only by their height, we need tolook at things from a multiplicity of perspectives to determine whether
they are genuinely beneficial for the people in a given society.
With regard to this point, you observed: “Health, happiness andpersonal fulfillment are not of necessity closely linked to a growth in
GNP or employment.”19 Instead, you urged that we need a more relevantmeasure of real wealth, which you refer to as Net Economic Welfare(NEW).		
Weizsäcker: I believe that the term Net Economic Welfare comes from
Herman Edward Daly, who used to be with the World Bank and is infact also a member of the Club of Rome. In his writings, he describedthe challenge of global transformation (1)17the increasing discrepancy between the welfare of the populace and theGross Domestic Product (GDP) of the nation.
Another report to the Club of Rome, Taking Nature Into Account by
Wouter van Dieren, touches upon similar themes. These and otherthinkers are part of a worldwide trend to seek alternative measures to theGDP. The EU in 2011, I believe, organized a conference in Brussels
entitled “Beyond GDP.” The German Bundestag has created a Study
Commission on Growth, Well-being, and Quality of Life. One of thequestions the commission pursues is new measures of well-being.
However, the only country to actually adopt a measure of welfare
other than the GDP is Bhutan, with roughly 700,000 inhabitants. They
have introduced what they call a Gross National Happiness (GNH)
Index.
Actually, I have been asked to join a team led by Herman Daly’s
friend and colleague, Robert Costanza, who is presently working inAustralia, to help globalize the GNH Index.
The team will look at what the GNH really means to the people of
Bhutan and how much of that can be transferred to other economies.
This is a significant effort, I believe.
Ikeda: Speaking of Bhutan, in the fall of 2011 the young king andqueen of Bhutan visited the Tohoku area that had been struck by the
March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, where they encouraged elementary
school students and other residents of the area. It was a memorable
gesture that remains fresh in the minds of many Japanese.
There is also growing interest in Japan in Bhutan’s use of GNH as ameasure of the welfare of its people. As you know, GNH is based on thefour pillars of sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development,
environmental conservation, the preservation and promotion of culture,and good governance. It is measured by surveying the populace on 72
specific indicators based on those four pillars.20
Among those indicators are some interesting questions. For example:“Do the members of your family care about each other?”“How much do you trust your neighbors?”“On an average how many days did you spend during the past 12
months doing voluntary activity on your own?”“Do you plant trees around your farm or houses?”“Rate the performance of the central government in reducing the
gap between rich and poor.”“To what extent do you trust media?”21

18

the challenge of global transformation (1)Herein lies the notion that, while economic growth and social development are vital to a country and her people, these factors must be
evaluated in the context of harmonious relationships with the naturalenvironment, traditional culture, family and friends, and the community.
Buddhism serves as the foundation of traditional Bhutanese culture,and the concept behind the GNH to find the proper balance between
material and spiritual well-being reflects, I believe, the Buddhist
teaching of the Middle Way that transcends polar extremes.
Considering the factors built into the GNH, one can see an underlying
Buddhist spirit of mutual interdependence and support, as well as thephilosophy of striving to create a community built on mutual respect.
Looking back in history, King Ashoka (r. c. 268–232 B.C.E.) of theMaurya Empire in ancient India governed his dominion with the teachings of Shakyamuni as his guide.
After experiencing terrible regret at the large numbers killed in his
military assaults on other kingdoms, Ashoka underwent a profoundchange of heart and actively adopted various policies for the welfare ofhis people. He provided relief to the poor, established hospitals andparks, had wells dug and roads built, and also had trees planted andencouraged the cultivation of medicinal herbs. He instituted fair andegalitarian treatment under the law and protected freedom of religion. In
the area of economics, he encouraged a life of restraint and frugality,
one drawing satisfaction from modest means and resources.
All of these policies are based on such Buddhist principles as
dependent origination, compassion, and the Middle Way. Ashoka extended these principles to protect animals and the rest of nature as well.
Ashoka firmly believed that the king (that is, political leaders) should
rule by Dharma—the principle of a right life—and had the duty topromote the happiness of his subjects—the people.
The first and foremost duty of those engaged in government should be
to build a society in which people can experience happiness, rather thanseek to establish a nation’s greatness by military or economic aggrandizement. This is a principle that is surely just as important now as
it was in Ashoka’s day, different as the two periods of history may be.
While questions remain whether GNH may be applied as presently
constructed to nations other than Bhutan, it will be interesting to see
what conclusions Robert Costanza and his team arrive at. At the very
least, my hope is that the way will open to achieve genuine social
progress by incorporating the GNH index or similar indices of humanhappiness and dignity.

