How do you define ecological building?

Rooftop in Naogoan, Bangladesh, featuring solar panels used for lighting and the days laundry. Which one really makes the most environmentally friendly use of our resources?

On another blog I follow, the author wants to create a database of ecological houses in Britain, and lists several criteria for what could then be considered an ecological house (see Green Building Blog).

It's an extensive list and refers not only to how we build, but also including earth friendly technologies, and certifications (BREAM, AECB Silver or Gold, etc). I think the problem is is that I've never heard a clear definition of what exactly an ecological building is.
If a house uses solar panels, is highly insulated, reclaims rainwater, and uses triple-paned windows, is this necessarily an ecological building? What if the silicon used to make the solar panels produce silica dust which then causes lung cancer in the workers at the manufacturing plant? What if the insulation used is made of hydrofluorocarbons which has a global warming potential of 1430 times more than carbon dioxide? What if the steel pipes used water reclamation use a cement mortar to protect and strengthen the the pipes for long term use, adding to the more than 5% of manmade carbon dioxide emissions released by the cement industry? What if the triple-paned windows are manufactured in another country and have to be transported thousands of miles by jet fueled airplanes or diesel powered trucks?
If we look at every aspect of the building industry and break down every material used and where it came from and how it was made and what happens to it when the building needs to be torn down, I don't think any building would qualify as an ecological building.
Instead of trying to make buildings that are "less bad" as authors William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their book "Cradle to Cradle" describe current building trends, we should instead follow their idea to follow new design rules. Namely, use a framework of design that creates more than it destroys. To quote them directly, they ask,"why don't people and industries set out to create the following:

• buildings that, like trees, produce more energy than they consume and purify their own waste water
• factories that produce effluents that are drinking water
• products that, when their useful life is over, do not become useless waste, but can be tossed on to the ground to decompose and become food for plants and animals and nutrients for soil; or alternatively, that can return to industrial cycles to supply high-quality raw materials for new products
• billions, even trillions, of dollars' worth of materials accrued for human and natural purposes each year
• transportation that improves the quality of life while delivering goods and services
• a world of abundance, not one of limits, pollution, and waste."

William Mc Donough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 90-91.