When I say "misguided", I should emphasize that this kind of throughput economy has been extremely productive since it was installed during the industrial revolution. The wealth of nations, the wealth of the industrialized nations that is, was achieved in this fashion. But as we have seen, neither social, nor economic, nor ecological sustainability is thinkable should we continue this sort of throughput economy. If 6 or 8 billion people really want to get rich this way, more than two planets earth would be needed in order to supply the resources. I have the impression that Japanese industry has already begun to take this future impasse into consideration and is getting prepared to serve the markets with dematerialized solutions in the future. But we need a paradigmatic and courageous change of the economic boundary conditions if we wish that these future oriented products and services arrive in a timely manner. Otherwise the human survival on this earth may be in jeopardy. The market is not to blame for this dismal situation. The market is but an allocation mechanism that optimizes the system in accordance with the economic policy signals it gets. Among all the signals to the market, the relative prices are the most important. And as we have already noticed, there is no level playing field when it comes to the prices of labor and natural resources. The principal reasons for this are our taxation systems and the massive subsidies that reward ecologically perverse activities, and frequently economic perverse activities as well. In the European Union, more than 80 % of state revenue is derived from income while only 15 % can be attributed to resource taxes. In Germany, some 200 billion Euros are used annually by all levels of governments to subsidize politically selected causes. And all the while the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Let me add that norms and standards, safety regulations, R&D priorities, property rights and international agreements on trade contribute also to resource wastage. They, too, must be analyzed and eventually be brought in line with the requirements of reaching sustainability. The principal indicator for economic strength of countries is still today the GNP. Just listen to TV and radio programs around the world. If the GNP curve does not go up and up and up, the economic experts get depressed, at least in western countries. No account is taken of the extent to which such GNP-measured strength depends upon robbing the cradle, the ecosphere. In fact, without exception are the countries with the highest GNP the very same that have the highest per capita consumption of nature. And these countries are the ones that invented and apply still today - with questionable results as regards approaching sustainability as we have seen - the end of the pipe protection of the environment. They still worry more about the toxic nature of some emissions rather than about the efficiency with which natural resources are being used. We need to develop common visions where we wish to be in 20, 30, or 40 years, - socially, economically and ecologically. I am not aware of one document in which one finds a consensus by politicians, leaders in industry, labor unions, church leaders, and even NGO's where aspirations in all dimensions of a more sustainable world have been described and corresponding indicators have been agreed to in order to guide international development policies in a systematic way. If you don't have a goal, how do you know how to get there? How do you know what to do if events come up like the 11th of September and suddenly you have to spend lots of money on something that you did not expect? There are always political reasons for tax increases, new subsidies, delays of action, speeding up expenditures and many other things politicians are pressured to do. But intelligent and future oriented decisions are only those that minimize the negative impacts in all areas of life. And such decisions can only be reached if a future "landing place" has been decided on and is adhered to until such time, when changes in strategic goals are changed for good reasons. For the ecological corner of the "landing place" just described, Factor 10 or more, MI; MIPS and TMF will play key roles. For the sake of being able to apply more sustainable, reliable, transparent and long term policies in the future, I hope very much that we will be successful in constructing a future "landing place" soon. In Europe we have begun this work and we are very happy that some of Japans most eminent scientists have joined us in this endeavor. So, these are the things that I feel very strongly about and wanted to share with you today. I am tremendously pleased that the Takeda Foundation has recognized the ecological rucksack and MIPS as part of a systems solution and thus as potentially essential parts for finding a path to sustainability. I wish the Takeda Foundation much success in continuing to select achievements worth rewarding from a global perspective. Thank you very much for your patient attention.