the challenge of global transformation (1)19Weizsäcker: I agree.
Aside from the GNH used in Bhutan, Herman Daly and Wouter van
Dieren, whom I mentioned earlier, as well as Manfred Max-Neef,another member of the Club of Rome, have offered brilliant ideas on
this subject.
Why, in spite of this, is no contemporary political leader (with the
exception of Bhutan) willing to adopt any new measure of wealth?
My answer to that question is very clear and concrete. Employment
and fiscal income are two politically very important parameters, andthey are regarded by political leaders as the top priorities.
It is universally asserted that the economic troubles afflicting Greece
at present can only be overcome with economic growth.
Unemployment has reached disastrous levels in southern Europe
today. In such a situation, people do not hope for happiness, they hopefor economic growth, and find their hope for the future in that.
Generally, economic growth has high priority in situations of economiccrisis.
The next question is: How can we harmonize happiness with stablepublic finance and steady employment? Unfortunately, those who havestudied alternatives to GNP as a measure of welfare have not yet dealt
with or considered this problem.
imPortance of the informal economy
Ikeda: In the conclusion to Earth Politics, you speak of the need tomove beyond discussions of economic policy to address these issues onboth a deeper and more encompassing level from a civilizational
perspective.
In that context, you say that while the idea of work has been reduced
in today’s world to wage-earning labor, there is a need to recognize
the importance of such forms of self-motivated work (Eigenarbeit) as
childcare and social activities:
Finally, and above all, even now the formal economy based on
employment would be totally helpless if the ‘informal sector’ did
not still exist. Sleeping, eating, loving and bringing up children
are not subordinate activities we could do without but the indispensable foundation of all human existence. Economic theory has ashocking tendency to repress this simple fact.22
You go on to say that “the formal and informal economy ought once

20

the challenge of global transformation (1)again to be on a par with each other,”23 which would represent a major
step toward a new model of wealth.
In that connection, I’d like to ask you your thoughts on the world
situation today with regard to the informal economy.
Weizsäcker: My observation is that this informal economy is actuallystronger in poor countries and in the US than it is in Germany.
The reasons for this in poor countries are simple. If people are
impoverished, if they have very little money, the better survival strategy
is to do some gardening and cooking of their own instead of waiting on
money to buy things or services.
Yet, politicians of developing countries in general, and among thoserunning the international agencies and organizations promoting
development, see it as a goal to sever the attachment to the informal
economy that citizens of poor countries have.
This assumption is made because, historically, overcoming the informal sector has been the road to prosperity, under the imperative of thedivision of labor, in Europe, Japan, and other countries.
The most extreme form of this has manifested itself as Taylorism, or
scientific management; in less extreme form, it is the division of labor as
articulated by Adam Smith (1723–90)—in other words, it is good for the
baker to make more bread than he can consume, because in so doing hefrees others from the need to bake bread, and they can turn theirenergies to other occupations, such as being barbers, farmers, and otherprofessions.
The insight has been credited since the 18th century with bringing
prosperity to many countries, and is likewise regarded as indispensablefor placing developing countries on the path to economic growth.
This economic model, however, must be recognized as inherently
antagonistic to the informal sector.
Since the informal sector of the economy has been regarded as being
antithetical to genuine economic development, one cannot talk realistically about a revival of the informal sector without knowing why it
was destroyed.
In the US, the situation is different from developing countries. Thereyou have a very weak state. Therefore there is a substantial loss of
public goods, which, as you will remember, markets never produce.
In this situation, where some people amass great wealth, their senseof personal responsibility leads them to do unpaid civil work for theircommunity, church, and all kinds of other venues and causes, substituting for the public sector, which would shoulder those functions inthe challenge of global transformation (1)21Germany or in Japan, where the public sector still works.
These two cases of the strength of the informal sector of the economy
need to be distinguished. The developing countries’ situation is a little
bit more like Germany in the 18th century, and from the American
situation where the state was in a very good situation in the days ofFranklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945), Abraham Lincoln (1809–65), or
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). But after Jimmy Carter, with the adventof Ronald Reagan (1911–2004), the state was deliberately weakened;that was Reagan’s credo.
Today, the US needs all those unpaid services, because the state canno longer provide them. Still, we believe what we wrote in Earth
Politics: in order to reestablish prosperity outside the economic measurement of GNP, the informal sector is necessary.
Ikeda: The key to grasping the importance of the economy’s informal
sector, as I see it, is the concept of self-motivated work you spoke ofearlier. It is utterly disassociated from any self-interest in which remuneration is not a consideration, the kind of labor you alone choose andevaluate. In addition to being “work that belongs to you, that you mostly
shape yourself, and that may also shape you,” it is also work that is“done for your family or for yourself, for your neighbors, and for future
generations.”24
While work for wages—paid labor—may alienate us from ourhumanity or demean our dignity and sense of personal worth, selfmotivated work, though in most cases unpaid, is a source of self-worth
and self-validation and instills a feeling of fulfillment from having
helped our family members and others in our lives.
It seems to me that the initiative informing such self-motivated work
is consonant with a life lived in accord with the Buddhist spirit ofcompassion.		
The Buddhist concept of compassion contains two aspects: the desire
to share joy with others and bring about their well-being and happiness(maitrı̄) and the desire to embrace the suffering of others as one’s own
and ameliorate their anguish (karunā). Maitrı̄, moreover, derives fromthe word mitra, or friend.
And in describing the importance of compassion, Shakyamuni employed the simile of a mother’s feelings—the very epitome of selfmotivated work: “Just as a mother would protect her only child at therisk of her own life, even so, let him cultivate a boundless heart towards
all beings.”25
Nichiren also says, “‘Joy’ means that oneself and others together

22

the challenge of global transformation (1)experience joy”26 as well as, “both oneself and others together will takejoy in their possession of wisdom and compassion.”27 Thus, the joy thatemerges from the innermost depths of our lives when we act, not merely
for ourselves but for the sake of others, is the greatest of all joys.
I feel that this joy in life and the ties between human beings as theyshare one another’s sufferings and travails is greatly diminished insociety today.
In distinction to that trend, in Factor Four you cite providing “a snug
harbour for children in their time of growing up and exploring theworld”28 as one important aspect of the informal sector. You underscore
the need to reaffirm the significance of the informal sector as a place inwhich people know each other very well (which cannot be measured bymarket value) and shape their communal society with a shared commitment.
You go on to describe the informal sector as a safe haven that
includes not only the family but our neighborhoods, schools, the local
shops and stores of our towns, our educational and religious institutions,
our recreational clubs, and all other social gatherings. I am struck bythis description, for I feel it could also be applied to the Soka Gakkai
International (SGI). As the Buddhist lay organization, the SGI is actively engaged in promoting strong, warm, and supportive humanrelations among individuals of all races and ethnic groups, ages, andprofessions in countries and communities around the world.
From that perspective as well, I believe self-motivated work not only
elevates people’s self-worth but also plays an increasingly crucial role inreinforcing human relationships. I understand your wife Christine vonWeizsäcker is the one who developed this idea of self-motivated work.
Weizsäcker: Yes, this was my wife’s term. She created the term Eigenarbeit, I believe, in 1968 or so, quite early in the discussion.
In the later 1970s, when we were living in Kassel, we became
friends with Ivan Illich (1926–2002). Illich was fascinated by the term
because his lifelong theme was the alienation of people by their professional imperatives.
He wrote a book called Deschooling Society, in which he argued thatpeople don’t only learn from schools, they learn by themselves infamilies, in rings of friendship. They also learn something at school, butschools do not have a monopoly on learning.
For him, Eigenarbeit was an exciting, emancipatory term of the late1970s, but unfortunately it did not have the transformative effect he had
hoped.

the challenge of global transformation (1)23The trend of professionalization continues unabated. The main reason
is that people want jobs, and classical jobs are disappearing, so new jobs
are created by professionalizing functions which, in earlier times, weredone inside the family. A case in point is pre-kindergarten daycare
centers with professional nurses and teachers.
They did not exist when I was a three-year-old child, and nobody
cared, but now it is regarded as essential.		
Billions of dollars and euros are being spent in order to create jobs formen and women. It is always the imperative of creating jobs that holds
back Eigenarbeit.
Professionalization and Eigenarbeit are antagonistic. In a sense,
under today’s employment conditions, professional daycare centers are a
blessing for women, allowing them to work.
reexamining concePt of work
Ikeda: Illich’s book Shadow Work, in which he discussed the manykinds of work that are indispensable to daily life but are performed
without pay, such as housework and childcare, was published in 1981.
He knew and became friends with you and your wife prior to that, which
I find quite intriguing.
In an interview conducted later in his life, Illich reflected on thosetimes and commented: “Nevertheless work was increasingly identified
with paid work, and all other work was considered some kind of toil
which could be identified through only one characteristic: that it was not
paid, or not properly paid.”29
In the same interview he further noted: “I said that in a commodityintensive society the human labor put into a use value is split up, onepart is unpaid, the other paid, and it’s the unpaid part which creates thepossibility of paying wages.”30
I can’t help but feel that this seemingly inexorable trend of contemporary society is narrowing and distorting the true meaning of
human labor. It reveals that the spiritual nature of humanity is in fact
mired in the process of devolving.
Dr. Schumacher, whom we mentioned earlier, is known for his keenobservation of the root of the illness afflicting modern industrial society.
In our effort to envision a sustainable economy based on respect for theworth and dignity of humanity, I think we need to heed once again themessage that Schumacher stressed in Small Is Beautiful:
If it cannot get beyond its vast abstractions, the national income,24

the challenge of global transformation (1)the rate of growth, capital/output ratio, input-output analysis,
labour mobility, capital accumulation; if it cannot get beyond
all this and make contact with the human realities of poverty,
frustration, alienation, despair, breakdown, crime, escapism,
stress, congestion, ugliness, and spiritual death, then let us scrap
economics and start afresh.
Are there not indeed enough ‘signs of the times’ to indicate thata new start is needed?31
Weizsäcker: The words of Dr. Schumacher that you have just cited arevery similar to our analysis of the problem in Factor Four.
There we warned: “The time may have come to recognise what waslost with the erosion of the informal sector. . . . The modern ills ofloneliness, unrest, vandalism, drug addiction and related crime may
have much to do with the decline of the informal sector.”32
The still prevailing belief among the political leadership in allsocieties in the world is the need to create employment. In Germany andmany other nations, the idea that job creation is an issue of the highest
priority has become the deeply entrenched political consensus.
This situation persists in spite of the many sacrifices it demands. It
will take another 50 years, I fear, before the political establishment
begins to awaken to the reality of how much is being sacrificed on thealtar of job creation.
In chapter 11 of Factor Five, we do address this problem to a modest
degree by offering a compromise. We suggested designing a society inwhich unemployment is overcome not by an unchecked economic
growth but by sharing jobs.
This actually is an idea that my wife proposed in discussions with
Illich in the 1970s. She said, “Why not give all people, from infants to
90-year olds, women and men alike, the same identical permit to workin quantitative increments?”
A little calculation will illustrate this idea. Let us say that in Germany,with 80 million people, there are 40 million jobs—half as many jobs as
people. In reality there are fewer jobs, but we’ll adopt this formula tosimplify the math.
One job would be defined as 40 working hours per week and someholidays. Then, by definition, everybody’s entitlement would be 20
hours per week, from infants to the elderly.
Infants don’t work, of course. But this model incorporates a system inwhich every person is provided the right to buy or sell his or her work
entitlement on the labor market. Parents can monetize their child’sthe challenge of global transformation (1)25entitlement to help out the family budget, for example. Conversely,
children can do the same when caring for their elderly parents,
exchanging the latter’s entitlement of 40 hours of labor into cash.
Another permutation of this is that a parent could halve his or her
workload to 20 hours to care for an infant, while a child could do thesame to care for his or her parent.
In such a society, there would be no lack of employment for anyone
who wanted to work, no desperate unemployment. Everybody would
have her or his entitlement and could use it.
This concept of job-sharing, to which we allude in chapter 11 of
Factor Five, was inspired by Travailler Deux Heures Par Jour (To Work
Two Hours Per Day), a book published in France in the 1970s.
Two hours a day is about 10 hours a week—only half 20 hours per
week—but the authors calculated that 10 hours is sufficient for survival.
Of course this model of job-sharing seems completely utopian fromthe perspective of contemporary society. Our aim in presenting it was tostress the need to overcome the fear of unemployment that is threatening
all other values, including the value of family, of freedom, as well as
religious values. To change society, we strongly emphasized the need totriumph over the fear of unemployment.
Providing PurPoseful work for the elderly
Ikeda: You raise some fascinating questions.
In connection with the issue of labor, I would like to discuss theraison d’etre of an individual in a graying society.
Given our rapidly aging population today, it is time to examine witheven greater urgency what makes for a better, more fulfilling life. At thesame time, society as a whole also needs to take steps to make itpossible for the elderly to engage in purposeful work and remain active
participants in the world around them.
I am reminded of something that Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975), theBritish historian with whom I engaged in a dialogue, told me. He said
that even after the age of 80 he would tackle the daily challenges of his
research based on his favorite motto—Laboremus, Latin for “Let us get
to work.”
Inspired by Dr. Toynbee’s example, I also spend my days writing andencouraging our SGI members around the world.
Though you’re in your 70s, Dr. Weizsäcker, you continue to bevigorous and in high spirits, with the world as your stage.
What kind of society do you think we should build to enable the26the challenge of global transformation (1)elderly to shine with a sense of purpose and self-worth, and lead fully
satisfying lives?
Weizsäcker: The next important step in Germany and Japan is toencourage people to work longer. This means to create jobs and parttime jobs that are particularly suited for the elderly.
There are two different aspects to this issue. One is the mathematicalproblem of providing social security for the elderly.
Let’s say that in Germany we stop working, on the average, at the ageof 63. But demographers say that our life span is expanding by about
one month per year. That means that pensions that we can draw will bediminished by one-twelfth every year, resulting in the impoverishmentof the elderly. Mathematically speaking, it is clear that we simply haveto work longer.
When a social security pension system for the elderly was first
introduced in Germany, in the days of Otto von Bismarck (1815–98), thetime span between entry into the pension system and death used to beabout five years. Today it is something like 20 years, or four times aslong.
One answer to this problem is represented by the question that you
and Dr. Toynbee, as well as many others, raise: “Why should we stop
working because we are old? As long as we have the capacity to work,
why shouldn’t we?”
The trade unions, however, are highly critical of this idea. According
to them, the number of jobs or amount of work is a zero-sum game: thelonger an individual works, the more unemployment that individual
creates among the young. I think this is wrong, however. It is not a zerosum game.
Actually, a little anecdote may illustrate what I’m saying. When I
began working as the dean, the chief executive officer, of the Bren
School of Environmental Science and Management at the University ofCalifornia in Santa Barbara, I was 66.
I would ask my colleagues at the University of California why no one
asked how old I was. Their answer was that it was discriminatory to ask
such a question.
The reason no one could ask my age, they explained, is because it
could be grounds for terminating my employment based on my age, andwas therefore regarded as “ageist.” But I asked whether I was taking
away some younger American’s job.
Their response to this was, “That is a typically German question. We
do not think that way in America. According to our way of thinking, ifthe challenge of global transformation (1)27

you do the job properly you will be creating new jobs for the ten young
Americans a year.”And that is what in fact I did. During my tenure of three years there,
the school gained some 20 million dollars in endowments and wellfunded scientific projects. Based on interest rates, that amount canfinance the employment of about thirty people.
In my present situation, I am actually paying more income taxes thanI am receiving from my pensions. This means that in purely financial
terms my present work is good for the state. I’m not a liability; I am an
asset to the state.
The other aspect is that in addition to the division of labor by profession that presently exists, we need a division of labor based on age as
well. This has yet to be developed.
With regard to the pension system, my answer is twofold: we need toprovide gainful employment for the elderly so that added value iscreated to avoid the impoverishment of either the elderly or the young.
The young are being impoverished by excessive taxation, a substantial portion of it supporting the social security pension system and thenon-working elderly. To lower taxes, we need to actively create jobs
appropriate for the elderly, with the appropriate remuneration and more
freedom in hours.
I’m very happy now that I don’t have to leave my home at 8:00 and
be at my office in the morning. I can get up when I want, and still I work
more than most people do in their 40s. This freedom to create one’s own
schedule is a high value, and satisfaction is high. Doing things that I cando better than the young is also a good thing.
Ikeda: Your record of achievement is as remarkable as it is admirable.
You have been active in your service as an educator, have made meaningful contributions to solving global environmental problems, and stillshoulder numerous important responsibilities.
Your suggestions for our graying society are certainly noteworthy andthought provoking. I believe it is imperative for every society to create
an environment in which the elderly can work with purpose and satisfaction and lead a life of enduring hope.
I believe there is no greater joy and fulfillment in life than to be able
to continue to participate in society and contribute in some way to thehappiness of others and the world, no matter how old one is.
Dr. Toynbee said: “We must all become participants, whatever ourdegree of ability, because man is a social animal. We cannot change
that.”33

28

the challenge of global transformation (1)Of course working is not the only means of social involvement. I haveseen many individuals who, after retiring from their jobs and resolving
to spend the rest of their lives with the same passion and commitment
they had in their youth, strive for the betterment of their communities,
societies, and the world in general.
When one aspires to lead a truly fulfilling life, I think the freedom tocreate one’s own schedule that you mentioned is vital.
Having time to spare is not the same as freedom, and lacking sparetime is not necessarily a restriction.
What matters is to have the will to better oneself. True freedom, I
believe, shines through that unceasing process of self-development. In
that sense, no life is happier than one in which people can spend their
final years continuing to improve and elevate themselves and devote
time to striving for a great and meaningful purpose.
Dr. Toynbee said that one remains young as long as one remains
interested in what will happen in the future.34
I pledge to continue working with the utmost vigor with you, Dr.
Weizsäcker, for the generations of young people who are to follow,
making each and every day count to the fullest as we search for thesurest path with which humanity may forge on into the future.
NOTES
Cf. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “High Level Panel Releases
Recommendations for World’s Next Development Agenda,” ‹http://www.unep.org/
newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2716&ArticleID=9516› (August 7, 2013).
2
Cf. Daisaku Ikeda, “2013 Peace Proposal,” ‹http://www.daisakuikeda.org/assets/
files/peaceproposal2013.pdf› (January 10, 2014).
3
Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Earth Politics (London: Zed Books Ltd., 1994), p.
211.
4
Cf. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, ‹http://www.maff.go.jp/j/
shokusan/recycle/syoku_loss/pdf/0902shokurosu.pdf› (January 10, 2014).
5
Ibid.
6
Cf. Translated from Japanese. Katsumi Hirano, Keizai tairiku afurika (Economic
Continent: Africa) (Tokyo: Chuokoron-Shinsha, Inc., 2013), pp. 140–41.
7
Ernst Friedrich Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People
Mattered (London: Blond & Briggs Ltd., 1973), pp. 103–04.
8
Cf. Daisaku Ikeda, “2013 Peace Proposal,” ‹http://www.daisakuikeda.org/assets/
files/peaceproposal2013.pdf› (March 26, 2014).
9
Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful, p. 107.
10
Nichiren, The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, vol. II (Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2006),
p. 842.
11
Ibid., vol. I (Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1999), p. 644.
12
Ibid.
13
UNDP, “Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis,” ‹http://hdr.
1

the challenge of global transformation (1)29undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf› (August 7, 2013).
14
Ibid.
15
Cf. UN, “The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012,” ‹http://www.un.org/
millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202012.pdf› (August 7, 2013).
16
Translated from German. Ernst U. von Weizsäcker, Karlson Hargroves, and Michael
Smith, Faktor Fünf: Die Formel für nachhaltiges Wachstum (Factor Five: The formulafor sustainable growth) (Munich: Droemer, 2010), p. 334.
17
Cf. Translated from Japanese. Weizsäcker nihon koenroku, rekishini mewo tozasuna(Richard von Weizsäcker’s Lectures in Japan: We Must Not Shun the Lessons ofHistory) (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1996), pp. 130–31.
18
Hazel Henderson and Daisaku Ikeda, Planetary Citizenship: Your Values, Beliefs
and Actions Can Shape a Sustainable World (California: Middleway Press, 2004), p.
156.
19
Weizsäcker, Earth Politics, p. 198.
20
Cf. The Centre for Bhutan Studies, “An extensive analysis of GNH Index,” ‹http://
www.grossnationalhappiness.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/An%20Extensive%20An
alysis%20of%20GNH%20Index.pdf › (August 7, 2013).
21
Ibid.
22
Weizsäcker, Earth Politics, p. 197.		
23
Ibid., p. 199.
24
Ibid., p. 201.
25
The Sutta-Nipāta, trans. H. Saddhatissa (London: Curzon Press, 1994), p. 16.
26
The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings (Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2004), p.
146.
27
Ibid.
28
Ernst von Weizsäcker, Amory B Lovins and L Hunter Lovins, Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use (London: Earthscan, 1998), p. 295.
29David Cayley, Ivan Illich in Conversation (Toronto: Anansi, 1992), p. 155.
30
Ibid., p. 157.
31
Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful, p. 68.
32
Weizsäcker, Factor Four, p. 295.
33
Arnold Toynbee and Kei Wakaizumi, Surviving the Future (London: Oxford
University Press, 1971), p. 89.
34
Translated from Japanese. Arnold Toynbee, Nihon no katsuro (For Japan to Survive)(Tokyo: PHP Institute, Inc., 1974), p. 162.

30

the challenge of global transformation (1)Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker
Environmental scientist. Presently co-president of the Club ofRome, co-chair of the UNEP International Resource Panel and amember of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts. Born in1939 in Zürich, Switzerland. Weizsäcker has served as the president of the University of Kassel, the director at the UN Centre for
Science and Technology for Development, the director of theInstitute for European Environmental Policy, and the founding
president of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, andEnergy. He was a member of the German Bundestag and alsochaired the Bundestag Environment Committee. In addition, he isrecognized for his co-written report to the Club of Rome, Factor
Four (available in Japanese), which proposes steps to double
wealth while halving resource use. He is a prolific writer whose
works include Earth Politics and Factor Five, the Japanese editionsof which have also been published. He was awarded the German
Environment Prize of the German Federal Environment Foundation, the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal
Republic of Germany, and many others.
Daisaku Ikeda
President of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a lay Buddhist
organization with more than 12 million members worldwide, Ikeda
was born in Tokyo in 1928. He has founded the Soka (value-creating) school system, running from kindergarten through graduate
school at universities in Tokyo and California, U.S.A., an educational philosophy now practiced in schools around the world. He is
also founder of various cultural and academic institutions, from the
Min-On Concert Association and Tokyo Fuji Art Museum to the
Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research. He hasoffered environmental proposals on various occasions, the latest ofwhich is a proposal at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June 2012. Based on an abiding faith in dialogue,
Ikeda has met with citizens, artists, thinkers, and world leaders,exchanging views on a diverse range of topics. Many of these meetings have led to the publication of dialogues, starting with Choose
Life with the British historian Arnold Toynbee. He has received
350 academic honors (as of May 2014) from universities and otherinstitutes worldwide and is an honorary member of the Club ofRome.